Unfortunately the hon. member for South Coast cannot attend the debate at this stage because he has to attend the session of a Select Committee. I shall therefore not reply now to the matters of principle raised by him; I shall do so later.

The hon. member for Etosha referred to the hydrological laboratory at Pienaars River. It is a matter which is of very close concern to my Department, and I just want to report that the Department is going to run this laboratory in order to test a large number of specific projects, for example the cetyl alcohol spraying project, which has a direct connection with the Department’s functions. It goes without saying that the Department cannot be dependent upon some other Government department or a semi-Government department for these services. The hydrological research branch has been established on the recommendation of an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the late Dr. N. S. du Toit to serve as a focal point from which the stimulus and the initiative can emanate. The responsibility for the promotion and co-ordination of this hydrological research in South Africa has been assigned very specifically to the Department of Water Affairs on the recommendation of the Du Toit Committee and by authority of the Minister of Water Affairs in Parliament, with whom the matter originated, by way of a motion and at the instance of the Public Service Commission. As this is therefore the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs, it will be impossible for it to function effectively unless it has the necessary laboratory facilities available. Mr. Chairman, surely it should be accepted that because this is an inherent part of the activities of the Department of Water Affairs the Department must have the necessary laboratories in which the research work of the Department can be carried out.

†The hon. member for Mooi River questioned whether the industrial water division of the Department of Water Affairs had the necessary know-how to deal efficiently with industrial effluent control. I might say that the head of the industrial water division of the Department made an official study tour of the United States in 1964 and visited 17 large concerns dealing with industrial and municipal effluent. This included amongst others the Tennessee Valley Authority, the City of Los Angeles, California, Ward Island sewage system plant and New York and Ohio Water Sanitation Commission. He also visited ten local authorities and industrial concerns in the United Kingdom, including the Radio Chemical Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, London, Westlade Coal Preparation Plant and Stratton and Stavely Iron Works, and he made a study of effluent control legislation as applied in the United Kingdom. The deputy head of the division, during an oversea study tour, devoted special attention to effluent treatment at the Institute of Water Treatment, United Kingdom, the Taft Institute at Cincinnati in the U.S.A. and the Atomic Effluent Treatment Plant at Harwell, United Kingdom. The same officer also investigated effluent treatment works at oversea paper factories, coke oven and steel works and a citrus processing plant in Florida, U.S.A., as well as distillery effluent treatment plants in Scotland. He also made a study of the removal of synthetic detergents at Los Angeles. Oversea conferences are attended regularly to ensure that the Department is kept abreast of the latest developments in pollution control. An international conference held in Munich, Germany, in September, 1966, was attended by a member of the Cape Town Office of the Department and a staff member of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, which Bureau is the Department’s statutory consultant. Other officers of the Department of Water Affairs also during September, 1966, and in April and May, 1967, visited Germany, the United States and Israel further to study the processes of dealing with effluent in those countries. You see, Sir, that we have made a very definite study of this question. I am therefore satisfied that the Department has sufficient know-how to handle our effluent problems.

The hon. member also asked whether the Industrial Division of the Department was strong enough to handle the pollution problem. This division has been set up in the Department in order to have control over industrial effluent in terms of the Water Act. It has the status of a full-fledged division, which is at present fully manned and will be expanded in time as the necessity arises. I am satisfied that this division is fully capable of executing its functions.

The hon. member for Mooi River also stated that the Department was negligent in not fencing off the pipeline through the Lincoln Mead township and keeping the trench open for a period of 18 months. I was very perturbed when the hon. member mentioned that yesterday afternoon, and we investigated. It has been ascertained from the responsible division of the Department that additional staff has already been allocated for the purpose of keeping a closer watch on the execution of the work and to avoid any further untoward occurrences. I am very sorry that that happened, but we will see to it that something similar does not happen again. The Secretary for Water Affairs has instructed his Department in planning pipeline routes in future to avoid built-up areas wherever practicable with a view to eliminating the hazards to which the hon. member has drawn attention. The Department has also been instructed to take every possible precautionary measure and to minimize hazards in cases where it is unavoidable for pipelines to be laid through built-up areas. I took this up very seriously. I realize that it led to a tremendous amount of inconvenience for the people in the area, and we will see to it that this type of thing does not happen again.

The hon. member for Pinetown stated that the Department was bringing water from Midmar to Hammarsdale in order to escape its responsibility of treating the Hammarsdale effluent to suitable standards. That was a very serious allegation and it is unfounded. Water is being brought from the Midmar Dam because the potential of the Sterkspruit Dam is quite insufficient to meet the industrial needs of Hammarsdale. The Sterkspruit Dam was built in order to get the border industries at Hammarsdale started, and now I want to quote from the White Paper issued at that time, to show that we never thought that the Sterkspruit Dam would have sufficient water for Hammarsdale. The White Paper stated this—

That is what the White Paper stated.

Is the Sterkspruit still being polluted by industrial effluent?

I will report further on this. It is therefore clear that the bringing in of water from Midmar Dam bears no relation to the effluent disposal for the Hammarsdale complex. The effluent treatment at Hammarsdale, however, poses Special problems not found elsewhere in the Republic and is being investigated by the Jeffrey Manufacturing Company under contract with the Department. This is a world-renowned firm of consultants based in the U.S A. and associated with the Ulbrecht Company in Germany, and they are accepted as leaders in this field. They have flown out specialists from Germany who have worked on the problem. Tenders for the construction of new plant will be called for and will be based on their recommendations. Tightened control over industrial discharge by industrialists in the Hammarsdale complex is also being exercised.

Now, the hon. member wanted to make the point that we are dodging our responsibility of seeing to it that the water should not be polluted and for that reason we laid the pipeline from Midmar to Hammarsdale, but that is not correct at all. The hon. member also made the point that they want some of this water at Pinetown, and that the pipe we laid was too small to supply Pinetown. That is correct; the pipeline is too small, but Pinetown never asked for water at that time, and nobody can expect my Department to enter into expenditure which is not necessary at the time. All over the country we have to supply water as it is required. When the goldfields in the Free State were developed, the mining people gave us a chart of how their development would take place, and a pipeline was laid to suit them at the time. Later on a second pipeline was laid, and eventually a third. I know there is a bit of extra expense involved in laying pipelines in that way, but what can we do? We have to supply South Africa with water and we have limited resources. We can only advance to the extent that water is required from us. We are quite prepared to let Pinetown have water from that dam, and a new pipeline will have to be laid if this one is not big enough.

Would it not have been cheaper in the first place to have planned a bigger pipeline?

Order! I have given a ruling that hon. members should ask their questions after the Minister has spoken.

Yes, I suppose it would have been cheaper, but in the meantime we used that extra money to supply water at another spot which required water, and Pinetown did not ask for water at the time.

*It is very easy to come along afterwards and say that all the provision should be made in advance, but the Department cannot function on those lines. Surely a department to which certain moneys are allocated must use the money at its disposal to meet the urgent needs first. Pinetown did not come into the picture at all at the time, and we cannot be expected to lay pipelines at this stage which are large enough to meet all future needs. That is impractical. It is only a person who does not bear the responsibility who can produce such an impractical idea, but if one bears the responsibility and has to supply water to South Africa one does not do such impractical things. Then one meets the requirements of the moment.

In a very fine maiden speech the hon. member for Worcester outlined the interests of his constituency yesterday. I admit whole-heartedly that that valley plays a very important part in the national economy. I may just mention that my Department is already devoting attention to further expansion in that whole region. I may mention this afternoon that the Kwaggaspoort Dam, which also has to play an important part in that area and which has to prevent salination from taking place there, will enjoy the highest priority when my next Estimates are drafted. Furthermore I want to say this, and this is a matter of principle. The hon. member pleaded for broad planning in respect of the entire area. At this stage it is not my policy to initiate further great schemes in terms of which complete, broad planning is tackled at once. I believe we have so many of those schemes in South Africa that we cannot afford any more of them at the moment. But the whole point is that the broad planning is being done and that all the indidual works tackled by us in a certain area are undertaken in such a way that they will eventually form part of the broad planning. I can give the hon. member the assurance that that area is so important that it will not be lost sight of in any broad planning, nor will it be lost sight of in connection with individual works. The hon. member has an important constituency and he may rest assured that South Africa will look after that constituency as we did in the past.

He is only representing it temporarily.

It might be temporarily for 21 years. Yesterday the hon. member for Marico raised an interesting fundamental point, namely the filling of the subterranean artesian sources. This is a subject which is so comprehensive, of course, that it requires a field of study on its own. I found it a very interesting idea that we could augment these subterranean sources from above. I found it so interesting that even this morning I had a discussion on it with the Secretary for Water Affairs. We have also had it in the past. It does seem to be possible to build small dams at certain points which will be able to augment those subterranean sources quickly and to fill them from above. We are giving attention to that, because I am most concerned about the fact that our subterranean sources are becoming exhausted. I do want to point out that we should be very careful in establishing large towns and industrial complexes solely on the strength of subterranean water. We shall have to recommend that people should be very careful where they want found expansion on subterranean water alone.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus is in a select committee at the moment, and I shall later reply to the points raised by him. The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the farmers along the Harts River. I am aware of that problem. An investigation is being carried out to provide those people with more water. We shall make a further study of that. I might just point out to the hon. member for Kuruman that no matter how eloquent he was on the interests of those farmers yesterday, there are many farmers in the country who need water. Yesterday the hon. member was most eloquent. He set out the needs of that area very clearly. We shall devote attention to that to see what can be done about it.

I shall reply to the other few matters of principle which were discussed by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Potgietersrus when they return from the select committee.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to start by congratulating and thanking the hon. the Minister for the courtesy which he has shown to members of this House. I believe it was the practice in the past for Ministers to reply to members in the language in which they had spoken. This practice appears to have slipped out of use and I do thank the hon. the Minister for the courtesy which he has shown members by replying in the language in which members have spoken during the debate.

I can do that in a prepared reply but not otherwise.

We appreciate it none the less. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Pinetown where he alleges that he made a very serious allegation in regard to the construction of a stretch of pipeline 4½ miles in length. Unfortunately, either the hon. the Minister or the members of his department have misunderstood or misconstrued what the hon. member for Pinetown said. What he referred to was an item which appeared in White Paper I of 1966 which was presented to this House last year in which we were asked to vote an additional R500,000 for certain extensions at Hammarsdale, which included a pipeline 4½ miles in length to supply purified water to consumers downstream of Hammarsdale. The remarks made by the hon. member for Pinetown in regard to that 4y miles of pipeline are quite correct. The Sterkspruit stream is still being polluted by industrial effluent from Hammarsdale. This pipeline was constructed to keep those farmers downstream happy and quiet. They had complained that the water was no longer suitable even for consumption by animals. This was the way in which the Government solved this problem.

I gave orders for that pipeline to be installed because the farmers at the time could not use the water. I could not keep them waiting until we had a process for purifying that water. That is why I gave them water by that means as an intermediate service.

Yes. This was the point made by the hon. member for Pinetown yesterday. He said that this had been done because the Department was incapable of solving the problem of effluent disposal. [Interjection.] As the hon. member points out, the Government also put the factories there. I also want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s remarks about the construction of the pipeline from Midmar to Hammarsdale in connection with its size and the extra cost which will be involved by laying, as is planned, three separate pipelines. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister that it would have been much cheaper to put in a larger pipeline. Does this not show a lack of planning and foresight, as the hon. member for Pinetown said yesterday? Surely the hon. the Minister and his Department knew that development was taking place in that area, namely Hillcrest and Bothas Hill as residential areas and Pinetown as an industrial area. This is Government policy. Surely they knew that this was happening. Could they not have planned accordingly for it? I want to return to the question of pollution. The Minister asserted just now that the Department can cope with the problem of pollution and the disposal of effluent. But industrial expansion has accelerated the rate of pollution to such an extent that individuals, organizations and public bodies are to-day very disturbed. It is causing not only a nuisance, but also the destruction of all river life. The annual report shows that 28 complaints were investigated. We know from reports that prosecutions have taken place and that others are pending but what is the Department doing about pollution caused by works under its own control? I refer particularly to Hammarsdale. Pollution in the Sterkspruit stream is still going on, as I have said. Effluent disposal has been undertaken by the Department and they are not capable of coping with it. The Department has laid down regulations specifying the quality requirements for industrial and other effluents. They have laid down the specifications for discharge into public streams. These were laid down after consultation with the South African Bureau of Standards but the Department has not complied with its own regulations. It is releasing those effluents into the Sterkspruit stream when it knows that it does not comply with those specifications.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked the hon. the Minister whether the Department has the necessary know-how. The hon. the Minister has told us about repeated visits overseas by officials of the Department. It appears from reports and from the hon. the Minister’s reply that the Department prefers to solve its own problems, using the water laboratory of the South African Bureau of Standards. Is it not time now that the Department considered calling in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research? This is the body of experts we have in this country and they have a National Institute of Water Research.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he uses the C.S.I.R. as well. Perhaps this might be to the advantage not only of himself and his Department, but also to all the people in South Africa. The Department has installed at Hammarsdale an effluent disposal plant of the biological type. Such biological plants are dependent on anaerobic and aerobic bacteria for efficient disposal. Biological effluent plants, if large enough and properly constructed and properly operated, can efficiently dispose of organic and bacteriological effluent but they cannot cope with mineral effluent. This is what is coming out at Hammarsdale. The toxic elements from the industrial effluent are killing off this bacteria. In fact, on my last visit to the Hammarsdale effluent disposal plant, I was satisfied that the plant was virtually dead. Nothing is being done except to remove the solids from the water. The water is then passed on down-stream. What is the Minister doing about this? This is the question. What is the Minister going to do about this? Downstream from Hammarsdale we not only have riparian owners, farmers, squatters and others, but we also have, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown, the Shongweni Dam which supplies a certain amount of water to Durban. It goes beyond that into the sea. All this poison is being released down there. The hon. the Minister has two alternatives. The one he has mentioned himself. That is the provision of a new plant. I sincerely hope that his Department is considering this very seriously. Then the question arises about what sort of plant they are going to install. Is the plant going to be an extension of the biological process or are the hon. the Minister and his Department going to consider the installation of a chemical plant? I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware that a private firm has been experimenting with the consent and with the assistance of the Department in regard to the disposal of effluent at Hammarsdale.

I have just reported on that.

That is what I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister. Was that report referring to this particular firm? Has the Minister had a report from that firm in regard to the results of their experiments?

They are still investigating.

Have you not had a report yet?

As reported to me, they are still investigating.

That is the point I wish to make. I hope that the Department will take this into consideration. I hope they will consider the report of a firm such as this, which specializes in this sort of effluent treatment.

The hon. the Minister has another alternative. That is to compel the individual factory owners to comply with the regulations which his Department has laid down. These factories are releasing effluent into the pipeline supplying these works, which does not conform with the specifications laid down. This is where the whole fault lies. If the Minister and his Department are prepared to dispose of this effluent from the factories, well and good. Until such time as they are capable of doing so and until such time as they have installed the plant which the hon. the Minister has referred to, I make this appeal to him. The guilty parties can be found. I am not saying that all the industrialists are guilty. In fact, I know that they are not all guilty. I know the guilty ones. I am appealing to the Minister to find the guilty ones and compel them to comply with the regulations in order to safeguard the interests of lower riparian owners and also Durban and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have enough knowledge of the circumstances of the hon. member’s constituency to be able to reply to what he said, but in passing I just want to make an observation on one aspect of the work of this Department which one finds rather surprising. This is that in the representations which are made to other Ministers from time to time there are requests from almost all constituencies, and in particular the Natal constituencies, to the effect that more factories should be established. Every representative of a constituency asks for factories. In our rapid development it is very seldom borne in mind that when those factories are established and the wishes of representatives are complied with, one is saddled post hoc with these problems which are now raised by that hon. member, amongst others. If there had been no forward planning, as a result not of lack of foresight but of the pressure which is exerted, it is easy to demand afterwards that the Government should find an immediate solution to those problems. I think hon. members should bear in mind that in view of our limited manpower and of the great magnitude of this problem, as it is also experienced elsewhere in the world, it is not possible to solve these problems overnight. In this regard I want to tell the hon. member that when the question of water pollution had to be considered by local authorities some years ago, it was found that in Germany and in America, for example the problem had assumed such proportions that on occasion America even had to get water for domestic consumption from across its borders. If the hon. member is interested in obtaining those facts, there is a booklet on the pollution of water resources in America which he may find informative. It will perhaps also give him a clearer grasp of the problems of our country.

In any event, I want to mention something in connection with water pollution which has not yet been raised here. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to devote their speedy attention to this matter. It relates to the increasing pollution of water by mining activities. As regards the pollution of water as a result of the use of detergents and bleaching agents, of which we are aware, and also as a result of factories, measures are being taken to an increasing extent by the Department. These problems can be overcome, but they bear no comparison to the problem of water pollution particularly as a result of coal-mining activities, which has assumed vast proportions in Natal and in the constituency I represent. In this regard I want to say that in view of our restricted water resources we cannot afford water not only not being utilized usefully, but also becoming a burden. This has in fact happened, and it is happening to an increasing extent in places where there are old exhausted mines, where everything underground has been removed by mine-owners. This inheritance, which places a further burden on the State, is simply left behind. This acid water which seeps out of coal mines is not only useless for irrigation, but also destroys vegetation. It is particularly the mines, which are responsible for it, that have never devoted proper attention to this problem. I listened to the hon. member when he asked that private research workers should be employed for this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the mines should not also accept responsibility for research to cope with this evil which they have created. Even some years ago a warning was issued by the Department of Water Affairs to the effect that coal mines in Germany were studied in an attempt to discover what could be done with a view to the purification of this water or to combat this problem. The reply which was received was that even there an adequate solution had not been found.

In South Africa it is perhaps even more imperative that a solution should be found to this problem. I am convinced that the persons who were, after all, responsible for the creation of this problem should at least also bear their share of the responsibility for the solution to the problem. I think it is the bounden duty of the Department of Mines to help ensure that this vital water for primary and secondary consumption should no longer be polluted as it is being polluted at present. For the sake of information I may just mention in passing that Witbank is situated almost 60 miles from the confluence of the Wilge and the Olifants Rivers. As a result of the seepage of water in the exhausted mines in the Witbank area, animal life has been destroyed as much as 60 miles away in the main streams of the Wilge and Olifants Rivers. Animals are poisoned. Claims are lodged from time to time, but the action is sporadic. This does not solve the major problem. I wonder whether it should enjoy not only the attention of this Minister but also the attention of the Government as a whole, that the mines should accept responsibility for this pollution. From time to time individual mines should also at least try to counter the effect of their activities. They have tried to find solutions by the application of lime in large quantities, amongst other things. But on the whole a large part of our country has not only been left with hollowed-out ground which caves in in places and thus gives rise to soil erosion, but also with water resources which, particularly at times of heavy rain, become so polluted that both the primary and secondary use of that water is affected. It is therefore in the interests of both our farmers and our primary consumers that this state of affairs should no longer continue.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Witbank. He has dealt with a particular aspect of the problem, of pollution, and I want to deal with another aspect of this problem namely with the problem of the repurification of water after it has been used once for various purposes in order that it may be used again, either for the same purpose or for another purpose.

We have heard a lot about pollution during this debate, and it is obvious that it is a very big problem indeed. Yesterday the hon. member for South Coast described very graphically the dangers which could arise due to pollution and also the very wide areas over which pollution could take place. He was, however, I think dealing mainly with the question of individual industries and even of individual factories, the effluent from which would pollute a river or other water source. I want to deal rather with the question where the water concerned is under the control of municipalities and other public bodies and the effluent, whether it be human sewage or industrial effluent, is discharged into the municipal sewerage system. Of course, the powers of the Minister as regards municipalities are derived from section 22 of the 1956 Water Act and not from section 21, as would be the case if he were to deal with the sort of case which the hon. member for South Coast is talking about.

As far as inland municipalities are concerned, a duty is laid upon them to ensure that their sewage water is treated and released again in a purified form according to certain standards. As the Minister knows, in Johannesburg for example—I merely take that as an example—a lot of their sewage water is led off to their sewage farms and on the pastures in such a form that those pastures can be let for the grazing of dairy cattle, for example, and also large numbers of beef oxen are fattened on those pastures. Beef of a very high quality is produced, in fact of such a high duality that prize-winners from, those municipal farms are among the first-prize winners always on the Rand Spring Show.

What is the point the hon. member is discussing now?

I am getting on to the Question of the re-use of municipal water and the repurification of it. That is the case with inland municipalities.

Now, when we come to municipalities of cities situated along the coast, then we find that the position is very often different. Instead of that water being treated and repurified so that it can be re-used for agricultural or industrial uses, it is very often discharged into the sea, either in a raw state or sometimes only in a semi-purified state. I think that we must ask ourselves the question at a time when pressure on our water supplies is becoming such that people’s thoughts are very seriously turning towards the possibility of desalinization of sea water, whether water which is brought perhaps from far afield, from state water schemes, in order to serve the needs of people within a municipal area on the coast, should simply be allowed to flow into the sea after it has been used by those urban dwellers. I particularly wish to deal with this because there is a case in point at the moment, and that concerns the Port Elizabeth municipality. Now, I do not introduce this point because I wish to interfere in the domestic affairs of that city, but I do so because they are considering plans for a new municipal sewage disposal system, and also because, where water is brought from state schemes over long distances tin order to supply such a municipality—as will be the case in the case of Port Elizabeth under the Orange River project—it is a matter of concern to the whole country as to what happens to that water eventually.

We have here a city which is growing rapidly. It is part of an industrial complex, namely the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage industrial complex, and it is, in fact, regarded by the Department of Planning as a growth point at present and also a growth point of the future. In 1960 the population of Port Elizabeth was some 291,000, and it is expected to grow by the year 2000 to something approaching the 1960 population of the Witwatersrand, namely 2.1 million. In other words, by the year 2000 that city of Port Elizabeth is expected to have a population of approximately 2 million. And because the population is going to grow, so is the water consumption going to grow. At the moment they are using something like 27 million gallons of water a day and under the Kouga irrigation scheme which the Government has almost completed, they will be given another allocation of about 40 million gallons a day. Also, of course, under the White Paper for the Orange River project they have been allocated some 40 million gallons a day in the future. Naturally, the bigger the water consumption, so also the bigger will become the question of the disposal of sewage. At the moment the effluent from Port Elizabeth is something like 10 to 15 million gallons a day, but when they are using all that water, including the Kouga water and the Orange River water, it will probably rise to something like 75 million gallons a day. This is very large volume of water. At the moment it is being discharged in its raw state as sewage into the sea and causing very severe pollution. Anybody who knows Port Elizabeth will know that at certain times the very fine beaches at the North End and in the vicinity of New Brighton are very badly polluted. I feel that it is essential that if there are alternative methods which can be investigated for the use of this water after it has been through a sewage purification plant, then it is in the interests of the country that those methods should be adopted, if possible.

The Port Elizabeth municipality, according to Press reports, intends to establish a new sewage scheme north of Port Elizabeth and that water will be discharged into the sea in what I will call a “semi-purified” form. This seems to be the fact. I do not want to dwell on the question of what pollution may be caused in that semi-purified form, nor do I want to dwell on the question of what damage contamination of the sea waters can cause to marine life in Algoa Bay, but the point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that Port Elizabeth has as its immediate hinterland a flat area; it is flat country; it is not hilly country, and approximately ten miles from the city there is an area of ground which could very well be irrigated with this water if it were properly purified and made available for irrigation use. I am referring to the valley some ten miles from where one presumes this sewerage disposal plant will be, the valley known as the Coega Valley, where there is an area of up to 3,000 morgen available for irrigation. It is a frost-free area in which lucern, citrus and other crops like wheat could be grown. I feel very strongly that, in view of the shortage of water, attempts should be made as far as possible to re-use water of this nature which is being used in an industrial area or even in a normal urban area, and I feel that this is one occasion where it would be possible. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he has just said. I think he has made a good plea which had a good deal of substance. In the short period at my disposal I should like to raise a very serious matter here and I shall have to devote my full ten minutes to that. I want to begin at once by saying that the matter I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs is a very urgent matter, and I should like to raise it here at the instance of my voters. It relates to the allocation of plots by the State and the viability of those plots. After the Vaalharts settlement had been laid out, a considerable deal of land was left on the perimeter of this irrigation area, and this was cut up into dairy farms almost ten years ago. When the farms were demarcated there were three aspects which were borne in mind to make those units economic. The first one was the farmer himself and his ability as a farmer or his financial means.

Order! The matter the hon. member is now discussing does not come under this Vote. Small-holdings come under Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

I shall then leave that matter and confine myself to the water aspect. The small-holdings were allocated together with a certain quantity of water with which they were to be irrigated. That is the point I want to make; I just wanted to outline the background to this matter. The smallholdings are allocated with a certain number of morgen in grazing and with a certain quantity of water to make those small-holdings economic. These units are allocated with sufficient water to irrigate ten morgen. I am now referring in particular to the small farms, as they are called in the Act. I want to point out that these people are in fact not receiving the quantity of water they need to irrigate ten morgen, and unless they get that water the units cannot be economic. It was calculated theoretically that those ten morgen were to be irrigated with a sixth of a cusec, continuous for 24 hours. If that water is stored in a dam provided by the State there has to be enough to irrigate ten morgen in 10 to 14 days, in periods. It has now been found that that quantity of water is not adequate to irrigate the 10 morgen, but only 50 per cent of them and in many cases not even 50 per cent. When the farms were allocated ten years ago the farmers who went there on probation sent a deputation to Cape Town to interview the Minister of Water Affairs and the then Minister of Lands, Messrs. Sauer and Le Roux. The members of the deputation told the two Ministers that they could not accept those farms as they were because the water was not adequate. It so happens that I was a member of that deputation, and we were promised by Messrs. Sauer and Le Roux that they would be given the water. I regret to say that that water has still not been given to those people, notwithstanding the fact that since then ten years have passed. We have made represenations ten times; four on-the-spot investigations have been carried out and on each occasion the committees of inquiry said that the water was not adequate and that the matter would be rectified. During the recent great drought those people almost went under because, together with Vaalharts, they had to surrender water when the Minister imposed the water restrictions, but because these people have a continuous stream of water, they lose all the water which is cut off intermittently. While the ordinary man in an irrigation area receives his water on demand and therefore loses nothing—he can ask for his turn and he can get his water—those people have a continuous flow and if it rains the water is cut off. They can never again ask for that water; it is lost forever. If there is work on the sluices during the off-period, they lose that water and they never get it back. Because those people are even now able to irrigate only approximately 50 per cent of their land with water which is supposed to be adequate to irrigate ten morgen, and as they are suffering this added loss, we now request that those people should also get their water on demand and not by way of a continuous flow. That point was raised with the Department, and I must say the Department investigated. We had the Deputy Minister there together with the Engineer of Water Affairs, and they decided that those people could in fact get their water upon demand. A great canal would be built which would take approximately one and a half cusecs water, and the engineers calculated that it would cost approximately R15,000; it would be a small work and it would not even be necessary to provide for it on the Estimates. This decision was taken two years ago and to my regret I must say once again that nothing has been done in that regard. I therefore want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to-day to see to it that the quantity of water which is allocated to them, for ten morgen of whatever it may be, because it varies from one farm to the next, will be allocated to them upon demand. The difficulty arises from the fact that this one-sixth of a cusec water is let out through a hole in the cement wall. As a rule the land is so level that the water does not flow, and as soon as the furrow fills up they do not get that quantity of water any more. It is for that reason that they are not able to irrigate their ten morgen. Secondly, the evaporation rate is too high and, thirdly, there is too little water to be able to do flow irrigation. We now ask that in future these people should get their water upon demand. It will not take a drop of additional water from the dam, because the water that supplies the dam is separated from the stream that has to flow through the military supply dump for security reasons. I think the flow is approximately one and a half cusecs.

Are they entitled to dam water?

Yes, they are entitled to dam water. These farms were allocated by the State together with water to irrigate ten morgen and a stretch of grazing. They are dairy farms which were allocated by the State; they were to get water for ten morgen and 600 morgen of grazing. That was the only way in which those units could be made economic. As I have said, the water they get is separated from a stream of approximately one and a half cusecs which flows through the ammunition dump. Half of that water is allocated to them and the other half flows away. Even during the recent drought that water flowed away, because that large stream had to flow through the supply depot, but these people were not entitled to the use of that water. The hon. the Deputy Minister saw that himself and I call him as my witness that that water is flowing away into the Ganspan and that the people cannot get it. We now ask that that furrow should be corrected, this year if possible, and that those people should get their fair share for which they have had to fight for ten years. I want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard. In conclusion I want to ask, in view of the fact that those people derive half of their income from irrigation, that they should be treated on the same basis as irrigation farmers who are going to be compensated for losses incurred by them as a result of the water restrictions. They are 50 per cent irrigation farmers and 50 per cent dairy farmers, and I therefore want to plead that they should also receive compensation.

In Optima of March, 1967, there is a reference to an article written by an expert whose name is not mentioned, and I just want to read the following on what he said—

It is somewhat perturbing to one deriving from the rural areas to read something of this nature. I just want to point this out and make a counter comment, namely that we should guard against a possible trend which inclines towards the preponderant allocation of water to industry at the expense of agriculture. We do not want to play one off against the other, but what makes me doubt the bona fides of the writer is the fact that he pointed out that we pumped water 70 miles far from the Vaal River to supply Pretoria while only 20 miles from Pretoria there is a large dam from which tobacco and wheat are irrigated. Is there some insinuation in that? Does that imply that whereas the Brits farmers are now growing tobacco and wheat that water should rather be pumped out for domestic use in Pretoria? Then I just want to say that these things point to the tendency of unbalanced allocation of water for agricultural and industrial purposes to the disadvantage of agriculture. At the moment I do not want to talk about all the things we have received in the Waterberg in connection with water, but it is well to testify to the R1,950,000 Glen Alpine Dam which it is hoped will be completed next year and the R300,000 spent on the three weirs in the Palala, and the dam in the Sterk River which was completed in Advocate Strijdom’s day, but there are the Moerdyk Dam and the Magol! the Magol!! the Magol!!! with which we have now been busy 12 or 15 years. The surveys have been made and it will be possible to build a dam there at a cost of R7,800,000, but we are now waiting for the development of the coal potential at Ellisras and that development simply refuses to take place. The Secretary for Water Affairs addressed a meeting at Ellisras and he pointed out that amongst other things it was possible to refer this matter to the I.D.C., but without his permission I do not want to go into this matter any further, because it was a newspaper report and I want to leave it at that.

On drought I just want to say the following: Keep the water where it falls and reserve the normal flow water. Our State dams must rely to the minimum on flood water and heavy rain such as the present for their supplies. What is the alternative? Of course drought is a frightening factor, but we could always say this for drought, that it comes periodically and in between it gives the country a chance to recover. But do you know, there is another factor, and that is mankind. Man is the henchman of drought in the process of desiccating our country. He is not a periodic destroyer but a constant destroyer. Through desiccation he murders the soil which should give life. Man makes it unnecessary for drought to take a hand later in order to change our country into a desert; we shall manage to do so without droughts. Surely our country is subject to fluctuating rainfall and the worst drought we have had has just passed, but nobody has any concept of the worst which lies ahead! If man is prepared to recognize this abuse on his part, he must take two decisions to stop it, firstly, and secondly to repair the damage; and if he wishes to repair the damage, he has to know what sins he is committing. He must first have knowledge of the sins he is committing and then he must have knowledge of how to repair the damage. To summarize those sins: they are the destruction of our soil and of the cover of the soil, and they are over-grazing and injudicious ploughing activities and the construction of railways and roads and also the excessive abstraction of subterranean water for irrigation purposes; they are the denudation of the catchment areas and the sponge areas and the conversion of marshlands and catchment areas into cash crop lands. These are all sins which are being committed.

Who is to undertake the repairs? There are five concerns: There is the State, the industrial sector, the city councils, the farmers and the domestic consumers; the first three by way of large reservoirs for industries and irrigation, and the farmer by keeping the water where it falls on his farm. It has been proved scientifically that after a shower of rain on covered soil 92 per cent of the water is still available after 24 hours, but on an over-grazed farm only 27 per cent of the water is still available after 24 hours. As for the domestic consumer, I do not know how we can make him water conscious. We find the domestic consumer of water in the large cities in particular. The trouble is that in his conception water pertains to a tap. Open a tap, from the days of Noah to the end of the world, and the water will keep running.

The farmer and the State must be partners in this connection. The farmer’s share is a miniature water conservation culture. In this regard the farmer must not think in terms of heavy machinery and mechanization and surveys by engineers. This is the task of the State and of the city councils for irrigation and industrial development. There must be a partnership between the State and the farmer and it must result in assistance from the State to the farmer and more independent action by the farmer to apply his miniature water conservation culture with the maximum success. And how can the farmer do this, to obtain the maximum success? It must be seen to that State dams are not necessarily filled by flood water but by running water, throughout the droughts, and this is possible if we look after the soil and help the farmer to build up a surplus supply on his farm by means of contours, etc. The State and the city councils can spend millions on great dams, but if there is no flood water such as the present to fill the dams, then we have fine monuments to engineering skill in dam walls without water, and to what could one compare that? One could compare it to a vein without blood, a skull without a brain, an eagle without wings, a luxury passenger liner on the dry sandy bed of the Magol river, and, in my latest experience, to a farmer without a pocket knife in his waistcoat pocket. These six years of drought have proved that the State and the farmer should go hand in hand and that one may not let go of the other’s hand. Gigantic reservoirs are being built, to which nobody has any objection, but the reservoirs of the State and the miniature water conservation of the farmer should go hand in hand, because this is the cheapest and the safest way in which the farmer can ultimately help the State to fill its dams regularly without the State having to wait for flood waters which come once every so many years, and which then not only cause floods but also silting.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus in his speech on the Agricultural Technical Services Vote on the 8th of this month, pointed out the apparently unbalanced allocation in respect of these two great sectors on which the national economy is dependent, agriculture and industry, and we should now stop emphasizing all the time that South Africa will never become an agricultural giant but in fact a mighty agricultural country, because this over-emphasis, that South Africa will never become an agricultural giant, may be creating the psychosis among some people that in the long run it may not be worth the trouble devoting attention to agriculture and to water conservation for irrigation purposes, etc. [Interjection.] Where is the food to come from? We should beware of this dangerous psychosis, which can be created by saying in and out of season that we simply do not have an agricultural country and that is that. It is true that only a small percentage of our extensive fatherland consists of agricultural land, but although we cannot increase it there are nevertheless large tracts which can be exploited more intensively, and on the parts we are already exploiting we could have an almost doubled production if we devoted the necessary attention to the matter. Now you should not think that I am levelling a reproach at our farmers. Allow me, after the six years of drought I have just experienced in the Waterberg … [Time expired.]

I trust my neighbour from the Waterberg will not mind if I do not follow him along the dusty roads of the Northern Transvaal. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to water provision in the Northern Transvaal and in particular to the Pietersburg region. I want to refer to the specific development which is now taking place there and which is yet to take place, in contrast with conditions in the past.

The town of Pietersburg as such has always made its own way as far as the provision of water is concerned. In the past the town lived on borehole water for a long time. It lived on that until the consumption of the town reached approximately 2 million gallons a day. Then it built its own dam, namely the Dap Naudé Dam in the Broederstroom. This is a tributary of the Letaba river, and at the time this dam cost approximately R2 million. It was a very expensive project for a rural town. This dam provided the town with approximately 3 million gallons a day. In the same region, in the upper reaches of the Letaba, the Government built the Ebenezer Dam with a capacity of approximately 25,000 morgen feet of water. The function of this dam was mainly to provide water to the consumers from the Ebenezer Dam to the border of the Kruger National Park. At the moment the Government is building another dam, namely the Glen Alpine Dam, in the Magalakwin river. The Glen Alpine Dam is situated approximately 70 miles from Pietersburg. The Ebenezer and the Dap Naudé dams are approximately 36 miles from Pietersburg. In the meanwhile the Turfloop Bantu township has come into being and the Moletzi Bantu township is in the process of construction, a township which will have approximately 12,000 houses and which we anticipate will have approximately 80,000 inhabitants. Pietersburg itself has grown much more rapidly than we expected and all estimates have been exceeded completely and utterly. Over and above that Pietersburg has been indicated as a border industry centre. As you know, industrial settlement requires a great deal of water, and particularly water from a permanent source.

I want to convey my sincere gratitude and also that of my town to the hon. the Minister and the Government for the positive and active steps that have already been taken in that region. In particular I want to thank the Minister for the allocation by the Department of Water Affairs of 4 million gallons a day from the Ebenezer Dam to Pietersburg. I understand the tenders for the pipeline have already closed and that it will cost approximately R2 million. We expect this water to reach Pietersburg by roughly the end of 1968. Now I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the peak period consumption in Pietersburg is at present already 5 million gallons a day. The Dap Naudé water is fully committed and the town has had to fall back on the use of boreholes to obtain supplementary water. The Bantu townships have not even been completed, and yet the Turfloop Bantu township is at the moment using 300,000 gallons a day. All this water has to come from Pietersburg. It is therefore quite clear that if this development continues as in the past, which we expect will happen, the peak period consumption will be much more than will be available once the pipeline is completed. My question is whether the Government and the Department cannot come to our aid as in the past and make additional allocations of water to Pietersburg, up to a total of approximately 12 to 16 million gallons a day. Pietersburg must obtain further water sources. I do not want to quote statistics here.

The estimates and the necessary memorandums are already with the Department for their reference. It is a fact, however, that the water resources at and around Pietersburg are quite limited. The State controls virtually the only logical source of water upon which we are dependent, namely that of the Ebenezer Dam. I am therefore making these serious representations to the hon. the Minister, because we must plan for the future.

What are you actually asking?

My request is that the Government should make that allocation to us with a view to the future, because in that region itself we have no other solution. Our only permanent source will be the Ebenezer Dam. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to give me a reply right now. It is clear to me that the entire matter will have to be taken into review in respect of water provision for the North as a whole. If the present development of Pietersburg is taken into consideration, it is clear that in a few years time we shall have a water shortage if we cannot be supplied from the Ebenezer Dam. We are therefore asking that a large share of the water from the Ebenezer Dam should be allocated to Pietersburg. These representations are of course also fraught with problems for the Department. Basically, planning is our problem, and if the hon. the Minister can meet us in that regard, we shall be very grateful because I think, as you will agree, that the problem is most serious, because last year the Ebenezer Dam was not even quite full. Consideration will have to be given to other sources for the Northern Transvaal which will also be logical auxiliary sources for us.

Capt. W. J. B. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have heard the previous two speakers supporting me in regard to the control of waters that flow into the Limpopo River. Both of them are affected as regards those areas. On the first of this month in the supplement of the Natal Witness an open letter was written by the hon. Jim Fouché, Minister of Water Affairs. I want to read two short extracts from his letter:

As a representative of Natal and in view of the sincerity that we have always had from this Minister and the sincerity he used in writing those words, may I on behalf of the farmers of Natal thank him for those complimentary words. I wish to assure him that the Natal farmers will not lack the ability to play their part in the future economic welfare of South Africa. I am delighted to hear about the building of the Spioenkop Dam on the Tugela River. The new harbour at Richards Bay and the new railway line between Empangeni and Vryheid is a major step forward in the development of the Tugela Basin. All that we now require is the establishment of the new Iscor steel works in Northern Natal.

They will pollute your water.

I have not spoken about pollution. Last year the hon. the Minister—not that I find fault with him—raised a laugh here in the House at my expense. He said that I wanted to make him a rainmaker when I asked that the pan system of the Okavango in Botswana be reflooded. I still ask that because I definitely feel that nature will do the rest and that we will then get rain. Shortly after that, on the 26th January of this year, the Cape Times carried this article—

Order! Hon. members at the back must not converse so loudly.

In the American Digest of 16th March, 1967, the question is asked—

I put a very simple question: What are we doing about making rain? At last I have a supporter for my old theory about using the waters from the Okavango River for our industrial complex. When a layman, like myself, puts forward a question or a proposal, nothing is done about it, because all that I have done is to examine and inspect the area on my two flat feet. But now a University professor comes into the field and he suggests just that, namely that a pipeline from the Okavango River should bypass Lake Ngami. I take it that he suggests that it should come through the Debra area where the thirst land Voortrekkers lived for a very long time. It will then go straight through the Kalahari to Molepolole, the capital of the Bakwena. I believe that there are over 10,000 of them living there. It will then go onto the new capital of Botswana, Gaberones. It comes through very beautiful ranching country and then it crosses into Marico. From there it will most likely go straight on to Pretoria via Rustenburg. It then empties itself into the Vaal Basin. It is asked how we will control the water in a foreign state. The late President Kruger drew up the original Mozambique Convention. It has been amended from-time to time. It was amended quite recently again in regard to the labour and the railway rates. Surely we can draw up similar agreements with Botswana to use their water and their labour and most probably to take over their other economic commodity, their beef supplies, which we in South Africa, if not now, will require in the very near future.

Then there is the Limpopo River. I have mentioned this matter on several occasions. A large quantity of flood water flows to the sea. They and we require that water. They require it for the Tuli block, which runs parallel to the river. We require it for the large but under-developed beautiful soil area of Soutpansberg between the mountain and the river itself. I should like to ask the Minister really to do something about that. According to the news on the radio, I believe there is a conference coming off very soon in that connection. This conference is I think, between Botswana, Angola and ourselves.

I also wish to congratulate the Minister. I understand that the Republic is taking part in the United States water for peace study which is being held in Washington between the 23rd and the 31st of May of this year. In this connection I wish to quote again from the American News Digest, Vol. 6. No. 15, dated 13th April, 1967. It reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the previous speaker. When water is discussed, I find it most interesting to hear how there is also philosophizing and dreaming on possible schemes which I do not think are quite relevant at the moment. I am nevertheless convinced that people who concern themselves with schemes of this type will make a substantial contribution some time or other. I just want to refer briefly to the idea of making rain, as mentioned by the hon. member. He said that in America large amounts were being spent on the idea of making rain. At this stage I just want to say that I think that there is a good deal of scientific swagger, and we cannot afford to take part in it. I think it is quite unpractical. At the moment we will perhaps all agree that the Americans know more about the moon than about making rain. For the while we must leave it at that. Once they have found out more about it, we could probably follow suit.

I want to come back to our own problems in connection with water. Water is the source and vein of life in this country. It is therefore necessary that we should give sober and objective attention to our water problems. I want to refer mainly to the functioning of the Department of Water Affairs, which is charged with providing water in all fields in this country. They are not concerned merely with supplying water and the construction of dams and canals, with regard to which they have 28 construction teams in the field, but also with research, planning reconnaissance, supervision and administration. The Department operates in a wide field in order to meet the water needs of this country. The 1956 Act made these responsibilities even greater. To a certain extent the Department now also has to fulfil the function of a water court in distributing water and allocating quotas in a State water control area. I shall come back to this shortly, because I feel that in my constituency, where there is a water control area, there are quite a few matters which demand attention.

We could criticize a department in connection with its wide activities. We could say that a dam should have been built here or there and that it should have been built sooner or later. We could say that it should have been larger or smaller. We could say that there should have been more research. I want to make the general statement, however, that water conservation in this country and also the construction of dams are the best investment we could make in this country. It is an investment which is not subject to depreciation. It stabilizes us and helps us in various fields of agriculture and industry. It also inspires confidence. I therefore want to express the opinion and make the request to the Minister that we should see to it that the amount which is voted for water affairs annually is by no means reduced. If we look at the Estimates before us we see that on loan account we have R67.4 million. This is an increase of R11.6 million on last year. I feel that it is a sound tendency. In these Estimates we should give priority every year to water conservation and the storage of water in this country. It should show a rising tendency. The depreciation of the rand is also playing a role. If we merely talk about money and about the amount which is voted, it is not always a true reflection of the quantity of work which is performed and the quantity of water which is stored. I also want to point out that the easiest sites in this country have already been utilized and that most of the remaining sites are the more expensive ones where we shall need more scientific skill, better planning and also more money for their development. Here I want to emphasize one point, a point which the hon. the Minister also referred to this afternoon. I think it is very important that we should not readily tackle any more of these vast schemes. If we consider how much money is being invested in the Pongola River and Orange River schemes, we get the impression that we do not want any more such schemes at the same time because the areas of the country which are suffering as a result of that and which are not enjoying the necessary development in the field of water conservation, are too large.

If we analyse the position of water in this country we find that four-fifths of the water which is utilized at present is utilized by agriculture. The other fifth is utilized by industries and our mining, and is also used for human consumption, domestic purposes, etc. In other words, agriculture is by far the largest water consumer at the moment. We have heard misgivings expressed to the effect that to some extent there is a threat to agriculture. I cannot envisage this happening in the near future. In its nature agriculture must continue to enjoy priority. I think that in the remote future we may perhaps reach a stage where the position will be reversed, because in the nature of matters the consumption by cities and towns, by mines and industries, is proportionately much smaller than in the case of agriculture.

There is one bottle-neck in the functioning of the Department which I should like to emphasize here, and this arises from section 62 of the Water Act. In this section we find the implementation of the Act after the proclamation of a state water control area and, arising from that, the control of water. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. In my constituency there are cases of people who obtain permits in terms of this section of the Act but who are not always happy because they cannot always understand how the allocation is made, and there have been repeated representations in connection with this matter. I think that if the State undertakes such an important task, namely to distribute water, the machinery should be such that people should have access and that corrections should not take so much time. I have had cases of correspondence which extended over a period of up to two years. I applied to the Department repeatedly. I appreciate their problems, but I think we should consider this position soberly and objectively. It is of no use that the State and I do not think it is right of the State, should say that the water should be controlled and that State water control areas should be proclaimed unless there is the machinery to fulfil that function really efficiently. For that reason I want to make a special appeal to the Minister. Having regard to the needs which exist, attention must in the first place be given to the reinforcement of the Department of Water Affairs as regards its technical staff and also its administrative staff.

We are here concerned with a Department which deals with something which is used daily in all spheres. Under drought conditions it may very easily land us in crises. It is therefore essential that the Department which works with it should be fully provided with the human material needed to see to it that the work it is charged with is carried out to the best advantage of everybody in this country. I think this is most desirable and essential, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do everything in his ability to meet these requirements. We know that the question of engineers is a thorny problem. The State cannot compete with the private sector as regards the services of engineers. The course they have to complete is long and difficult. It is necessary, however, that we should give attention to it. We must find means of attracting more of these highly skilled, qualified people to render this essential service to our country and our people.

Mr. Chairman, last year the hon. the Minister appointed a water affairs commission which had to undertake the planning of the entire water potential of South Africa. We are continually thinking of comprehensive planning. In the same way the Department of Water Affairs has for a long time been thinking of comprehensive planning. In 1948 Mr. Jordaan, the present Secretary, wrote as follows upon his return from America—

This immediately puts one in mind of the catchment areas of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. In between lies an extensive area, rather bleak during droughts, but particularly attractive this year, an area which poets have often sung about but which, when it comes to the distribution of water and industries, has up to now had to be satisfied with the leavings from the rich man’s table.

The leavings from, the rich man’s table are rather meagre.

I am thinking of that region which we normally rail the Free State. Later on I should like to discuss it some more with the Minister.

As I have said, there is comprehensive planning, and I believe that the entire water plan must be integrated into this master plan. In addition I want to say this: Let it be upon the heads of those who, on their part did not make their requirements known to the drafter of that master plan. That is why I feel myself at liberty this afternoon to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs the requirements of that region which we call the Free State. Here I am thinking in particular of my own constituency, as well as that of my colleague, i.e. the constituency of Smithfield— I think the hon. the Minister is reasonably well acquainted with Smithfield. I am thinking of these two areas. In this connection I want to say that when one considers this tremendous project, i.e. the Orange River project which is being developed along the southern border, and one considers where all that water is coming from and where it is being taken, after It has been dammed up, then every Free Stater is sad at heart.

We begrudge those people who will reap the benefit of the streams of water which will be led through the Orange-Fish tunnel. But 385,000 morgen feet of water will irrigate 113,000 morgen each year. We begrudge them the 860-mile long canals which will lead through the northern Cape in order to irrigate the land there. But if one considers the matter and realizes that a potential area of only 11,000 morgen in the Free State will be irrigated then one cannot help feeling rather disheartened about the whole affair. There is one thing that is striking, one ray of light. If one examines this entire Orange River project it strikes one that this river is planned from its mouth to its confluence with the Caledon River. But the Caledon, the third largest river in South Africa, is not planned. It is in regard to this Caledon River then, that I should like to say a few words this afternoon.

Hear, hear!

I knew the Minister would say, “Hear, hear!” There is a single pipeline running from the Verwoerd dam through which Bloemfontein must be supplied with water—the Free State’s meagre share. That water will be supplied to the Bloemfontein municipality unpurified and it will cost 44.3 cents per 1,000 gallons on the present basis of calculation. I must say that I do not think that the Bloemfontein Municipality will be able to afford it, nor do I think that it is possible to lead that water into the Kaffir river dam and use it on irrigation lands, as planned. It is simply not economical. But, Mr. Chairman. I have said that there is one little ray of light and that is that it is stated in this White Paper on the Orange River project that the potential of the Caledon River should be reserved for the Free State, and consequently I want to plead for the development of that potential It is very clear that that potential is great; it is very clear that it is possible to provide Bloemfontein and the southern Free State with water from that source—and what I have in mind here is of the Vet River—much more cheaply than it can be done by means of the present pipeline project from the Hendrik Verwoerd dam.

I must say that I am not in favour of a so-called temporary scheme, as was originally planned by the Bloemfontein City Council. But I do think the hon. the Minister owes the Free State a little something; it is strange that I have to raise a plea here to the hon. the Minister for Smithfield and Rouxville. As I have said, the hon. the Minister owes the Free State a little something and I think the Government owes it to the Free State not to drain all these water resources of the Free State off to other areas. May I just remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the resources of the Vaal River are derived for the most part from the Free State, and that water is also being used beyond the borders of the Free State.

I do not want to be provincial; that is not my intention. But I do think we will get it in the neck if we do not raise this matter here. I want to raise a plea for the development of the Caledon River. I am aware that originally there were international difficulties; I am aware that there may perhaps be difficulties in future as well, but I do not think they are insurmountable. I can only remind you of the case of the Mekong River which rises in the highlands of Tibet and flows to 2,600 miles along the Chinese border through six countries, including Vietnam which is at present embroiled in a war. Nevertheless this water is being used by all and sundry and nobody wastes any of it. That is why I feel myself at liberty—and I think the hon. member for Smithfield, together with the Upper Orange River Development Association, the Bloemfontein City Council, the South Western Free State and those areas of the Northern Cape which are integrated into this entire project will agree with me—to ask for the development of the Caledon River not even subsequent to, but simultaneously with the development of the Orange River.

I do not want to follow up on the hon. member for Fauresmith because he broached a matter here on behalf of his Province to which I am certain the hon. the Minister will reply. I want to take up a matter with the hon. the Minister which affects about 1,200 farmers, i.e. the irrigation farmers of the Vaal-Harts Settlement scheme. Last year the hon. the Minister decided—he was of course compelled to take this decision—that the water quota of those farmers had to be considerably reduced. Their quota was reduced to such an extent that in the long run it meant that they were only receiving 20 per cent of their original water quota. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said, according to a report which appeared in Die Burger of 20th August of last year, that to reduce the water quota of those farmers had been the most difficult decision of his life, and he went on to say (translation)—

That matter has already been touched upon here by the hon. member for Kimberley (North).

No, that hon. member touched upon an altogether different matter.

What is the date of that Press report?

20th August, 1966. The reason why we are raising the question of these people here is because there are 1,200 farmers there—a well-organized community—and for that reason also many business people and certain factories which derive certain benefits from the Vaal-Harts settlement.

You just want to make political capital out of this matter.

This side of the House, as the hon. member is intimating, has no thought whatsoever to make political capital out of the matter. This is a matter which was raised in August of last year and this year, on 21st March, a question was put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for North East Rand on behalf of the hon. member for Albany. The hon. member asked—

The hon. the Minister furnished the following reply—

The matter was raised in August last year and again in March this year and to date the farmers do not yet know what compensation they are going to receive. The hon. the Minister also deemed it advisable to warn the farmers of Vaal Harts not to plant any summer crops, in case there should be no rains and they could not be provided with a better water supply. That advice which the hon. the Minister gave them was of course the correct advice to give at that stage. I think the crops of most of those farmers failed last year, and I think most of them also accepted the advice of the hon. the Minister not to sow summer crops at that stage because they were not assured of a decent water supply. I think the time has now come for the hon. the Minister to tell us what the inquiry has disclosed and what compensation will be given to those people. The farmers in that area accepted the hon. the Minister’s word when he told them last year on 20th August that he had had to take one of the most difficult decisions of his life, and that the farmers would receive some or other form of compensation from the State. I hope the hon. the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to tell us what compensation those people will receive. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that we are dealing here with a group of people who are for the most part dependent upon irrigation, and that they have suffered a tremendous loss over the past 12 months or more. I think they would welcome it very much if the hon. the Minister could give an affirmative reply to the question as to whether or not they would receive compensation.

I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park because he put a direct question to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister will probably reply to it. I have risen for one reason only and that reason is to express my thanks. The sluices of the dam which is known in the official documents as the Tweeriviere Dam in the Kouga River have been closed and it is filling up. According to the official report it is more than half full. The Kouga Dam is an exceptionally attractive dam. It is the first oxbow dam completed in South Africa. I think it will in future be worth the while of any tourist to come and look at that beautiful dam. The dam will assure the farmers of the Gamtoos Valley of enough water for the future. It is one of the few dams in the country which has too much water for the available irrigable land below the dam. It is fresh, silt-free water and the farmers are assured of a good future. The dam has a good catchment area and I am certain that it will never again be empty. That is why I want to thank the Minister for these sluices having been closed and for the fact that the dam is now filling up. I also want to express my thanks to the officials who have been of assistance in the planning of this dam, to the Secretary for Water Affairs who has given this matter his personal attention throughout, to the men in Pretoria who sometimes had to work under very heavy pressure in order to get the plans ready in time, to the engineers and also to the workers on the site who saw to the completion of the dam. I am very glad to be able to express my thanks to all.

Actually I have to begin by saying a few words with reference to a very interesting occurrence in the debate this afternoon. What happened was that a colleague of mine of this side of the House asked the hon. the Minister this afternoon to give a portion of the water on which a large part of my constituency is dependent to his constituency so that his constituency could further its development. The hon. member for Pietersburg asked the Minister to give 16 million gallons of water per day to Pietersburg. The dam from which the hon. member has asked the water be taken is the Ebenaeser Dam. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for having water problems, but the fact remains that the development of that entire Letaba-Pietersburg complex, his constituency and mine, centres round a few rivers. Now it so happens that the Ebenaeser Dam is situated on one of the rivers which is at present keeping the entire development of the Tzaneen area down into the Letaba valley going. A very large scale development is in progress here, but the main town in the hon. member’s constituency, Pietersburg, has also been made dependent upon and must exist on the water from the Ebenaeser Dam. It is also a fact that in spite of the heavy rain we have had this year—rains which we will probably not get every year—the Ebenaeser Dam only contains 38 per cent of its potential water content and that is not enough to satisfy the present requirements of the Letaba valley. Now the hon. member is asking that an additional large quantity of that water should be surrendered. I want to make the point that I think that it is wrong in principle, now or in the future, to take water from one catchment area and give it to another area or town for any kind of development, if similar development could take place equally well, as in this case, in the area from where that water is being taken. I also want to say that there are conditions in terms of which it is possible to make a concession, within limits, and that is when the water which he is taking from my constituency for his constituency is adequately supplemented in some other way.

It would be presumptuous to stand up here this afternoon and ask the hon. the Minister —as if this was the first time he was hearing about it now—for a second dam in the Letaba. I do not want to do so, but I prefer to thank the Minister and his Department for the preparatory work, for the discussions, assistance and prospects, which has already been done in order to meet this situation. The matter has progressed so far that I dare not at present say anything further. I only want to express my thanks. I know that the Minister is considering this problem and is aware that there is a very serious threat to the entire Letaba valley if further provision is not made.

The second point I want to raise this afternoon deals with the position in regard to a large number of dams which draw their water from areas which have recently been afforested on a large scale. We have reached a stage where we must decide which is the most important: whether water will be used for the production of wood, or whether it will be used for other secondary and tertiary interests. The hon. the Minister will be aware that the old farmers always said that if one wanted to dry up a spring or a marshy area then all one had to do was plant eucalyptus trees there. It was always the practice to plant eucalyptus trees in order to dry areas up. This is so because a eucalyptus tree has the unique ability, and differs in this respect from other trees, that it can take up as much water as is available and not only that amount of water it needs for growth. That water is lost through transpiration. If we plant trees with a view to commercial afforestation, a fir tree, or a tree belonging to the fir tree species, will take as much water as it needs for growth, but not a eucalyptus tree. A eucalyptus tree is a windmill, and there are as many windmills standing as there are eucalyptus trees. Now it is a generally known fact that since certain areas have been afforested in recent years the large catchment areas have been dried up to such an extent by the eucalyptus trees which were planted that the entire structure of the area has changed. That is why I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is time we gave this matter very serious attention. I believe we should think along the lines of zoning the regions which are our sponge regions, and on which our important streams are dependent and allowing the planting of certain trees, specifically the eucalyptus trees, only in mountain areas, where they cannot damage the water sponges, and of planting only other types of trees which are smaller consumers of water in certain zones where they can replace the local or indigenous trees. In addition I think that the norms which are being laid down for the conservation of the sponges should be completely revised and that it should be absolutely forbidden to plant trees within certain new boundaries which will have to be determined. I say this because I want to maintain that the present boundaries which have been laid down are totally inadequate. It seems to be too dangerous to lay down a boundary of a hundred feet from a stream. There are some of our sponge areas which are not sponge areas in the sense that it only retains its sponge within the reedbush or bullrush area which can be seen. Its sponge may sketch for many miles underground. That is why the norm which has been laid down is entirely unrealistic. I want to suggest that we give serious thought to having planning of our mountainous areas which are also our sponge areas and that we should place a prohibition on the planting of certain types of trees within certain zones if such trees, i.e. the eucalyptus tree, absorb too much water. Now I know there are some learned men who argue in a complicated way and state that a eucalyptus tree is a strange thing: In the beginning it absorbs little water, but as it becomes bigger it takes more and more water, and when it reaches the stage where it is a full-grown tree it does not absorb so much water. That they use as a justification for planting eucalyptus trees. Of course it is entirely unrealistic to argue in this way because nobody planting trees for commercial purposes plants them in order to allow them to become old trees and develop to the stage when they are not using much water. A commercial planter plants those trees in order to remove them as quickly as possible from the area where they have been planted and make money out of them. In other words, this argument which certain scientists are putting forward is not a sound one. The hard fact remains that the withdrawal of water from the earth’s crust by eucalyptus trees is relatively so high that we must consider whether it is in our interests to allow the unrestricted planting of eucalyptus trees in this country. That is why I want to raise the serious plea and suggest that we must consider this problem with a view to having better control, but also with a view to determining what kind of trees must be planted in certain areas in order by so doing to prevent millions of windmills from being planted to dry up our mountainous regions and to endanger our water position in certain parts of the country, as is the position to-day.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the provision of water to border industries. One of the basic facilities for the establishment of any industry is of course water. When we talk about the decentralization of industries we realize that water will also have to be supplied to the decentralized points. When we regard the establishment of border industries as a subsidiary part of the decentralization of industries in the entire country, then the question of supplying water to those border industries also presents itself. Border industries are of a two-fold nature. One has border industries where Bantu labour is to be utilized, and then one has border industries where Coloured labour is to be utilized. Now I want to mention two centres where both are concerned. The one is Rustenburg which is a border industrial area for the utilization of Bantu labour. It is situated approximately 80 to 90 miles from the Vaal Dam. To the south of the Vaal Dam lies another town, i.e. Heilbron, which is classified as a border area for the utilization of Coloured labour. It is situated approximately 40 miles from the Vaal Dam. A previous speaker has already mentioned that the waters of the Orange River will, to a large extent, be utilized by means of the Verwoerd Dam in the Cape and that the Free State will not receive much of that water. In the north we have the same thing happening. Eighty per cent of the water from the Vaal Dam goes to the north of the Vaal River, i.e. to the Transvaal. The other goes to the south to the Free State. Most of the water being supplied to the Vaal Dam, and let me remind you that it is 6,600 morgen feet, is derived from Free State rivers. Now I want to raise the following plea in regard to these border industries. When we think of border industries, we think of the decentralization of industries and it will necessarily be a decentralization to smaller towns, towns which are not in the position to provide water for the industries which have to be established there. There are two bodies concerned in this matter. In the one case it is the Department of Bantu Administration in respect of the utilization of Bantu labour, and in the other it is the Department of Water Affairs. Where we are dealing with the utilization of Coloured labour, it is in turn the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Water Affairs. If these smaller towns are to be required to guarantee the water provision to the border industries, and the policy of border industries is a State policy and not a local policy, I want to advocate that the burden be borne by the State as far as the water provision to those areas is concerned, areas which have been classified for border industry purposes, whether for Bantu labour or for Coloured labour.

[Inaudible.]

I am quite aware that various Ministers are concerned in this matter but I should like the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs to be favourably disposed in regard to this matter if it should at some time or other be considered by the Government. I am raising this matter because I feel that it is something which affects all those smaller towns. Now I want to raise a plea in regard to other towns which are not receiving border industry area benefits. There are quite a number of those towns in my constituency. I know that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, and I have a great deal of sympathy with him, has so much hay on his fork that I wonder whether Uncle Jim ever sleeps at night for thinking of these problems. I do not want to add to them, but I am compelled to discuss this matter. In the Central Free State which is equidistant from the Caledon River, the Vaal River and the Orange River, we have a group of towns which are suffering great hardships because there is a drastic water shortage. They are situated more or less in the high catchment area of the rivers flowing westwards which feed the Vaal River. Those towns are mostly situated above the schemes which have recently been established. I am thinking for example of the Klein Vet River, the Groot Vet River and the Vals River. These towns are all situated to the north or to the east of these rivers. They are also suffering hardships. If we want industries and they want industries, and I regard decentralization of industries as a national policy, then I want to say that the State will, to a certain extent, have to make plans for the future of those smaller towns. It will have to be taken into account that it is a State responsibility to supply them with water in future.

Mr. Chairman, when water affairs are being discussed it is very much the concern of my constituency because the greatest source of water in the Republic is situated within my constituency. I am referring to the tremendous Vaal Dam. Built in 1936 with a capacity of 414,000 feet of water, and enlarged in 1956 to a capacity of 906,000 morgen feet of water with a concrete wall 1,700 feet long and a gravel wall 4,500 feet long, it supplies 2½ million people with water. Daily its water is distributed over the 300 mile long so-called golden bow from Heidelberg in the east over the entire Witwatersrand and Pretoria to Klerksdorp in the west, as well as to the Free State goldfields. From its sluices flow life-giving water for the area 300 miles further down, namely the Vaal-Harts area, where many farmers make a living from its water. Out of its sluices 230 million gallons of water flow each day to the Rand Water Board to serve a surface area of 4,300 square miles. To the Orange Free State goldfileds flows a daily supply of 48 million gallons of its water and to Sasol 8 million gallons per day, and to the western Transvaal goldmines and uranium works a further 16.5 million gallons per day. It is clear therefore that the Vaal Dam is being utilized to its maximum capacity. Unfortunately the idea has taken root over the years amongst our people that the water from the Vaal Dam is inexhaustible and that our consumption and wastage need know no bounds because over the years and even during the past two drought years the Vaal Dam has helped us safely through the times of crisis. The question therefore arises that if the Vaal Dam is now being utilized to its maximum capacity, what about the future development, growth and expansion of the areas which the Vaal Dam is supplying with water?

Apart from raising the wall, there are, to my mind, two solutions. The first is economizing. I shall mention a few examples. It is being maintained that mines and factories which draw their water from the Vaal Dam and one actually feels hesitant to mention this —are to-day consuming and wasting 30,000 million gallons of water. In addition it is being alleged that one mammoth industry is utilizing and wasting as much as one million gallons of water per day. Our householders may find it interesting to note that it has been established that one leaking tap in a bath, a wash-hand basin or a lavatory, can result in a wastage of as much as 100,000 gallons of water per year. Further economizing can take place at the Vaal-Harts irrigation scheme. As I have already said its water is being supplied from the Vaal Dam. It is known that a great deal of wastage is taking place. I think the possibility of those farmers all converting their irrigation schemes to spray irrigation schemes should be considered. But if one wants to apply spray irrigation schemes one must approach the matter very carefully. Spray irrigation is a specialized process and must be installed scientifically. If that is not done it is doomed to failure. We know that when spray irrigation appeared a few years ago many farmers simply went to the co-operative and bought up a supply of pipes, a pump and a motor and installed it themselves; it turned out to be a failure. That was why spray irrigation was so unpopular amongst the farmers in the initial years. The soil structure has to be analysed, as well as the crop which is to be cultivated, and the spray irrigation system has to be installed according to this data. Then it will be a success. I want to suggest that the Department should supply the Vaal-Harts farmers when they convert to spray irrigation, with the necessary scientific and specialized advice and assistance.

A second aspect I want to mention is that the source of the Vaal Dam’s water can be supplemented by the utilization of springs and the water in old mine-shafts which has not, up to now, been used at all. I am thinking for example of towns on the Rand which are now being supplied with water from the Vaal Dam. These are towns which had previously been self-sufficient as far as water was concerned. Later on they simply, and for the sake of convenience, switched to the use of the water supplied by the Rand Water Board. Those sources can be reutilized in order to relieve the function of the Vaal Dam as far as the provision of water is concerned. We are thinking of mine water which can be purified and used as to alleviate the task of Vaal Dam. In addition used water can be re-utilized after it has been purified. This can be applied in industries and the building industry. In addition there are thousands of boreholes on the Rand and in the region of Pretoria which are pumping out between 5,000 and even 20,000 gallons of water per hour, water which is simply being utilized for supplying water for swimming-baths. I think that that water can also be utilized for the own domestic use of those private individuals. This will also result in a decreased demand on the water of the Rand Water Board. I want to maintain therefore that we need have no fear for the further expansion and future development of our industrial complex which is being supplied with water from the Vaal Dam, provided the water from the Vaal Dam is utilized judiciously, is conserved and is supplemented by the necessary supplementation from sources which have up to now remained unutilized.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not follow his line of thought. I was discussing a little earlier with the hon. the Minister the question of water pollution in the Hammarsdale area. I was very glad to receive the assurance of the Minister that he is investigating the possibility of installing a new and, we hope, more efficient effluent disposal plant. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to see whether they cannot help us with a problem which we are facing at Hammarsdale at the moment. I refer to the threat of typhoid in that area. The district surgeon in his report on this matter gave two reasons for this outbreak of typhoid. One was polluted water. The Department has established a pipeline into the Bantu area to provide water for 89 temporary wooden housing units which were established there. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is this: I wonder if his Department could not consider an extension of this system, even if it is only a matter of 100 yards at a time to establish more than one water tap, or drawing point where the Bantu can obtain water from this pipeline. This is an urgent necessity. With the rains that we have had, springs which are not true springs as we know them, namely those which come from underground, have opened up. It is mainly seepage water. It is the contamination in this seepage water which is causing this dreaded scourge. I appeal to the hon. the Minister. Can his Department help us in this respect so that we can give clean water to the Bantu people and give them an opportunity of escaping the ravages of this scourge?

I also want to refer, before getting away from Hammarsdale, to the pipeline which comes down from Midmar dam. The construction of this pipeline has progressed well and they are a long way down. They are now almost beyond Camperdown with the digging of the trench. Something which has been brought to my notice by one of my constituents in the Ashburton area, is that dynamiting is taking place. I believe in one case a blast was set off and the people living in the vicinity were not advised about it. There were a few rather funny episodes. Somebody’s cup of tea landed in his lap, and all sorts of things, but one particular household, the closest to the spot where the blast was set off, had rather a bad time. In fact, the gentleman of the house was very badly shaken. This is incidental however. I understand that his house was cracked by this blast. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether there is provision for compensation to be paid to a person who suffers in such circumstances.

If they can prove the damage, yes.

Thank you. I now want to talk about White Paper 8 of 1967, which deals with the development of the Tugela River at the proposed Spioenkop Dam. I want to say at the outset that we welcome this development. Natal, and in particular the Town and Regional Planning Commission, have requested development in this area for a long time. As the hon. the Minister knows, they have a vast scheme which is being proposed for the development of the Tugela Basin. This could be, and we sincerely hope it is, the first step in this direction. There are, however, certain things in this report which are disturbing. We should like certain assurances from the hon. the Minister in this regard. The conclusion to which this report comes, is:

That the scheme is therefore economically justified. In addition it creates new development possibilities in all fields within the Upper Tugela Basin, and it offers, after the construction of further additional works, a permanent solution to the water problems of the urban and industrial areas of the Witwatersrand and nearby regions.

I do not want to get into any argument about whether Natal should give the Transvaal water or whether any province should give any other province water. We do have this vast potential for development in Natal. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that, while he is thinking of taking water from the Spioenkop Dam to the Transvaal, he is leaving sufficient in Natal for this potential development? We believe that Natal, with its vast Bantu labour resources and its natural resources and with the nature of the land and with the water we have there, can develop into the industrial heart of South Africa. The Town and Regional Planning Commission, as I have said, has conducted surveys and has drawn plans, but the limiting factor in each instance is water. We want an assurance that sufficient water will be left for that development in Natal. We want an assurance that this water is not going to be wasted. We want an assurance that the Transvaal is not going to look upon Natal as a natural water reservoir and that development in the Vaal triangle will not continue and expand further at the expense of Natal. To draw on Natal’s water, to relieve a shortage in the Transvaal and to replenish supplies in the Vaal Dam, to keep existing industries and other works in that area going, is fine. We agree that we must pull our weight. South Africa is one country and we agree that Natal must help where possible. But we do not want this done at the expense of Natal, at the expense of future development in Natal. As long as Natal has water to spare the Transvaal is welcome to it. But we do not want to see further expansion, which is going to be dependent upon Natal always being in the position to provide water permanently, for the Transvaal.

Mr. Chairman, judging from what is being said in this House as well as outside then we have probably, for the first time in our history, come to realize what a great need we have in South Africa for water conservation and dams for irrigational purposes. I just want to mention here that this will not be the end of the story, but that we will also be asked to make sacrifices, to make financial contributions towards that end. When the time comes to supply these needs we will have to be prepared to make these sacrifices. All these things will not be acquired if we do not make sacrifices for them. On behalf of our voters in the Boegoeberg settlement I want to thank the Government and the Minister for the …

Oh!

… assistance which has been offered there. Yes, one may well say “Oh”, but the people who were in need and who had need of the amount which is being made available for them are truly thankful. On their behalf I want to say—and this is their personal request—that I am conveying their personal gratitude to the Government for this contribution which was made at a time when all was dark about them. They will never let it pass by unnoticed because they are able to appreciate it and will also appreciate it in the future. That amount of R1.5 million which has been made available to them in respect of the further development of their smallholdings in order to revive their production ability is a grant-in-aid which no one who is aware of those people’s needs can allow to pass unnoticed.

We are glad to ascertain that in the last stage as well, and in the late stage, other provision is also being made for further expansion in the Boegoeberg area. The additional assistance was made available and appropriated for my constituency in particular. For that reason I want to express my gratitude. It will fill a need which has always existed. One of the greatest problems in that area was that there was insufficient water for our irrigation requirements. In view of the enlargement and the raising of the canal which will take place in the future I want to say that one of our problems, probably the greatest and most important problem there, will to a great extent be solved.

But the problem which my voters and I have there in the area where there are 90 miles under canal irrigation is not owing to too little water nor to prices for their products which are too low. It is owing to changeable circumstances from one year to another in that Boegoeberg settlement. There was a period during the fifties when we suffered flood damages. There was another period during which we experienced drought. We have now experienced consecutive periods of drought during which our people had no income because we had no water available for irrigation. Following that there were flood damages. A period of 18 months passed during which those people had no income with which to meet their obligations.

As I say, we are grateful for the great assistance which has been afforded my constituency. But here we have to realize that even though provision has now been made to enable those people to become productive again, to level their lands, to plant their crops, to repair their canals, no provision has been made to ensure that they have an income. Over a period of 18 months those people were in a position where they could not meet their financial obligations. Now they are in this position that 18 months must elapse before they will once again have a normal income. I can assure you, Sir, that a sombre future lies ahead for these people.

Now I want to ask for only one thing today. Those people have not lost heart. They will carry on. No matter how difficult that may be, they will carry on. They are inured to hardships and know the road to follow to build a future for themselves. But now the people are unhappy because in a certain respect they have no security. They have no stability because they do not know whether they are going to experience another drought to-morrow or the day after, or another water shortage, so that they will suffer from disasters similar to those experienced in the past.

But here we have to realize that even through now.

Yes, I am glad, and I am stating that in public now. We hope that with the building of this project this great problem will in time be solved. It will still take some time—four, five even six years lie ahead for us before we will reap the benefit of the development of this scheme. I would like the assurance—or I can call it a word of comfort—that we may rest assured that in the years which lie ahead before the Orange River scheme is completed we will be able to obtain water, even if it is from somewhere else, so that we will not again suffer from a disaster such as we have suffered during the past few years, because, Sir, if a similar disaster were to strike our farmers there during the next few years it would mean the end of those farmers and of the Boegoeberg settlement scheme. Other steps will then have to be taken in order to get them on their feet again. For the sake of those people we must remain in close contact with those people, we must keep in touch with them, so that we can remain aware of those problems until such time as the Orange River scheme will be able to assist them as far as the problems of drought are concerned.

We know that the Boegoeberg settlement scheme consists of many small-holdings. The water being provided for them, is controlled by an Act. Many of these people are entitled to only one morgen above the canal. If they do have more than that, they do not have the right to irrigate it. They do not receive water for it. None of the small-holdings consist of more than one morgen above the canal, but nevertheless there are some people who do have one or two morgen above the canal. I want to ask that those people who have more than one morgen, even though it is only a half or one morgen must be able to cultivate it and obtain water for it. It would be of great value, both as concerns the production capacity of the farmer, as far as his financial position. I am asking the Minister and the Government to give this matter some attention.

I want to conclude with this last thought, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister were to give this his attention. A certain period of time is associated with these lands which have been made available to afford the farmers there an opportunity of levelling their land They can make application for loans and subsidies. The period ends on 30th June, I now want to ask that, since certain circumstances exist which I do not want to mention now consideration should be given to extending that period.

I am just rising to express a word of gratitude, this is a matter I feel very strongly about. During February of this year the area of the Lower Orange was inundated by the flood waters of the Orange River. Five thousand morgen of land was inundated Thus the farmers there, approximately 3,000 of them, experienced two winters in one year. I am rising here now to thank the Government for the special allocation of R1.5 million in order to help the people. Agriculture in that area is a key industry and 80 per cent of my voters are affected by this assistance and will benefit from it. Because agriculture is a key industry it is a good thing that the Government acts in the same way towards agriculture as it acts towards other primary key industries, such as the gold industry, if their prospects dwindle rapidly. In particular I want to express my gratitude for the expedition with which attention was given to the results of this disaster—to all the Ministers and to the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs who visited the area— as well as for the quick action of the officials. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that it was not only agriculture in that region which received assistance, but all sectors. The people there are very grateful to our Government for what it has done to create prospects for them again in the season which lies ahead.

When the late Captain Strydom represented the constituency Aliwal in this House he very often, when things were not going well, used to throw his hands in the air and cry, “Mercy!” After to-day’s discussion on water affairs, I also want to cry “Mercy!”. And yet the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had the temerity on such an occasion to talk to me about water for peace! I have not yet experienced any of that peace. But before I reply to points raised in this debate I want to say a few words with reference to a remark made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He thanked me because I had allegedly had the decency to reply to a member in the language he had used. Of course I accept all the thanks I can get, but at the same time I want to say that we have long since progressed past the stage where we have to put ourselves out in this Parliament to speak in the language of the previous speaker to whom we have to reply. We have two languages in South Africa. They are our languages. In this House we use that language which we find the easiest to speak and in which we are best able to express our thoughts. It makes no difference whether it is Afrikaans or whether it is English. Now and again I speak English merely to keep my band in in that language However, I do not find it very easy. I find it much easier to express myself in my own language than I am able to do in my second language. I think we should really get away from the idea now that the one language is that of the English-speaking persons and that the other language is that of the Afrikaans-speaking persons. No such phenomenon exists—they are both official languages here in South Africa and one speaks the language one finds it the easiest to use.

But now to return to the points which were raised in this debate. The hon. member for South Coast touched upon a few important matters of policy in his half-hour speech the other day. In the first instance he asked us to ensure that we made provision in the first place for the established areas of our development before going further and making water available for new points of growth. I agree with the hon. member, although only partly. At the same time the hon. member spoke about the development of our international rivers. I do not want to elaborate on this matter on this occasion because it is a matter which is at present under discussion. Two weeks ago, a conference was held in regard to this matter, and further conferences will probably be held shortly. All that I want to say is that since the entire Southern Africa is obsessed to-day with the waters of these international rivers it would be very stupid if we did not stake out our interests at once. In these times in which we are living we will have to stake out our interests very thoroughly. This matter does not concern only the border rivers—it also concerns the tributary rivers. All that I want to say in regard to this matter here this afternoon, is that we must stake out our interests at once. I think the hon. member for South Coast will pardon me if I did not elaborate on that any further.

I do not want to embarrass you.

The hon. member also referred to the necessity for a national grid system in South Africa. He said that nowadays much publicity was given to the thought of a national water grid which would inter-connect all the water resources of the Republic. He said this would have the effect that during periods of shortages water could be transferred from one area to another, in the same way as electricity was interchanged from one station to another by connecting power generating stations to a national grid system. Now, I must say that this is a wonderful idea—that is, if we can always carry it through.

We have the greatest confidence in your ability to carry it out.

But there is one thing I cannot do and that is to lead water upstream. In any event, this idea when applied to the distribution of water has its limitations because the flow of water is subject to the force of gravity, something which has no effect on the transmission of electricity. But this system of a water grid is being developed in South Africa already to a very great extent. Let me mention just a few places. Take, for instance, the Orange River. An area of 23,000 morgen of existing irrigation development in the Great Fish River Valley and 11,000 morgen in the Sundays River Valley is being integrated with the Orange River project in order to supplement the water resources of the Great Fish River and the Sundays River. In addition, the water resources of the city of Port Elizabeth, namely the Krom River and the Gamtoos River will be supplemented from the Orange River, thereby ensuring for all times the adequacy of Port Elizabeth’s water supply. In the Rustenburg complex we have the same system; also in the Pietermaritzburg-Hammarsdale complex and in the Pretoria complex. Then there is the Usutu project, where the Jericho Dam has been constructed on the territory of the Usutu River and supplies water to the Camden power station. There too we have the same system. The city of Bloemfontein is going to get its water from the Orange. So there we are also applying this system. In East London the department has investigated a project which will link the water resources of the Kubusi River with the water resources of the Buffalo River in order to supply future water requirements of the city of East London when the city’s local water resources on the Buffalo River are eventually exhausted. I can carry on and quote other instances at random where this system is already in operation. That system of a water grid is already being developed in South Africa, and of course, we can develop it more and more in future.

The hon. member for South Coast is extremely worried that people in other areas of Natal will pollute the water of the South Coast. I cannot blame him. I may say that investigations have been conducted into alleged pollution of the Umgeni River by certain industrial concerns. One firm has subsequently completely solved its effluent problems. A second industrial enterprise will shortly connect its works to the Durban municipal sewer. The pollution problem of a third industrial undertaking is still unsolved and under investigation by the Department The first marine effluent disposal pipeline under construction by the Durban municipality has been damaged. This is delaying the solution of the municipal effluent marine disposal problem. One industry in that part could not solve its problem and closed down. We are giving our attention to this question of pollution. Several hon. members on both sides of the House raised this matter here.

*It is a serious problem, but we are making use to-day of world experts to advise us in regard to certain effluents, and on their advice we will construct purification works at Hammarsdale which will ensure that further pollution does not take place.

The hon. member for Witbank complained here about the pollution of water by our old coal mines. We are already engaged on an experiment in this regard. At Witbank the major problem is that rain water collects at the old coal mines which then results in pollution. I think that we will be able to overcome this problem. We are giving this matter of pollution our very serious attention.

The hon. member for South Coast also spoke about the water from the Pongola River which had filled certain pans. Now that this dam has been completed and the flood waters are being contained these pans will no longer be able to fill themselves. The hon. member is concerned about this because he regarded those pans as a tourist attraction, but we are getting the best of the exchange there. Instead of those pans which would have served as a tourist attraction we are now giving them that tremendous dam, which will also serve as a tourist attraction. We have so much good land for irrigation purposes below the Pongola Dam that I really cannot say to-day that we will also give water to fill the pans with; I really cannot promise that.

The hon. member also spoke about sweetening the water of the St. Lucia lake. The hon. member is correct, it would be quite easy to lead this water into the lake, but with the construction of the St. Lucia dam and the other conservation works which are being constructed at the mouth of the estuary, I think the water of the St. Lucia lake ought to be fresh enough. The water in that lake must not be made too fresh because salt river fish must also be able to survive in it. The water can only be sweetened to a certain extent; it may not be made too fresh. I think that we will be able to control the quality of that water. The St. Lucia lake is definitely something out of the ordinary and unique in South Africa and the Government will see to it that it does not deteriorate, even if the lake has later on to be filled from water from the Pongola.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus raised a very important matter yesterday. He said that primary producers feared that they would ultimately be ploughed under as a result of the tertiary use of water. Mr. Chairman, surely that can never happen. We know that the tertiary use of water is becoming more and more important these days; we know that if a country is to develop industrially, more and more water must be provided for tertiary use, but we also know that industrial development results in increased food consumption, and no country in the world can develop in an economically balanced way if one sector lags behind the other. In future it will be our duty to see to it that, where necessary, there will be water for industrial development, but it will be as necessary. or even more so. to see to it that there will be water for food production. It is of no benefit to anybody having a beautiful refrigerator in his pantry if there is no food in it: it is of no benefit to anybody in the world having refrigerating rooms if they are not filled. In regard to our industrial development we will continually have to see to it that the primary producer is not left behind. I want to assure the hon. member for Potgietersrus that as long as the National Party is in power the farmers need have no fear that they will be ploughed under by tertiary industries.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke again this afternoon about the pollution of water. I think that we have already furnished a full reply to that question. The hon. member also asked whether we could not make more use of the C.S.I.R. in order to determine the quality of water for us. Mr. Chairman, we are using the Bureau of Standards for that purpose. I do not think we would be able to obtain a better determination of the quality of water than that which the Bureau of Standards is doing for us; we are consistently making use of the Bureau.

The hon. member for Albany spoke about the waste water of Port Elizabeth. He asked us to see to it that that waste water was used beneficially. The hon. member said that although there were major waste waterworks in the interior and it was quite right that the water there should be returned to the rivers to be used lower down, he could not see the need for that water being returned to the sea when those works were situated along the coast nor could he see why it could not be beneficially re-utilized. I think that was a good idea of his. I shall go into that matter. The policy is for that water to be returned to the stream, that where the stream runs into the sea immediately afterwards we can go into the matter to see whether we cannot use that water in another way until such time as it is directly re-utilized by the industry.

The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke about the need for water for the development in Pietersburg. That is, of course, correct. Pietersburg has been proclaimed a border industry area, and rapid independent growth is taking place there. More water will have to be supplied there. The hon. member for Soutpansberg, of course, does not care in the least if we take all that water as long as we supply his people with other water. But I realize that there is a double need for water. Those things, new water schemes there, are already being investigated, and they will be established in time before there is any real danger. The hon. member for Nelspruit also made an interesting speech on the general principles of water provision. There remains nothing for me to say except that I am aware of the need for that. But the hon. member for Fauresmith, just as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) was concerned about Provincial Water. Now I want to say this afternoon that to my mind there are no provincial boundaries as far as water is concerned. As long as I remain Minister of Water Affairs I shall never hesitate to take water anywhere and put it to use where it will do the most good. [Interjection.] I shall take the Free State water and bring it to the Cape, but I shall also take the Natal water and use it in the Free State. Water must be utilized in the most economic way possible. Now the hon. member for Fauresmith made the point that it would be very much cheaper to use the water from the Caledon for the development which must take place in Bloemfontein, than it is to use the water from the Orange River. That is correct. I am now having a dam site investigated on the Caledon River. To date it is being maintained that Bloemfontein will be able to obtain water from that region at more or less 21 cents per 1000 gallons, whereas it will cost 43 cents to bring it from the Orange River. It appears that the scheme in the Caledon River will cost R13 million, whereas the pipeline from the Orange River to Bloemfontein will cost R23 million. If we are therefore able to supply a big city like Bloemfontein with water from the Caledon at 20 cents per 1,000 gallons cheaper, and we are able to supply all the downstream areas with water as well, instead of those upstream, as in the case with the water from the Orange, then it appears to me to be a very fair scheme worthy of further investigation and I shall have that scheme investigated with all despatch. But that scheme will do more. The south-eastern Free State is a good area with fertile soil, but that region is running dry and absolutely nothing is being done to develop it. The Orange River development, as it has taken place at present, will achieve nothing whatsoever in that area. This scheme on the Caledon River will also make it possible to irrigate 3,000 morgen in the South-eastern Free State. I shall therefore give this matter my serious attention, not because it is a Free State scheme, but because it is such a good scheme.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg expressed his fear, inter alia, in regard to the effect which afforestation is having on our streams and he summarized the tests which have been made to prove that afforestation is reducing the natural flow of our water. There is no doubt that this is absolutely true. A commission has now been convened by the Department of Forestry, on which other Departments are also serving, in order to go into the matter. The hon. member said that it was not enough that a sponge of 100 yards only was being allowed. Do you know, I had an old neighbour called Evangelist and he assured me that the roots of a eucalyptus tree went as far as an hour’s ride per horseback in search of water. The hon. member has not gone so far, but he has said that 100 yards is inadequate. We are going into that matter and there is no doubt that afforestation has a tremendous effect on the flow of our natural streams, particularly eucalyptus trees.

The hon. member for Heidelberg spoke about the wastage of water. I think that all of us in South Africa realize the importance of water, but in spite of that there is no other necessity of life which is easier to waste than water. But I am glad to see that the entire community, as it appears to me, is becoming water conscious. Somebody told me yesterday that after the water restrictions in Pretoria, now that the water restriction has been lifted, the people are using barely 60 per cent of the water which they first used. I know that it is still raining, but I asked them what the effect of the rains were, and they said that in comparison with other rainy seasons, the people were now using much less water. I take it that they will in time learn to waste again, but in the meantime they have at least learned to have a respect for water.

The hon. member for Prieska asked me for a word of comfort in regard to water which has to be provided to his region in the event of another drought before the Orange River scheme has been completed. I am afraid that all I can do is weep on his shoulder, apart from that I can do nothing. If there is no water there is no water. The last water restrictions were imposed as a result of the fact that water was not available. And if there is no water we cannot provide it.

The hon. member for Newton Park asked me about the payment of the farmers in the Vaalharts area where discrimination took place in regard to water restrictions when compared to the other areas also receiving water from the Vaal dam. He read out a statement in which I had promised that there would be compensation. Of course there will be compensation. We are dealing with the matter. The question is what the compensation should be. Investigations were made and it was decided that we could not reach finality before the people reaped their summer harvest. That was approximately in February. To-morrow the commission is sitting again. The Member of Parliament for that constituency has already left to attend that commission meeting. The day after to-morrow the commission is sitting again and I have said that I will have my report before the end of this month and that he will then have finality in regard to this matter. There is no doubt that these people are going to be paid out. It was said the other day that because they had not been paid out yet the people were suffering hardships because they had to put down new crops. The Minister in question said that I must let them know that all they had to do is ask for crop loans and that they will receive them in the meantime. There is no doubt that they will receive compensation. It will soon be finally determined.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 37,—“Defence, R256,000,000”.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour. Before coming to the Vote, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing on behalf of this side of the House, and I am sure for the whole House, a word of congratulation to the South African Navy on their official “coming of age”. It is of course misleading to think of the Navy in terms of being only 21 years old because their tradition goes back very much further. It is a tradition in men and history matured in service to South Africa and our Allies, a service that has been tested by fire which is honoured, I believe, by all South Africans for its unmarked graves throughout the seven seas of the world. So we wish the Navy luck in the years ahead, not by giving them a key to the door, but by recognizing them as the keeper of the doorway to South Africa, the door through which any enemy must enter from the sea. We will later in this vote deal with the role which the Navy has to play in that task

This Vote of R256 million is more than double the amount of any other Vote, except provincial administrations collectively, in the whole of the Budget. This next nearest is R110 million for social welfare and pensions. When you think that you are spending on defence more than twice as much as you are spending on social welfare and more than eight times as much as you are spending on education, then you must ask yourself firstly whether this expenditure is necessary, and secondly whether it is being properly applied. I think we must look on the Defence Vote in terms of a life insurance policy. No one wants to see the day when the insurance policy is paid out. In a life insurance policy you are not there to see the pay-out. It is money which we are spending as a Parliament and a country as an insurance against events which we hope will never happen. Against that hope it is necessary that we should ensure that the policy is effective. Therefore we on this side of the House do not oppose the expenditure. We do not oppose the spending of money on what, to us, is vital for the future of our country. What we do do is to demand of the Government the closest possible control over the expenditure of that money. We have offered our co-operation before in various forms and on each occasion it has been rejected. Therefore, Sir, it is up to us, in dealing with this Vote, to scrutinize that expenditure across the floor of the House, to question it and to seek from the Government assurances and evidence that this vast amount of money which we are voting is being put to the best possible use. One of the fields in which much of the money is spent is closed to us in this debate. That is the field of training. We have before a Select Committee a Bill which deals specifically with amendments to the Defence Act in connection with training. Therefore we are not going to refer to that, other than to mention in passing that one of the wastage factors which concerns us not only as far as training is concerned, but throughout, is the wastage of time. Time is a commodity just as valuable as money. To waste a man’s time, a day or a week or a month of his life, is as much a waste as though we were pouring money down the drain. One of the things which concerns us is the amount of time which is wasted, or appears to be wasted in the running of a vast organization such as the Defence Force. One of the fields in which we shall call for improvement is in the control and use of manpower so that the greatest possible effectiveness is obtained from every man-hour.

Looking at the matters which fall under this head, I think one can divide them into two groups, namely external and domestic matters. I want to deal firstly with certain matters which would fall under the heading of “external”.

The first of these is the arms embargo which many countries have applied against South Africa. This is an embargo which has been forced on those countries in many cases by the enemies of South Africa, by people hostile to our country. It is an embargo which I think one can regard almost in the light of a sop to international blackmail, and now that this embargo on arms has been applied for some time, we have had time to judge its effect. I want to say that we on this side of the House believe that whilst it has been a nuisance—when the question is asked, we must say: Yes, it has been a nuisance—and whilst it has created difficulties—one admits that it has created difficulties—we can say equally certainly that it has not crippled South Africa’s defences. I think that the world should know this, particularly those wishful thinkers who continually talk of using force against South Africa, and hope in the process to find an easy target for attack, a target weakened by the application of arms embargoes by people who have always been and should always remain our friends. We must say to them clearly and unequivocally that this embargo has not crippled nor has it destroyed our ability to defend South Africa. Rather has it strengthened our resolve to do so. It has strengthened our resolve and our determination to defend South Africa against any aggression from wherever it may come. What is more, I believe that it has strengthened our self-reliance as a country. Self-reliance is nothing new to us. In the last war South Africa showed what it could do in the field of manpower and in the field of manufacture of weapons, of armoured cars, of various other items required. We have done it before and I believe that what is happening now is making us even more determined to become self-reliant and to be able to make for ourselves those things which we cannot obtain. Any would-be aggressor will discover to his cost that South Africa will never be a pushover and that aggression will meet with the united determination of the whole nation to resist that aggression. I believe that the measure of this is the fact that we as an Opposition say it. That is why I say it specifically. As an Opposition we are totally opposed to the Government’s ideology, we are often bitter over the harm which we believe this Government has done to South Africa, we oppose so many of its policies, including racial policies, but we regard that as our fight. We will settle that ourselves as between South African and South African. We will settle it through the ballot box, through our machinery of Government in this country. We say to those who would poke their nose into the fight, that they are likely to get it bloodied. [Interjection.] There are some members of the Government, like the member who was interjecting here behind me, who regard the defence of South Africa as a soap box matter. [Interjections.] Yes, he interjected “seepkis”. If that is the reaction of the Government to the attitude of this side of the House towards a common defence of South Africa, then God help South Africa if this Government should ever have to exercise responsibility without the assistance of the Opposition. I want to tell that hon. member that if there is a war in South Africa, there will be no fifth column this time. The Opposition will do its duty to South Africa. I think it is necessary that the Government should be disabused of any idea that it is there for ever. No Government is there for ever. When we become the Government in due time then we will expect of them the same loyalty which we offer and which we confirm and repeat now.

Now I want to turn to some other aspects of the arms embargo. I think we must admit that there are adverse effects. The first of these is that the embargo must inevitably inflate the prices of items which we have to buy. Inevitably we will have to seek goods, to use the common term, in the black market. We seek an assurance from the Minister that in seeking goods which we cannot obtain through the front door, we are not being taken for a ride by middle men or profiteers. I am not referring to the ride which an hon. Deputy Minister took to Israel and Paris with an arms agent. I am referring to the exploitation of difficulties which we might have in obtaining arms by those persons who use these difficulties as an excuse to make profits. Whatever our difficulties may be, I do not believe that those difficulties justify the making of excessive profits by any middle man through any person exploiting that situation.

Secondly, the arms embargo is undoubtedly forcing our trade and purchases away from our traditional suppliers to other suppliers. That, I think, is in many respects unfortunate—particularly where we are equipped with certain types of arms, ships and weapons but cannot complement them or add to them because of the arms embargo. I think it is necessary to say that we on this side of the House regard as unreasonable the attitude of those countries which, under the cloak of refusing us arms which could be used internally for the suppression of internal disorder or for forcing policies on the people, refuse us arms which, in their wildest imagination could not be regarded as for domestic use. One can imagine a submarine going up the Umsinduzi or hiding in Florida Lake, waiting to lob a few missiles into Soweto. I cannot think of anything more ridiculous. But I think it is tragic that arms which we require in order to play our part as part of a world force against Communism are denied to us. I also think that it is tragic that political pressure are being allowed to push us out of the role which we should be playing as part of the free world.

A third adverse effect of the embargo is that it is creating resentment and feelings of antagonism towards people who should be our friends. It is weakening the contribution which we could make in a world war. To our friends who want to see South Africa on the side of the West, I would appeal that they do not close the door against us. South Africa is the last area of real stability in the continent of Africa. It is an area of stability which the world will require in any world conflict. To keep us out of any plan and to deny us any part in such a world conflict, is to my mind a shortsighted policy on the part of the anti-communist nations. Thus, whilst we criticize those who I believe have unjustly turned against South Africa, we also warn those who wish to take advantage of it, that they will do so at their peril. We feel that these matters will right themselves, and we ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to give us in his reply to this debate a picture of the extent to which we are overcoming our difficulties, the extent to which we are replacing the gaps which have been caused and the extent to which the attitude which this side of the House takes up, is in fact borne out by the facts which he is able to disclose.

I want to refer to one or two other matters. Firstly, I want to refer to the Buccaneers and to ask whether we are able to continue to obtain sufficient spares, replacements and ammunition. I want to know whether we are able to obtain for our frigates spares, weapons and ammunition, as we require them. If not, then I would ask him to tell us what his plans are in this respect in regard to replacement or to substitution.

Next I would like to deal with the announcement regarding submarines for South Africa and ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact an order has been placed. The hon. the Minister announced that he had signed an agreement entitling him to purchase submarines. News reports from France stated that South Africa had in fact placed an order. I think we are entitled to ask what the actual position is. Have we ordered, have we committed ourselves, and if so. would the hon. the Minister give us details of when we can expect delivery or when delivery is planned? Also, would he give us some indication of the plans which he is making for the training of the crews which would be required for such submarines? [Interjection] … and if my hon. friend from Klip River believes that a submarine can be delivered to-morrow morning, then it shows the measure of his utter ignorance.

There is another aspect relating to the submarines. What arrangements or facilities are being made for deep water recovery in the event of a submarine disaster. We had the experience recently when one of our aircraft sank and we were unable to salvage it. It sank in some 180 feet of water and with all the resources in South Africa we could not salvage that aircraft. Now, if we are to send our youth off to sea in a submarine with the possibility of that submarine having a mechanical breakdown or something else going wrong which leaves it on the seabed, we would like an assurance that proper provision has been made for the necessary equipment for recovery and sufficiently quick recovery to prevent loss of life in a case where it can be prevented.

Then there is the question of local conflicts. There are conflicts in Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us to what extent we have got observers in those conflicts and to what extent we are able to get information which will be of value to our forces in their training and in their planning. I have not the time to go into it but I have here a list of all the countries which are assisting in one or other way in Vietnam. It runs into some six pages. We, of course do not figure amongst them. I want to hear from the Minister whether we have offered to help or whether any discussions have taken place, and whether any facilities have been made available for us to obtain first-hand information regarding modern warfare under these conditions.

Then I should like to ask the Minister to let us into a secret. Last December he announced with a flourish at a religious occasion, the Day of the Covenant celebrations, the existence of a secret weapon in South Africa.

A boomerang.

Well, we were very pleased to hear that, but I hope that it is not a boomerang as is suggested by the back-bencher sitting behind the Minister. I hope that South Africa has advanced beyond the stage of bushcarts and boomerangs! If this is indeed a secret weapon, then the Minister used a most unfortunate method and occasion on which to let the secret out. But on that occasion he also said that within a few months details would be given to the nation. Now the months have passed and I ask the Minister to let us into the secret—and I hope that it is a good one! I do not believe that we need to bluff, and I hope that this was not bluff. I hope that when the Minister tells us, when he lets us into the secret, it is in fact going to be what he said it would be, namely something really worthwhile to South Africa.

In the moment or two left I want to deal with one or two domestic matters. The first is the question of what, I believe, is the excessive extent to which the Government applies secrecy in defence matters. The hon. the Minister gave us an assurance that he would be giving us a White Paper. We hoped that we would have it for this Session. We have not had it. One was issued in 1965 which was of tremendous interest. I hope that that action will be repeated. Other countries publish regular and extensive information, and there seems no reason why South Africa should be denied that information. I believe that we are making a fetish of secrecy, and as a result proper control over the expenditure of the money which this House votes is not always possible. I should like to ask the Minister to give an answer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pinetown in the last Defence Vote, when he pleaded for proper control, even to the extent of profit control in respect of military contracts. Contracts are placed under the cloak of secrecy and this House has no idea of what is being spent or what profits are being made. I believe that there should be much greater publicity given to the expenditure of money which we are voting for defence purposes.

I believe also that a great improvement should be made in the control of stores and in the protection of stores. Some years ago—I think three years ago—there was very strong criticism of the Department for its failure to properly protect its vehicles. This House voted one million rand at that time for covered accommodation for vehicles. I see now that we are asked to vote the fifth portion towards that one million rand, namely a sum of R150,000. The other four portions together total R50,000. So out of a million rand which this House put aside to protect military vehicles, only R50,000 has been spent and the expenditure of only R150,000 is planned for this year. In the meantime those vehicles continue to stand in the rain and the sun and the sand and to deteriorate. I do not think that this House can refrain from criticizing the lack of control and the lack of protection which, I believe, is very widespread in regard to stores and equipment.

In the next place members on this side will deal in some greater detail with the question of the permanent force and the staff shortage. There is a shortage of 5,874 men, and I believe that that indicates that the Government has failed to make the conditions attractive enough to draw the people required by our permanent force. The Government has the responsibility. It cannot do it, I feel, through pay alone, but must do so through fringe benefits, such as housing in particular, amenities, leave and travel facilities. By that I believe we could greatly cut down that shortage in the permanent force in this way.

There is considerable dissatisfaction over some of the discrepancies and the discrimination in regard to pay. For instance, a technical warrant officer receives far more than junior commissioned officers, right up to the rank of a major in some cases. The same position obtains in the navy. I feel that it is wrong that there should be anomalies of this nature which create resentment, which create antagonism, and which therefore do harm to morale and reduce the attraction which the permanent force has for potential recruits. People are not going to join something when they hear its members grousing. That is one of the many grouses which one hears.

Then I believe that in regard to the Citizens Force there is tremendous room for improvement in the pay scales. Year after year, going back for many years now, we have raised the question particularly of the dependants’ allowance for members of the Citizens Force. Year after year—I do not have the time to quote them, but I have all the questions here—we have been told that it was being investigated. It is still being investigated, it is still unsatisfactory, and I hope that something can be done about it.

Lastly, Sir, I want to deal with the rights of members of Parliament to take up matters which affect those who have, for one or other reason, suffered an injustice or unfairness whilst serving in the forces. I took up a matter which, as it happened, came to me from relatives and without the knowledge of the people concerned. There had been a mistake, a slip-up, which was corrected. I received nothing but courtesy from the Department and a very speedy correction. But I heard afterwards that the people concerned who had had nothing to do with it—who did not even know that I had been approached—were reprimanded for going to a member of Parliament. I think that it is necessary that we should state clearly that we as members of Parliament have a responsibility to our constituents. The fact that they are in the army does not shut them off from the protection of this, the highest body in the land. This is the Parliament responsible for the welfare of the people, and that means all the people. Whilst there must be discipline, whilst there must be rules and regulations, I believe that we have an inalienable right to take up and to deal with any matter affecting any person for whom we are responsible as representatives. I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that in future there will be no victimization if any of us as members of Parliament take up matters which, we believe, are wrong and require putting right. That would be undemocratic and that would be contrary to the spirit of representation by members of Parliament in this House.

Other hon. members will deal in more detail with some of these matters on which I have touched, and I look forward to the replies of the Minister to the questions which I raised.

In the first place I want to make a few observations on what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point). With regard to the so-called time-wasting which has been referred to before and to which he referred again to-day, I want to point out that an attempt to eliminate time-wasting is now being made in the new legislation which will come before the House later. We are not allowed to discuss that legislation now, but we hope that the measures contained in that Bill will put an end to this.

With regard to financial control I do not have much to say except that we know, in the first place, that purchases by the Defence Force take place under the control of the Tender Board, like all other purchases by the State, and that in the final instance control is exercised by the Controller and Auditor-General. It is not quite clear in what sense the hon. member desires greater control over the expenditure of the Department.

In the first place I want to proffer my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his recent deputation abroad on the success they achieved there, and I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the honour conferred on him there. I think they did South Africa a great service in the work they performed there. With reference to the fact that this year members of the Defence groups on both sides of the House were given an opportunity to visit various Defence Force installations, I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the arrangements made for us and for the opportunities created for us to become more closely acquainted with the Defence Force and its activities. I must say that the arrangements which were made for us were very good and that we were received most hospitably. To many of us the things we saw were an eye-opener. We saw in what a state of preparation our Defence Force actually is. I should like to express my gratitude for that.

I should like to make a plea for further investigation into certain matters relating to the Defence Force. In recent years we have had very important inquiries. I am thinking, for example, of the extensive inquiry carried out by the Groenewoud Committee into the question of training and other Defence Force matters. I have already said that the legislation which is before a seect committee at the moment wi ater be introduced into this House. The findings or some of the findings of the Groenewoud Committee will be incorporated in that legislation, and I do not want to say any more about that. Then we have had another very important inquiry, namely that of the Verster Committee on the question of the integration or otherwise of the defence secretariat with the Defence Force organization. We know that the secretariat which previously existed and which caused a great deal of duplicating has now been abolished and that an attempt is being made to integrate the civil control which should exist in the Defence Force with the Defence Force organization, so that the Commandant-General has now become the sole accounting officer of the Department. I think this is a very great improvement. We shall look forward with interest to the actual results of this new dispensation in the Defence Force.

To-day I should like to plead for another matter for which I have pleaded before, and this relates to control which is exercised by the Public Service Commission over appointments, promotions and conditions of service in the Defence Force. As we are now bringing about this re-organization, I think it is also time to give serious attention to this matter. To me it appears to be anomalous that a civil organization should have total discretion in the improvement of conditions of service and remuneration in the Defence Force and that the Defence Force should have no say in that regard. We know that this has given rise to an attempt to establish common scales for certain ranks in the Public Service and certain ranks in the Defence Force. I regard this as anomalous because I do not think that the activities of the Defence Force can be compared with the activities of the Public Service. One cannot compare a sailor, who serves on board a ship for weeks at a time and who goes out to sea and is never at home, with an ordinary public official who sits in his office. One cannot compare their activities and their duties. I should like to give some extreme instances as examples.

Take the case of a Mirage pilot. I do not think the conditions of service of a Mirage pilot and those of an ordinary public official are comparable in any way, and for that reason I feel that it is wrong that control over the Defence Force appointments, etc., should be exercised by the Public Service Commission without representation of the Defence Force on the Public Service Commission. There has in fact been an improvement as a result of the abolition of the secretariat. Previously all submissions of the Defence Force with regard to conditions of service and remuneration had to go through the secretariat to the Public Service Commission. Now that the secretariat has been abolished the Defence Force does have an opportunity to discuss the conditions of service in the Defence Force directly with the Public Service Commission and to make their submissions directly to the Commission. In effect this means that the soldier now has the opportunity, which he did not have in the past, to go to the Public Service Commission himself and to present his case to them; he need not have his case presented through a civil official. I think this is a great improvement, but if we want to do justice to our defence forces, then in my personal view the Defence Force should have its own staff commission to lay down the conditions of service, the remuneration, etc., of members of the Defence Force in accordance with their circumstances and merits. I want to say at once that I am not in favour of having a staff commission comprising Defence Force members only; I think there should be a civil representative on that commission, but I feel that that commission should be independent and that the Defence Force should be fully represented on it.

Then I should like to raise another matter and this is the question of fringe benefits. In the past we have had commissions which performed important work, and I want to plead that in this regard we should also appoint a commission. In thinking of fringe benefits, one thinks firstly of the question of housing. Five or six years ago the Government accepted as a matter of policy that 60 per cent of the Defence Force families should be accommodated in Government housing. It was accepted as policy and I must say that a tremendous deal has been done and that one has cause for gratitude A tremendous deal has been done to provide housing to Defence Force members, but we know that the Defence Force has expanded enormously in the past five or six years. We also know that the so-called pot-luck quarters, which were previously used to house families—I am now referring to various old barracks and camps—are at present used for training the Citizen Force and for other purposes. In other words, not only has the expansion of the Defence Force aggravated the housing shortage, but the problem has also been aggravated by the fact that cheap potluck quarters in which the people were previously accommodated, have been taken away from them. I am informed that at present we still need approximately 3,000 houses to accommodate the Defence Force in terms of that policy. Now I should like to plead for something which I think is rather radical but which in my opinion is a solution to this problem. I want to plead that the Government should adopt the policy of granting cheap loans to members of the Defence Force and also to other public servants. [Time expired.]

Those of us on this side of the House who were able to take advantage of the opportunity to visit defence installations would certainly like to associate ourselves with the introductory remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). We found these visits instructive and useful and I am quite sure that they were beneficial to all of us.

The hon. member subsequently mentioned two other issues, the control of appointments and conditions of service through the Public Service Commission and the issue of fringe benefits, but they were directed primarily to the hon. the Minister and I will not respond to that. I rather want to follow up on the general theme proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Point). In the limited time at my disposal I want to raise two matters. The first is concerned primarily with the long-term strategic defence planning of South Africa, and the second is concerned with the training of our Permanent Force officers.

I think it is true to say that in the past the Atlantic was regarded as the strategic ocean as far as the world is concerned. It is equally true that in the last decade or two there has been a major shift in strategic emphasis and as far as the outside world is concerned the most important ocean to-day is probably the Pacific Ocean, with the Indian Ocean also playing a very important role. In so far as South Africa, however, is concerned, I would like to suggest that the Indian Ocean has become the one which is of major strategic consequence to us and that this should dictate our long-term planning. In order to motivate this, I should say that to-day the key to international politics is probably China. Here we have a country with some 700 million people increasing at a rate of more than 1 million a month. In other words, their natural increase in any one year probably equates the total South African population. China needs Lebensraum; it must expand. Geographically and historically the direction in which it should do so is to the north, but here immediately it clashes with Russia. They cannot really expand to the south because there they encounter India and Indonesia, which are already over-populated. The indications, therefore, are that they will probably leapfrog and try to establish themselves in Africa. Hence from our point of view the importance of the Indian Ocean.

But more than this, there is also the question of the oil which comes from the Middle East. There are emergent, aggressive African nations on the east coast. There is in any case the direct route to South Africa’s industrial areas, which comes through the east. It is here that the harbours and the communication networks exist, and hence the whole focus of our defence effort, it seems to us, should also shift to our east coast. It is on the east coast that we quite clearly will need a sizeable naval base. Simonstown, although it still plays a role in general world strategy, is far too distant from the east coast. It also means that there should be airfields which could support any operations, and clearly there must be accommodation facilities for land forces. I might just mention in this context, too, that the whole position of Malagasy is one which is of the greatest possible strategic importance to South Africa. I will not take this issue any further except to suggest that as we see it in the long term our defence planning must allow for the establishment of a sizeable military base.

The second issue concerns the training of our Permanent Force officers. Here we are concerned with a cadre from which we ultimately draw our General Staff. The system in operation at present has been in existence for some 15 years. It seems to us that perhaps this system should be reviewed so that improvements could be introduced. The system at the moment takes up about four years, of which the major part of three years is devoted to academic training. It would seem that perhaps in the existing system there is too much emphasis on the academic side. Certainly this is felt by many of the candidates who are taking part in this training. We might well end up under the present system with people who are neither fish nor flesh, and with considerable emphasis on academic training their adjustment to the military scene is greatly complicated. We all accept the necessity for this sort of academic training, but if you compare it with West Point and Sandhurst you find that in our case it seems as if the academic side is over-emphasized. The choice that candidates are given also seems to be too wide. At the Military Academy at the moment we provide for about 28 different courses. Certainly the teaching staff there is not adequate to sustain training on that level. Your choice will have to be between the humanities on the one side and the basic sciences on the other. At the moment quite a number of these students prefer to specialize in the basic sciences. This is all very well and it is useful, but the point I want to make is that in science the development is so tremendously fast that what is taught to-day is probably out of date in five years’ time. South Africa’s forces will obviously need some sort of scientific element, but our force is too small to hope to contain this in the force itself. We would have to import this from organizations such as the C.S.I.R. It will probably be preferable to concentrate on training technicians on a massive scale. In any case, in the field of science, a basic degree does not add up to anything very much nowadays, because there is such a vast amount of specialization that a basic degree does not really qualify a man for anything. That being the case, it seems to me that in our officer training we might well have to narrow the field and put probably greater emphasis on the social-humanistic subjects and try to make our new officers men who have a broad background. At the moment we have too many objectives in our system of training, and by doing this we will probably find that we cannot meet the main and the basic objective. So it seems to us that it might well be appropriate that at this stage the training of our officers should be reviewed, and that we should again assess to what extent we are in fact meeting the fundamental objective that has been set.

I do not want to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. In passing I may perhaps just say that he has tried to establish that in the training of officers for our Permanent Force, there is too much concentration on the academic aspect. I just want to remind the hon. member that before admission to and enlistment in the military academy cadet officers also undergo the basic Defence Force training, and while they are undergoing their training in the military academy they remain constantly in the military field and devote attention to it.

I should like to use this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Defence on the most successful tour recently undertaken by him abroad in the company of the chief of the Defence Force and of the Navy. I also want to take this opportunity of congratulating him, I believe on behalf of both sides of this House, on the great honour conferred on him in Portugal. To him personally it is a great honour, but I believe that as South Africans we can all regard it as an honour to our entire country and to our Defence Force, and as a token of the ties of friendship between us and that important Western country, which also has important possessions here in Africa. We were particularly grateful to hear about the successful negotiations in connection with the acquisition of submarines, because one need only look at the map of Africa and have a concept of the traffic around our coasts to be able to appreciate what an important role can be played by our young Navy, which celebrated its 21st birthday only last week. Because economic circumstances have induced the British Navy to cut down on its activities, it goes without saying that as South Africa grows the task of safeguarding our coastline and also the shipping of the free world in our water devolves more and more on the shoulders of South Africa. We are therefore grateful that in this year, in which the Navy is celebrating its 21st birthday, we have heard the glad news that our naval forces are to be reinforced with submarines.

A defence force consists, firstly, of the men who have to defend and safeguard the country and, secondly, of the arms and the necessary equipment to be able to do so. If in recent times we have perhaps experienced problems in obtaining the necessary arms to safeguard our country on a basis which, as we see the task of our Defence Force, is not aggressive but purely defensive, then I think our Defence Force has succeeded in recent times in showing our friends and also our supposed friends, those countries abroad which are on our side, that we will not be brought to our knees by attempts to withhold from us what we actually need to side with them. To-day I want to express my gratitude for the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I think it is also a demonstration to the outside that in this respect we as a country, irrespective of political parties, are determined to stand united, and that we shall go to any length to safeguard and arm ourselves. In so far as it concerns the long-term planning of defence policy, which was also referred to by the hon. member who spoke before me, I feel that we may continue on our present course to gain for ourselves a place in the Western world by reinforcing our Defence Force. Even though some of the Western countries have so far hesitated or refused to give us what we needed, the strength and the ability of our Defence Force will gradually convince them of the important part played by South Africa in the defence of the Western world.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer in connection with our Defence Force, and particularly in connection with the men in charge of it. This is the way in which our Defence Force has succeeded in recent times in bringing the Defence Force to the people. The Defence Force is no longer an outflung part of our national activity. It is being integrated more and more with our daily activities. In saying that our Defence Force has succeeded in bringing itself to the nation, I am referring in particular to occasions on which the Defence Force now appears in public at local and greater functions where the common public, which previously did not know the Defence Force, is now learning to grasp the object of our Defence Force and the role to be played by it. These efforts, which assume a wide variety of forms, and also the visits which were made possible for the Parliamentary study groups this year, the appearance of the prestige orchestra of the Navy on festive occasions, the appearance of our Citizen Force units and of our Permanent Force on important occasions, and also the appearance of our Defence Force at the Republic Festival celebrations last year, are all helping to introduce our population to the new era envisaged by us, in which every young man is to play his part in the defence of his country. I believe that if it had not been for these appearances of our Defence Force, many of our young people who are growing up during a period of ease and economic prosperity would not have appreciated the necessity for playing a part in the defence of the country and for being trained specifically as a member of the Defence Force. I trust that in this way our Defence Force will continue, as opportunities arise, to come to the people and to become a part of the people, because it is from our people and from the young people that we must draw our Defence Force. Ours is a small country. It is true that the country itself is large, but we have a small population which cannot afford a permanent force as large as that of some of our Western allies. It is therefore obvious that in numbers our Defence Force must consist mainly of its Citizen Force. This must be drawn from the young people of each year. I do not want to discuss the legislation which will later come before the House. I do want to mention, however, that there are still young people and their parents who doubt whether it is really essential that such a young man or the child of such parents should take part in military training. In referring to this, I just want to say that those of us who have visited training camps are quite satisfied that our sons are receiving excellent treatment and that there is nothing of the kind insinuated by one of the hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. member for Pinetown, earlier this year when he said that there was wastage at those camps. During a visit to one of those camps a high-ranking officer told us that one of the major problems experienced by him was the fact that a considerable number of our young men who went there for training lacked the necessary awareness and dedication for participation in military training in the defence of our country. I am not saying this as a reproach to any political party or anything of the kind. I actually believe that it has nothing to do with political sentiments. I believe it arises from the fact that our young people are growing up in a period of prosperity. Our young people do not feel the pressure of the cold war which is being waged. All about them they see ease and to a certain extent also luxury. They fail to understand that it is definitely necessary to play a part in the defence of our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stellenbosch mentioned the overseas visit of the hon. the Minister and congratulated him on the honour conferred upon him and, of course, also on the honour conferred upon South Africa. I should like to associate myself with that. I think we are all very proud of that. I want to add that I think visits of this nature are very necessary. It is very necessary that the Minister and his supreme command should make closer contact with the people with whom we shall have to side involuntarily if trouble eventuates. I should like to see visits of this kind extended to territories in our immediate vicinity, such as Angola, Mozambique and Malagasy. Such visits could only be to the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the few moments at my disposal this afternoon I should like to concentrate on the major ailment from which we suffer in the case of the Defence Force, namely the great manpower shortage in our Permanent Force. Although our Defence Force consists mainly of a Citizen Force, the Permanent Force is nevertheless the pivot on which everything hinges. It is the axis, and the shortages experienced in the Permanent Force at present are much larger than they should be. I want to submit that as long as we have these great shortages our Defence Force cannot be effective, because the establishment of the Permanent Force is compiled on the presumption that it is the very least with which the Permanent Force can make do. I want to submit that most of the problems we are experiencing at present arise from these shortages in the Permanent Force. Consider what has to happen nowadays. In the Permanent Force we use a large quota of our trained men and of our highly qualified men to train others. We cannot use them to do the work they should actually do. They are used for training purposes. Then we find that many of the men trained by them are lost. A method has to be found by which to stop this drain on manpower. Not only must we stop it but we must find a method by which to attract people to the Permanent Force.

I should like to make some suggestions. The first is a matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). This is namely the question of the provision of housing. We know that an enormous amount has been done, but it remains one of the major complaints of many of the Defence Force men. I am speaking in particular of Permanent Force men. Nowadays they find it very hard to get housing near the base where they have to work. I want to ask the Minister whether more cannot be done to expedite the housing schemes which are in operation and to provide more housing near the bases.

The second suggestion I want to make is one which has also been raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). This is the control of the Public Service. I want to agree wholeheartedly with him. I am convinced that with the best will in the world the Public Service Commission cannot grasp the unique problems and the difficulties facing the soldier, the air force man and the sailor. To mention only one thing, there is the question of the working hours of these people. I want to recommend very strongly that a commission be established. I want to agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West). That commission should not comprise only of Defence Force men. It should be a commission concerned exclusively with the conditions of service of Permanent Force men.

Then I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us whether he is exploiting the employment of women in certain posts to the full. Surely there are many such posts in the Defence Force. I am not pleading that the ladies should be put into uniform. I am just pleading for this with regard to female clerks, stores officers, etc. During the war years we found that the ladies did excellent work. I am just wondering whether enough is being done to attract them to the Defence Force.

Then there is a fourth point to which I really think attention could be given. This is a question of the conditions of service of temporary people—people who served in the Permanent Force in the past, who retired and who then return temporarily One hears from many of these people that they are not adequately paid and that in general their treatment leaves much to be desired. I mention this in order that the Minister may devote attention to it. Perhaps something can be done about it. I want to emphasize once again that the question of a fully occupied Permanent Force is one of the utmost importance and one which we shall have to solve if we want the Defence Force to function really effectively.

I now come to the matter of the submarines which we have purchased. The question of crews occurs to me immediately. I do not want to say for one moment that we do not have the men in South Africa who can do this kind of work. We should bear in mind, however, that the crews of submarines are people of a special calibre. They are people who have an extraordinary mentality. They are people who must be able to get along with others. They are people who must be able to keep a cool head under difficult circumstances In addition they must be highly qualified people. Nowadays they have to operate very complicated munition instruments, etc., in the submarines.

To get these people we shall have to lay down really excellent conditions of service. We shall have to lay down these conditions to attract those people and to keep them. We must bear in mind that this section of our Navy will have to be the élite of the Navy. To get that élite we shall definitely have to give them better conditions of service than those of the ordinary naval staff.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned the question of secrecy and said that it was carried too far. Year after year I have said in this House that we should accept the fact that those who are favourably disposed towards us and those who are hostile to us know much more about our military strength and about the conditions prevailing in our Defence Force than members who are in this House. In the Estimates I notice that we are appropriating almost R800,000 to Military Intelligence this year. There are other nations which spend much larger amounts. They make it their business and their object to know what is happening here. Here we are keeping matters secret from ourselves. For what purpose do we do so? I am not pleading that we should broadcast details of secret equipment or secret weapons. I am not pleading for that. I am pleading that we should tell the House of Assembly and our people more about our difficulties, about our problems, about what we are preparing ourselves for. I am convinced that the public will appreciate that. The public will accept it. As pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (Point), we have to spend vast amounts every year. After we have voted the money, we do not know what becomes of it.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

The hon. member who spoke before me will forgive me if I do not respond to what he said. Mr. Chairman, in recent times the possibility has been mooted from time to time—and I am referring in particular to the Press in South Africa—that our Defence Force Budget has reached its maximum and that we are going to have a declining tendency in our Defence Force expenditure. From time to time there have been speculations on the possibility of cutting down on Defence expenditure, and before one can see the matter in its true perspective, it is necessary that we should project this matter against the screen of world background The new world conception of defence is to concentrate on deterrents in contrast with aggressive weapons. Von Clausewitz, as you know, said that war was the pursuance of political objectives by the application of other methods. I do not think this statement is quite true in modern life. I think that at present it is only partly true. I think that nowadays military expenditure has become more an element to maintain balance in politics than an aggressive element. The exception is perhaps Red China and certain other countries, but I think that this principle applies particularly to the Western countries.

I just want to quote one brief example to demonstrate what I mean in this regard. By means of their Samos satellites the Americans ascertained that for the past two years Russia has been engaged in a programme to develop anti-ballistic missiles and that they are developing them as a defensive weapon. The United States of America is engaged in a similar programme, the so-called Nike-X project, which is aimed at deflecting missiles from the American continent. They believe that if this project is successful it will be possible to save the lives of 70 million Americans. This project is claiming a large share of the American defence budget, i.e. $375 million. Now the question arises in South Africa, in connection with our Defence Budget and our Defence expenditure: Is there a threat to South Africa? Is it necessary to develop our Defence Force as a deterrent? My answer is unhesitatingly, yes, there is a threat to South Africa. Hon. members are all aware of the militant statements before the U.N., particularly by African States.

Hon. members are aware of the vicious and hostile verbal attacks which are launched on South Africa from time to time from the ranks of Africa. I therefore want to deal briefly tonight with the threat, as we see it, from Africa, and from some quarters in Africa. The defence forces of Africa number ½ million. For the major part these forces are in countries situated on the Mediterranean. At the moment the total military budget of Africa amount to R500 million to R600 million a year. The major part of the African army is in the United Arab Republic, where 130,000 men are under arms. Next in numerical strength comes Morocco, with 36,500, then Algeria, with from 60,000 to 70,000, and then Ethiopia and the Congo, with 30,000 and the Sudan, with 12,000. 28 countries in Africa have fewer than 10,000 soldiers and eight of the African countries have fewer than 1,000.

But if we look at the naval and air forces of Africa we notice an interesting phenomenon. It may have come to your notice that Hanna Reitch, formerly Hitler’s woman pilot, is an instructress in the Ghanaian Air Force. She is training the Ghanaian Air Force. Egypt is developing its own HA300 supersonic fighter aircraft with the assistance of Professor Ferdinand Brandner and also Messerschmidt. During 1965 the United States of America spent $400 million on aid to Africa, of which a large part was spent on military preparation in Africa. But it is also interesting to note that 80 per cent of the countries which received aid from America at the same time received aid from either Russia or China for the expansion of their defence forces in Africa. According to the Institute of Strategic Studies in London 492,000 black troops could take the field in the event of war over Rhodesia. They estimate, furthermore, that 515 fighter aircraft and 162 transport aircraft could be mobilised in Africa in the event of such a war. At the moment there is in particular a guerilla campaign in progress in Africa; we see it on the northern borders of Angola and Mozambique, and also in the infiltration which has taken place across the borders of Rhodesia and South-West Africa. During the Second World War it was estimated that it took approximately 17 conventional troops to cope with one guerilla fighter.

The present figure does not differ materially. The significance of this is that during a guerilla war guerilla infiltration could tie down substantial forces and could compel a defending country to make considerable forces available to contain such guerilla infiltrations. There is a limited number of guerilla fighters in Africa, but we have enough information to know that they are well-trained people, people who are skilled in the finer arts of guerilla warfare, people who have made a study of Mao Tse Tung’s doctrines.

When we come to the naval forces of the African countries, we find an interesting position. We know that South Africa has the second largest navy in Africa. Egypt has the largest navy, i.e. six torpedo boats, four frigates and, inter alia, nine Russian submarines. The South African Navy has a great task along our coastline, from the mouth of the Kunene to the border of Mozambique. From time to time there are submarines off our coast and we may take it that they are not friendly submarines. It is international usage that when a submarine operates in the territorial waters of a friendly country, that country is notified of its presence and the submarine moves on the surface. We may therefore assume that the submarines operating off the coast of South Africa are not friendly. Secondly, there is a so-called fishing fleet off the west coast of South Africa and off the coast of South-West Africa, and it is striking that the equipment they have on board is not the kind of thing one normally takes along if you go fishing, but that they have very sophisticated equipment on board. Our Navy therefore has a great task in our extensive territorial waters, and for that reason we are fortunate to be able to acquire submarines in order that we in turn may do some spying on what is taking place in this so-called fishing fleet.

Mr. Chairman, these people are engaged in certain actions along our coastline; they are making certain surveys; they are collecting certain information which will not be to our advantage, and for that reason our young navy, which is 21 years old, has the very great task of ensuring our security along the coastline of South Africa. Finally I just want to say this with reference to what was said by the hon. member for North Rand. It is true that the young men in our fleet who are to be trained for submarine operating are the cream of our people and the cream of our navy. I am only hoping that we are not going to attach the stigma of an élite group to them; this would create difficult problems for them among their comrades. They are the cream of our people and we are going to honour them as such, but I do not think we should make them so exclusive that a stigma will attach to them in the eyes of their comrades. [Time expired.]

It was really pleasant to find the hon. member for Middelburg dealing again with defence matters and speaking with authority about a subject of which he has made a careful study. His speech on this occasion was a very pleasant contrast to one of the recent speeches which he unfortunately inflicted upon us. We listened with interest to his exposition of the strategic situation which faces us, and we are only sorry that so many of our hon. friends opposite were enjoying the soft life, and did not hear what he was saying. Sir, I certainly shall not attempt to soar into these higher flights of strategy. I want to come very much nearer home, and I want to start by associating myself with the congratulations conveyed by hon. members on both sides of the House to the Forces for the excellent visits which they recently organized for the Parliamentarians to enable us to see the various defence installations here in the Cape.

Unfortunately so many of us had other parliamentary duties that it was not possible to go on all these visits, a point to which I shall return later on. I want to refer particularly to the trip to Simonstown. I thought it was extremely well conceived and extremely well managed. It was a delight to see the officers in charge of the various sections, displaying such enthusiasm, for the work of their departments, and obvious energy. Since we benefited so much from this trip and since doubtless our comments will be more well founded as a result of this trip, one cannot help reflecting that this is probably the best method by which Parliamentarians as a whole can be informed on Defence matters, unless the Government sees the wisdom of our suggestion that hon. members both on the Government side and on this side of the House should be taken into the confidence of the Government to a greater extent in regard to Defence matters. I believe that great goodwill has resulted from these visits and that a feeling of mutual association and respect has been engendered between Parliamentarians and the Forces generally. I believe that if that closer association, for which we have pleaded in this House on more than one occasion in the past, is in fact achieved, even greater goodwill will be obtained.

Sir, I will not attempt to press this point again. We have raised it before; we believe that that would be the right policy and we leave it at that. I merely want to say that if we cannot have that closer association, then let us have more visits of this kind. I want to ask our Defence authorities, and the hon. the Minister, to consider whether in the recess it will not be possible to invite Parliamentarians to the north and to Pretoria in particular. There, perhaps in the course of a three or four-day visit, we would be able to gain a great deal of information and enlightenment as far as Defence matters are concerned. One of the most valuable features of our visit to Simonstown was the address by the Chief of our Navy. who gave us an indication of the thinking of the naval authorities and an appreciation of the naval situation. It would be an exceptional privilege if the Commandant-General. or some of his high-ranking officers, could address us and give us a similar appreciation of the military situation. I believe that such a visit would draw considerable resoonse from the Parliamentarians. This sort of thing has been attempted before by private enterprise. Parliamentarians were invited, for example, to visit the goldmine.

They responded to the call to inform themselves, and one cannot doubt that they would do so even more willingly in regard to the matter of their own Defence Force. Pretoria, after all, is the headquarters of our Command and matters of immense importance are controlled from there, and occur there. I am thinking not only of the intimations which we can have verbally from our leading officers, and I am thinking not only of the forces themselves and what they are doing, but I am thinking of our munitions production, so that we may get into the picture there and see what is being done, and perhaps we could suggest some things that should be done. So I leave that thought with the hon. the Minister and I hope it may be possible to achieve that. I might add that I am not pleading that this visit to Pretoria should be an annual occurrence, because clearly people would have to be away from their homes whereas, while at the Cape, they can visit the establishments here while remaining in their accommodation, even if it is only temporary accommodation. I have mentioned that these visits greatly add to our background in order to assess the defence situation. Doubtless there are good reasons why it is not possible for us to receive the kind of appreciation from the hon. the Minister himself which would give us an overall picture and which would form a valuable background to constructive comment upon our forces. In so far as he can do it to-night perhaps, or on other occasions, we would value it greatly, and in view of the fact that he receives such great support from the Opposition he would perhaps not be unwilling to take us into his confidence.

I want to touch upon a few matters bearing upon our situation, and if these are much in the minds or well cared for already by our Defence Chiefs, I can only plead that I am not aware of what exactly their appreciation is. It is clear from the existence of the ships and it is clear now from the submarines which we are to have—and let me say here that one welcomes immensely this success of South Africa in securing these submarines, because clearly they introduce a complicating factor for any sea force attempting to come to our shores. But I say that from the existence of the ships we have, including the submarines, we are clearly preparing ourselves against a possible sea-borne force. In that connection I can only give this as an impression, but my impression is that we may need, relatively sneaking, to increase the strength of our Air Force striking towards the sea. One can only base this comment upon the apparent lack of airfields which could back such a force. I am thinking particularly in relation to our west coast. I do not think our airfields extend so far towards the Orange River as possibly will be necessary to back such a force in performing its task. Bearing in mind the experiences of the last war, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, and bearing in mind the passage of the English Channel by the German Battleships, one appreciates the enormous importance of air superiority and land-based aircraft in dealing with any force approaching from the sea. [Time expired.]

I hope the hon. member for Pinelands will not take it amiss of me if I do not respond to what he said. I think we shall be able to pay more attention to it at a later stage. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelburg said here. I do not want to say anything at all about the internal organization of the Defence Force, because I think we can safely leave that in the hands of the Supreme Command and of the hon. the Minister. But I do want to express certain thoughts on why South Africa should be prepared to spend a large amount to ensure her safety and why it is imperative that we must be militarily strong. The thoughts I want to express are, after all, not so far-fetched.

Some time ago the Opposition Press, The Star, posed the following question in a leading article: “Arming for What?”, and some of the other Opposition newspapers also felt a little unhappy about the amount voted for the defence of South Africa. I want to respond to that and I want to advance two reasons why South Africa must arm herself. We also owe it to the man in the street. The man in the street quite rightly wants to know why his hard-earned money has to be spent on defence. I think it is our duty to make it perfectly clear to these people why it is imperative for us to arm South Africa and in that way to keep the morale of the people high at the same time.

It is my humble opinion that the amount of R256 million voted for the defence of South Africa is fully justified. In these times in which we live we cannot afford to reduce the amounts we vote for defence purposes. My view is that it is much better to spend that amount of R256 million now in peace time for the purpose of safeguarding South Africa than to spend probably ten times that amount at a later stage and to lose precious human lives in addition.

I shall start by dealing with the first thought I should like to express and that is in connection with internal security and, at the same time, the protection of the authorities. The other aspect is the development of our ability to offer resistance to attack from outside. We are not living in the millenium. That we must fully appreciate. Man is aggressive by nature, and from his aggressiveness is born his initiative. The ideal world state for which the late Dag Hammarskjöld is something unrealistic. I just want to quote what was stated in the Dagens Nyheter of Stockholm and then we can make further deductions from that. This was his concept of the ideal state. He said —

Strictly politically speaking, if the hon. member for Houghton were here I should have liked to ask her in whose arms she would have fallen. I also want to refer to what Mr. Anthony Harrigan said in his book Defence Against Total Attack about this state advocated by Mr. Hammarskjöld. He said—

That is what we have to face squarely. We have to be realistic in all respects and we have to be able to adapt ourselves to the changed circumstances in the world, and now we come to the military changes too. I want to state briefly what forms internal threats may assume. The first is sabotage, the second is rebellion, and the third is linking up with our enemies outside and undermining the State. Man’s thoughts are unfathomable and for that reason we must be on our guard. I should have liked to quote what the old German philosopher Emmanuel Kant said about tyranny and rebellion, but my limited time does not permit me to do so. Another serious internal threat is the sickly kind of humanism, and that applies to many liberalistic people. This sickly humanism stems from a guilty conscience towards the authorities of the country. Those people always see the martyr in the individual, even in the villain and in the murderer and in the saboteur, while they always see the tyrant in the authorities. Those are also the people that usually become fanatics and then lose their balance and their sound judgment and link up with the external enemies of our country. Thanks be to our Defence Force, which serves as a deterrent for those people as well. That brings me to the next aspect, and that is the modem concept of strategy. The hon. member for Middelburg referred to it briefly, but I just want to take it a little further.

The next reason why we have to be militarily strong is an obvious one. A moment ago I referred to our ability to defend ourselves in the military sphere against enemies from outside, and in this regard I should like to quote what the previous Minister of Defence, Mr. Fouché, said, namely that the danger lies in military action against South Africa, which is being planned openly and advocated secretly. I shall go no further than that. That should be adequate proof to us that plans are in fact being made to attack South Africa when the time is opportune. However, the two world wars of the twentieth century have proved beyond dispute that the strategy of the military genius is something of the past. There is no such thing any more. Von Clausewitz has been quoted here, but it was not only Von Clausewitz who said that, but also Napoleon, and I also want to mention Marlborough and I even want to mention Captain Liddell-Hart. Their doctrines all belong to the past and we have now entered a new phase as far as strategy is concerned. I should like to quote what General André Beaufré, the famous French military expert, said in his book Introduction to Strategy. He said—

That is an accomplished fact. The old strategy of the military genius which manifested itself in the way in which he deployed his troops in battle order is something of the past, and the emphasis is being shifted more and more, and it is no longer the strategy of the military genius that counts, but everything now depends on the technological sciences and their practical application and the achievement of the political strategic objectives of the Government. In other words, strategy to-day comprises a total strategy which is laid down by the State, or by the Government as head of the State and the Defence Force, in order to achieve the objects of the Government. According to the doctrines of General Beaufré we must develop a defence force which can serve as a deterrent as the hon. member for Middelburg said quite rightly. That is the purpose of the modern defence force—not to become engaged in battle but to prevent one’s country from becoming engaged in war. To use General Beaufré’s own words, one must develop a strong defence force with the object of never using it. That is the wisest thing for any country in the world to do. If one’s defence force can act as a deterrent it is unnecessary to risk human lives. And this is where I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Defence on the direction in which he is developing our Defence Force. I should also like to congratulate him on the success he had during his recent visit to Europe and also on the acquisition of arms we need so badly. We are in a strong position as far as conventional arms are concerned, but allow me just to make the suggestion that the time has now come for South Africa also to think in terms of guided missiles and possibly nuclear weapons as well. [Time expired.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Lydenburg with his arguments about strategy because I do not think he can make a true appreciation of the position from the facts at his disposal. We all know that in the situation of to-day South Africa must be defended, but the extent to which this defence should go is completely in the hands of the Minister and the Defence staff. They have the facts and we can only take their word that it is necessary. Meanwhile we should confine ourselves to ensure the judicious spending of this money we are now being asked to vote. Since World War II the development of arms and equipment has been such that it has revolutionized the entire concept of war. We can, for the moment, exclude nuclear arms and return to the conventional means for waging war. But even in this field we find that phenomenal advances have been made. The range of modern arms and equipment has become more complex, sensitive and accurate and, what is more, very much more expensive. One of the big disadvantages of this technological revolution that we have had is the fact that in this process, which is still going on, the equipment becomes obsolete or obsolescent within a few years. Under such circumstances a nation such as South Africa has a very big task in trying to meet its defence requirements. Indeed, it becomes a very heavy burden particularly under the pressure of inflation which we are experiencing and when we know that the expenditure on defence, although very necessary, is unproductive. Under the circumstances efficiency must play a very large role because through efficiency we must make the best use of the resources at our disposal. The old adage of quality against quantity here too is of the utmost importance. In order to achieve this, I believe it is very necessary for us to see that the arms and equipment we purchase are confined to the absolute minimum of our requirements. And this minimum should, at the same time, be of the very highest quality. If we acquire the minimum we shall then also spend a minimum on replacement. Here I should like to warn that replacement should take place timeously. I say this because in every sphere of life you find the tendency to put off replacements, something which as far as defence is concerned, can be fatal. Furthermore, in every sphere to-day, including the Defence Force, we find a tendency towards specialization. In view of the complex nature of the arms and equipment we have to use, it becomes necessary to have very highly trained and specialized men, not only those who operate the arms and equipment but also those who are responsible for its maintenance. Consequently, our aim should be towards highly trained professionals. Here we come to the root of our present day problems. Figures have already been given by other hon. members and I shall not repeat them, but the fact remains that there is a very big shortage of people in the Permanent Force, a shortage which is alarming especially on the technical side. We know that in civilian life there are many trades and skills which are a counterpart to those in the Defence Force itself. We also know that the wages paid in civvy street are a great attraction to people in the Defence Force. What is more, the Service does not do very much to counter this attraction from the outside world. We must not forget that, apart from anything else, in the Defence Force we are dealing with people for whom the danger element and risks are always present, something which is peculiar to war and the training for war. This we must do in order to maintain the peace. To add to this, Service life is not conducive to family life.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, those members at the back are conversing so loudly that We cannot hear the: hon. member who is speaking.

Order! I hear voices from every corner of the House. It is not only one particular section.

I was saying that Service life was not conducive to family life, a fact which is very important for men reaching the age when they have to settle down. I believe it is beyond reason to expect that a man must stay in the Service just because of his patriotism and dedication to the Service. Therefore, it is of particular importance that we must remember that the efficiency of the Service is also affected by resignations. The people who resign are normally people who have already completed a period of training and who, perhaps, have already rounded off that training by a few years of service. If we assume that the numbers in the force are maintained then the efficiency and the standard of the force as a whole must decline because we have a drain on experience all the time. It is, therefore, essential to do what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) suggested earlier on, a suggestion supported also by the hon. member for North Rand, namely separating the Defence Force from the Civil Service. I do not think it is necessary so much that there should be a different commission. The main point is that you cannot under any circumstances equate the two services, the Defence Force and the Public Service. They are completely different. I feel the question of fringe benefits should be investigated and should be increased. I shall not go into details now other than to say that we know what advantages these fringe benefits bring, apart from an increase in pay.

Mr. Chairman, what is the joke down there? Everybody seems to be laughing at their own conversation.

Will the hon. member for Transkei please leave the question of maintaining order to the Chair?

I thought you may not have heard what is going on down there.

If I could not hear, neither could the hon. member. The hon. member for King William’s Town may continue.

There is one other benefit which I think should be considered. It is not really so much a benefit, to the men as it is something which will help the force to a great extent—I refer to courses overseas. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I could not hear what he was saying. However, I am surprised that he did not thank the hon. the Minister for the R1,334,000 being appropriated on Loan Account for 240 living quarters for married personnel. Therefore I want to address a word of thanks to the Minister on his behalf. I want to refer to page 218 of the Estimates of Expenditure. On that page it is shown that the anticipated revenue of the magazine Commando from advertisements and subscriptions for the current financial year is R49,000 as against an anticipated expenditure of R41,000. Although profit-seeking ought not to be the object of a departmental magazine, I nevertheless want to express my congratulations here in this House to the editorial committee, the editor and the staff of the magazine on their achievement. I am looking forward to the day when every matric boy in the country will be a reader of this magazine. As our Defence Force grows this magazine will play a greater role in acquainting the public at large with our Defence Force. John Citizen wants to know what is happening in the Defence Force and it is the task of this magazine to fulfil that need. But at present the compilation of this magazine rests on the shoulders of one journalist only. I know from personal experience that this is a difficult and responsible task which he has to discharge. Consequently I want to plead with the Minister to-night for the appointment of a senior Afrikaans journalist as co-editor. The only point of criticism I have against this magazine is that the Afrikaans language usage in this magazine is not always what it should be— something which may be condoned if one has regard to the circumstances under which the present editor has to work.

Then I notice from the Estimates of Expenditure that provision is being made for a post for a liaison officer. That undoubtedly is a step in the right direction. Journalists who have military experience as well as experience of liaison work are, however, extremely scarce. But for the Defence Force it is important to have good Press relations to carry its image to the outside world. Consequently I want to express the hope that success will be achieved in finding a suitable person to occupy this post.

I should like to touch on two small matters in regard to the Air Force. The first matter relates to the salary scales of technical officers. In adjusting the salary scales of technical non-commissioned officers an anomaly arose in that a sergeant-major, for example, at present receives a higher salary than his commanding officer—a captain for example. I should like to inquire what progress has been made in rectifying this anomaly. It undermines morale unnecessarily. Then there is the building in Potgieter Street, Pretoria, which houses the headquarters of the Air Force. This building leaves much to be desired. As a matter of fact, to my mind the fact that Defence Force headquarters are scattered all over Pretoria, does not promote efficiency. The headquarters of the Air Force to which I am referring, are squeezed in between the prison on the one side and a railway hostel on the other side. I plead that as soon as the financial situation permits, a new building, should, be erected somewhere between the Swartkop Air Force station ad the Waterkloof Air Force station in the constituency of Pretoria District where such headquarters actually belong. In Snake Valley, near Lyttleton, there is more than sufficient Defence land for this purpose. In planning such a building it will be necessary to have regard to the fact that Pretoria and Lyttleton will be a number one target in the event of an air attack, and consequently I ask for parts of the Air Force headquarters, particularly the operational rooms, to be built underground. Then there is another small matter in regard to the Air Force. Every one concerned has expressed his gratitude for the tours made by the Defence group. The week before last hon. members here for the first time saw and had a closer look at our first Impala fighter aircraft at Langebaan Road. I am not yet acquainted with its operational powers, but something which disappointed me enormously was that all signs, with the exception of the words “gevaar” and “uitskietstoel” in the pilot’s cabin, were in English only. I brought that to the attention of various members of the Defence group. For this there is no excuse. This is a South Africa aircraft—there is no longer any excuse that it has been imported and that that is the reason for everything on its fuselage being written in English. Unfortunately this trend towards a preponderance in the use of English also reveals itself in the air where Afrikaans-speaking pilots have to address the control tower as well as Jan Smuts airport in English. I can see no reason why that cannot be done alternatively in Afrikaans for one month and in English for the next month. [Interjections.] Also the use of Afrikaans on notice boards and signs in Air Force stores and other places of the Air Force leaves much to be desired. That, unfortunately, is also the case at certain Navy and Army units to which the Defence group recently paid visits. But attention has already been drawn to that. While I am on the subject of language in the Defence Force, I, as a lover of my language, want to plead that the peculiar Afrikaans word “komptroleur” be no longer given recognition in secretariat affairs. I do not know what the derivation of the word “komptroleur” is, but it is not a nice word. Why not simply let the term “rekenpligtige sekretaris” suffice?

Furthermore, I am afraid that the Afrikaans word “garnisoen” will also put in an appearance again. This word was officially dismissed from use in the Defence Force round about 1956. Since that time it has virtually never been used. It may in fact have Dutch associations but there are other associations which are stronger. May it remain in oblivion!

But it still is a “garnisoen”.

In this way I also want, to plead for the beautiful small springbok to be retained on all buttons of Defence Force uniforms, including that of the Navy.

Now a next matter. Inquiries in regard to and personal experience of Citizen Force training has revealed that South African military history is not being taught during such training. To my mind that is a serious deficiency. A country s history, and specifically its military history, may never be pushed to the background. It instils our youth with pride and patriotism. I plead for at least one hour per week to be devoted in all Citizen Force training to the teaching of South African military history. I have in mind, for example, famous warriors, Boer, Briton, as well as native, famous battles, and the role played in the past by reconnaissance and fieldcraft.

Finally, I notice that an amount of R7,000 is being requested under the Loan Vote for the building of, and I quote “a type of prefabricated building to serve as a temporary church building”. That is for Oudtshoorn. With all respect, Sir that is not good enough for the preaching of the Gospel amongst the Defence Force personnel, and especially not amongst the thousands of boys who are undergoing training. In these times the spiritual armament of our youth is of greater importance than anything else, even expensive arms and submarines. I make a serious plea for this matter to be rectified; otherwise we may expect to suffer double punishment.

In connection with the staff courses for officers, I should like to plead that we introduce our own naval staff course for senior officers in the Navy, similar to those of the Air Force and the Army in order that it will no longer be necessary for our senior naval officers to go to Great Britain and other places for staff course training. I can also recommend most strongly that joint staff courses for the Navy, Army and Air Force should occasionally be introduced.

Mr. Chairman, in one respect I can agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (District), and that is in the choice of language in a worthy journal such as Commando. He made objection to the use of the word “kontroleer’ and I would suggest with respect to the editor of that journal that it would be far better to use the expression—and I am sure he would agree with me—“om beheer uit te oefen”.

It has nothing to do with the editor.

I should also like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) to some facts regarding the publication Commando. It is the official defence publication. The first is that, according to the Auditor-General’s report, the cost of production have gone up something like 33 1/3 per cent, whilst the circulation has remained static. For the information of hon. members of this House the hon. the Prime Minister is chairman of the company which prints this publication. [Interjections.] I would suggest therefore that the Prime Minister gives his attention to this business undertaking.

Last year, when the Defence Vote was before the House and we had a then very new Minister of Defence, I raised the matter of conditions of service in the Navy. I said that there was no recognition of the differences between the duties and responsibilities of the Navy and those of the civil departments of Public Service. In particular with regard to the Navy I said that there was no compensation allowance paid in respect of the time during which seamen are at sea and away from their families. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that there were no special allowances paid, as was the case in other navies, and in particular the American navy. I drew also the attention of the House to the fact that there were very few and inadequate fringe benefits in our Navy, and that consequently we were losing people from our naval forces to private enterprise in the result there was a shortage of staff and some people in the Navy were working excessively hard and long hours. Of course, as the Minister of Defence pointed out to me at the time, they were not entitled to overtime pay. The Minister’s reply was as follows: “Yes, I am aware of these complaints; these are the complaints you often hear; the hon. member should not expect me to reply to that to-night, because I cannot make promises only. I must also look at the financial implications because I am still a member of the Cabinet.” Well, that was fair enough, since in September of last year the Minister was a new Minister of Defence and he had not had time to examine all these matters. But the honeymoon is over and now the Minister has been in office for some 12 months and he must have had time to give his attention to these matters. I should like to point out to him that the Navy, with very great respect, did not begin with his assumption of office as Minister of Defence. The Minister had two predecessors, both of whom were members of this Government, and they were in power as Ministers of Defence for 19 years. The Fleet recently celebrated its 21st birthday. Only two years of its lifespan were under the regime of the United Party. The hon. the Minister must therefore accept responsibility for the work and for the errors of his predecessors. I believe that we are thus entitled, after his being in office for a year, to ask him now whether he recognizes that there is a difference between the duties and the responsibilities of the Navy and those of the civil departments of the Public Service. What are the Minister’s plans for the payment of compensation allowances? What special allowances does the Minister propose paying to the members of the Fleet? What additional fringe benefits does the Minister propose to inaugurate?

Then I dealt last year with the question of housing facilities and recreational facilities in the Navy. Having dealt with them, the Minister in his reply said to me, “I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown—Improvements must also be effected at Da Gama Park, the naval housing village, and planning in that regard is in progress. If he will look at the loan vote, provision for further improvement has already been made this year.” That was last year. “A beginning has already been made.” Well, with respect to the Minister, a beginning does not start to be made after 18 years of this Government being in power just because he is the new Minister of Defence! He invited me to look at the position of housing. Last year there was an amount of R25,000 devoted to the provision of housing in Da Gama Park. This year I see there is another amount of R25,000. If I have any knowledge of building costs at all, it probably means something like a dozen houses can be provided for the Navy at Da Gama Park. We know that the residents of Da Gama Park pay very cheap rentals. But what about the others in the Navy? What about the others who have to live at Fish Hoek, at Muizenberg and other parts of the southern suburbs? Are they given any subsidy for the high rentals that they have to pay? The hon. the Minister is as well aware of the fact, as I am, that there are seasonal rentals in those areas. How can the members of our Navy possibly afford rentals of anything from R60 to R120 per month. No housing allowance is paid to the members of our Fleet. In desperation some of them are even offering, and these cases have been brought to my attention, to accept a lower rank to qualify for houses in Da Gama Park in keeping with their ability to pay. I asked the Minister last year whether there was going to be a crash housing programme, and if so, when was it to take place, where was it to take place and how was it to take place. We still have to hear details from the Minister, in spite of statements made by him from time to time that “wonderful facilities” are going to be made available to the members of our Fleet. We still have to hear from him where it is going to take place, how it is going to take place and, more important still, when it is going to take place. There are 45 portions of Simonstown alone in the possession of the Defence Force. They are 412 morgen in extent. There is an additional 660 morgen belonging to the Defence Force in the area known as Da Gama Park. Surely, on all of that Defence land there must be sufficient opportunity for the Defence Force to tackle a crash housing programme.

I come now to the maintenance of the existing Defence Force houses, of which there are 233 in Da Gama Park and 126, including flats, in Simonstown itself. How many requests for attention and maintenance to those houses are outstanding? I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day and he said that in respect of the 126 houses and flats in Simonstown alone there are 192 requests for attention outstanding. I do not wish to hold the hon. the Minister to those figures, but they are obviously not correct. You cannot have 126 dwelling units and 192 requests for attention outstanding. Then I asked a similar question in respect of the houses at Da Gama Park. There we find that there are 233 dwelling units and there are only seven requests outstanding per week in respect of those dwelling units. There must be a mistake somewhere.

What about recreational facilities? I maintained last year and I maintain again now that the morale of the personnel is being destroyed by the lack of after-hours recreational amenities in Simonstown, amenities that should have been provided over the years by the Municipality and by the Defence Force by means of a joint effort. I maintain that there is no joint plan in existence between the Defence Force and the Municipality of Simonstown for the promotion of facilities for our Naval Base at Simonstown. Take for example Da Gama Park. Reference has been made in this House time and time again to the lack of amenities there. In December we had a child killed in the streets of Da Gama Park because there are no playing fields in the whole of that township. We had two children run over in the last three weeks in that same township because they cannot play anywhere but on the unmade sidewalks and the tarred roads. There are no recreational facilities whatsoever. I say that not only does it lead to a loosening of the morale of the personnel of the Navy, but also to a relaxing of discipline. We are entitled to ask the Minister, after all this time, what improvements are to be made and what recreational amenities are to be provided, where they are to be provided, how are they to be provided and, more important still, when are they to be provided. What is the long-term plan for the development of Simonstown? The Minister can surely give us that information and, speaking for the people in the area, we shall be more than grateful for it. The Minister speaks at the 21st anniversary of the Navy and he promises that better working conditions, training facilities, housing and improved equipment will be provided for Navy personnel. I have looked through the estimates and I see no evidence of it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come to the hon. member for Simonstown later. All I want to say in passing, is that I am sorry that he spoiled the spirit of this debate by what he said in the beginning of his speech. I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for North Rand. I also want to express my thanks to hon. members on the other side of the House who, along with hon. members on this side of the House, conducted this debate on a much higher level as from this afternoon. It was left to the hon. member for Simonstown to be insulting to the Prime Minister in a very undignified way.

But have you no sense of humour?

No, that is not humour. That is nothing but vulgar gossip. I want to tell the hon. member that I am prepared to administer this Department of Defence on a very high level of impartiality. I think that it is in the interests of our country. I am prepared to administer this Department in a spirit of unity. However, I shall not allow the hon. member to insult the Prime Minister. I want to tell him that I think he owes an apology. What did he say? When an hon. member rose here to boast of the fact that we were making progress with Commando, a young publication—I think that there is still much room for improvement in that publication—and pointed out that Commando was a financial success, this hon. member deemed it fit to try to broadcast the story that Commando was being printed by a printing press of which the hon. the Prime Minister is a director. What is the hon. member trying to insinuate by that? Does the hon. member want to insinuate that the Prime Minister concerns himself with these business transactions in any way? Does he want to insinuate for one single moment that the State Tender Board is guilty of corruption. If he has the courage of a gnat he will rise here and say whether that is so. If he does not want to do so, then he will rise here and apologise for this reprehensible remark. [Interjections.]

Is it correct that Commando is being printed by Dagbreekpers?

What is correct is that all publications of this nature are being printed on tender. Tenders are asked for and the lowest and best tender is accepted. Why does the hon. member not add that? What concern is this of the hon. the Prime Minister?

He does not have the courage of a bed-bug. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member for Malmesbury have the right to say that the hon. member does not have the courage of a bed-bug? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman. on a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to say that? Is that parliamentary language?

The hon. member must please moderate his language. The hon. member for Malmesbury must withdraw those words

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them. The hon. member probably has the courage of a bed-bug. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw his words unconditionally.

I withdraw. [Interjections.]

Sir. I am telling the hon. member for Simonstown again that if in future he wants to help me to maintain the spirit I have been trying to maintain over the past year, he will have to turn over a new leaf. I shall not allow him to malign the Prime Minister. I shall not allow him to slander him. The fact of the matter is that, if the hon. member had looked at Commando, he would have seen the following words printed underneath: Printed for the Government Printer, Pretoria, by Voortrekkerpers Bpk. In other words, the Government Printing Works was instructed to print this publication, but as the Government Printer is unable to cope with everything, some of these publications are given out on tender. What is wrong with that? Why involve the Prime Minister in this? I say that that is petty, and if the hon. member wants to adopt that attitude, I shall take no notice of him.

I should like to come back to those hon. members who have kept this debate on a level that is slightly higher than that of the hon. member to whom I have just referred. In the first place, I want to express my thanks for the fine spirit that prevailed here and for the way in which the affairs of the Defence Force were approached. In the second place, I want to express my thanks to those hon. members who congratulated me on the European tour and what happened there. All I want to say, is that I myself, the Commandant-General, the Chief of our Navy, as well as those persons who accompanied us, were treated with courtesy, cordiality and respect everywhere. We regarded that as sufficient evidence that South Africa does not have such a bad name as is often given out to be the case. Hon. members complained here that there was too much secrecy in connection with Defence. Is that true? Because, in the first place, over the past year I have on various occasions gone out of my way to furnish the public with information about important aspects. When I do so, it is said that I am speaking irresponsibly about things I should not discuss. I shall return to that later.

In the second place, there are our Defence Force publications. There are Commando and Navy News which furnish from time to time a great deal of information about the Defence Force. In the third place, visits were arranged, for which I was thanked here to-night. We have gone out of our way to allow hon. members to see what is happening in the Defence Force. What secrecy is there then? The hon. member for Pinelands suggested that on a later occasion we should try to arrange for hon. members to visit the Defence Force in the North as well. Yes, I am considering that, and I should like to do so when it is possible for us and when it can be managed along with all the other work the Defence Force has to do. We shall arrange it then. I hope that a visit to Devon and Voortrekkerhoogte can be arranged, and possibly one to Potchefstroom as well. But for the time being the hon. member should leave that matter in our hands so that it may be planned later.

Then we went further, and we had a select committee on legislation appointed, and this committee was afforded the opportunity to meet the Defence Force chiefs face to face and to have discussions with them. I am just mentioning these four examples to disprove the story that there is excessive secrecy. On the contrary, we are going out of our way to release to the public of South Africa what can be released about the Defence Force. Then the hon. member for Durban (Point), I think, also made a point. By raising that point he did in fact merely confirm what the hon. member for Pinetown had had to say during the Second Reading Debate. I do not take that amiss of them. Let me say at once that I do not differ in opinion with them. During the Second Reading Debate the hon. member for Pinetown wanted to know whether the Minister was convinced that there was sufficient control in regard to the purchase of defence equipment. He stated that he had first-hand knowledge of extravagance in regard to defence expenditure when applied without strict discipline. Let me tell hon. members at once that the conditions that prevailed during and before the last war—for which I do not want to furnish reasons now—cannot be compared with the measure of control we have in the Defence Force to-day. Let me mention a few examples. In the first place, a Directorate of Planning has been established in the Defence Force itself, a body which, when it does planning, immediately draws comparisons on a cost basis. In the second place, the Defence Force chiefs themselves assist in preparing the draft estimates.

In the third place, there is the comptroller, whose administration has been integrated with that of the Defence Force, in consequence of the Verster Commission’s report. The administrative officials and control staff of the comptroller have seats in all of the branches of the Defence Force. In other words, whereas such control was not possible under the previous Secretariat, it has now been intensified as a result of the new organization which was introduced under the comptroller. Since I am talking about the comptroller, I want to say the following to my hon. friend who objected to this word: We consulted philologists, and it is quite in order to use this word, which is the most descriptive word for this purpose. In the fourth place, in every branch of the Defence Force standing economy committees have been established to consider from time to time what economy measures may be taken. In the fifth place, apart from the above there is the Controller and Auditor-General who reports to Parliament on such matters. I say that this system is better than the one we had before.

As regards the purchase of arms, how are foreign purchases made? Such purchases are only made after a thorough study of projects has been carried out by experts. Only then do I submit to the Defence Council for advice. By the time the Defence Council has submitted its advice on this matter, the Supreme Command has already dealt with it. The Defence Council did advise me about this matter. Only then do I submit such purchases to the Cabinet Sub-Committee, and the Prime Minister is a member of that committee. Therefore, as far as foreign purchases are concerned, we have the strictest control.

Now, earlier in the debate this evening the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that he knew that there was an embargo, but he also wanted me to state whether, under these difficult circumstances, we also bought on the black market. I can tell the hon. member tonight that we do not buy on the black market. We only buy where we can maintain our self-respect and national honour.

How are local purchases made? All local purchases are made through the Tender Board. The Tender Board has various rules and procedures according to which it functions. Let me say at once that I as the Minister do not concern myself with the activities of the Tender Board. I am saying it here tonight so that the entire country may know it. From time to time there are people, who have this or that to whisper in my ear, who try to involve me as the Minister in this matter. The attitude I adopt has always been that every transaction that has to be concluded in the Defence Force, should be concluded in accordance with these procedures. I am not at the disposal of people who want to take advantage of me for their personal gain.

Now I come to the question of production, and I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Pinetown would listen to me, if he is interested. As far as the production of munitions is concerned, the procedure is laid down by the Munitions Production Board in consultation with the Tender Board, and the machinery is put into operation. Hon. members know who the persons are who serve on the Munitions Production Board. I do not think that there is any suggestion that the persons who serve on the direction of the Munitions Production Board, under the chairmanship of Dr. Van Eck, are not men of integrity, and that is why I say that the present situation is much more effective than it has ever been before.

I should like to furnish hon. members with a little information. The Munitions Production Office was established in 1951; in 1964 the Munitions Production Board, and its organization, was established by way of legislation. Since then major success has been achieved in respect of armoured cars, parachutes, field kitchens, a variety of light arms, ammunition, proximity fuses, explosives and electronic equipment. I make bold to say that the field kitchens that are manufactured in South Africa, are among the best in the world. We are rapidly reaching the stage where we shall be able to sell our field kitchens to friendly countries. This is one of the most important elements in the life of a defence force. I think that hon. members who do have a little experience in this regard, will know what the standard of our field kitchens is. Planning, capital requirements, technology and specifications, as the hon. member rightly remarked here to-night, do of course make high demands, and sometimes the time which elapses between the initial planning stage and the stage at which the actual production can be proceeded to, is considerable—not only in South Africa, but also throughout the world. No sooner has one started with something, than new ways are discovered whereby it can be done better, and then one’s apparatus has become obsolete, the result being that one’s planning has to keep pace all the time with continuous developments in the field of science. May I just give an example: For some ammunition production projects one requires no fewer than 50,000 different detail-drawings. For an armoured car one needs 5,000 to 6,000 different detail-drawings. That is time-consuming; it is expensive and it requires staff with suitable knowledge. At present the industries of our country supply a large percentage of our requirements. I can inform hon. members that our country’s industries support the efforts of State and semi-State undertakings very well. We already have 187 chief contractors in South Africa and 800 sub-contractors who have been integrated with these production processes, but this takes place under the guidance and supervision of these people who know what they are doing. This capacity to produce and the knowledge which is gained in this way, means a great deal to us and is enabling us to hold our own better than ever before in a time of crisis.

Now I should like to refer to a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He referred to a speech I had made at Paardekraal last year, and he said that on a religious occasion I had referred to a secret weapon.

Are you going to let the cat out of the bag now?

If I had not been so favourably disposed to the hon. member, I would have told him to-night that he talked nonsense on a non-religious occasion, because the fact of the matter is that the occasion on which I made that speech, was not a religious one.

Was it not the Day of the Covenant?

It was on the occasion of the Quinquennial State Festival at Paardekraal, which has been an institution for many years. If the hon. member had known his history, he would have known that, and he would have known that that specific Festival is in fact connected with our military history. The hon. member made a second mistake. He said that I had mentioned a secret weapon there. I never used those words.

What did you say?

I did not use the words “secret weapon”. The development and production of any weapon is, of course, until it is known, confidential to a certain extent. What I did in fact say, is the following, and now I want to read my words to the hon. member, word for word, from the manuscript itself.

Then you must repudiate Die Vaderland.

It is not my custom to hunt through every newspaper in the country and then to try to correct what they wrote because then I shall really never find time to work. I referred to various achievements of South Africans in various fields. The hon. member should not sit there playing the fool; he should listen now. I referred to various feats we had accomplished since 1838, and I also referred to the tremendous feats that had been accomplished in South Africa in the field of science, and then I said the following (translation)—

These are the words I used, and then I proceeded to an entirely different topic.

Did you grant an interview to Die Vaderland before that day?

I shall tell the hon. member the whole story; he should not try to tell me my own story, because I was present there; he did not make a speech there; I made a speech there. After that, when I was walking to the vehicle which had to take me back— because I was in a hurry to get away; I had another appointment—a newspaperman came to me as I was walking to the vehicle, and he asked me, “When will you make a statement in regard to this matter?” My reply to him was, “When the time is ripe”. Subsequent to that I read this report in which he said “three months later”. Now, I am not responsible for his thinking that it would be three months later.

Did you not say that this story about a secret weapon was merely a rumour?

I did not say that it was merely a rumour.

Then the Nationalist Press distorts things.

All I can tell that hon. member, is that he should see what the United Party Press did with that. I just want to add this, and the hon. member should listen now. This is being produced by the Defence Force in collaboration with another body, and it promises to be a great success. I am not prepared to say more than that.

Can you tell us the range; is it more than three feet?

An hon. member referred here …

I hope it is not going to be a boomerang.

Order! Hon. members should at least refrain from making interjections all the time. I think that relevant interjections are to be welcomed, but continual interjections cannot be tolerated.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the past the two of us have had personal experience of what interjections can mean.

One of the hon. members made reference here to the possibility of missile development. All I can tell hon. members is that that is not a new thought, but I welcome it, even if it is not new. The Defence Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. has, in consultation with the Defence Force, for a considerable length of time been undertaking research projects in connection with rockets and guided missiles, and I think that everybody will agree that this rocket and guided missile research is absolutely essential for South Africa. Hon. members will also notice that the amount voted in the Estimates for research, increased from R29,000 a few years ago to R10 million, the amount which has been made available for defence research this year.

I just want to conclude by saying that with such weapons—along with our radar network, which is directed at our northern borders, and the Decca navigation system, which is being introduced along our coastline so as to enhance our safety, along with the additional striking power of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, with the added submarines—South Africa’s safety will be in good hands, and we can become a very important ally of the Free World.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the Buccaneers. I do not want to say more about that matter—and he should not take it amiss of me—except this, namely that satisfactory arrangements have been made in respect of the Buccaneers that have already been bought. I do not want to say more about that. The hon. member also raised the question of the salvaging of submarines. There is nothing that can be done about salvaging a submarine in very deep waters. The world has not yet discovered the means for doing that. [Interjection.] Down to a depth of about 200 feet such means do in fact exist. There are boom defence vessels, diver craft and salvage and recovery organizations in which we are engaged. In other words, if we obtain submarines—and if nothing new has been discovered in the field of greater depths—we shall have the means to enable us to do that down to that depth limit. I think the hon. member will be satisfied with that.

The hon. member asked me whether or not I had ordered submarines. I stated publicly here that the French Minister and I had signed a ministerial agreement enabling us to order submarines. But if one signs a ministrial agreement, one does not leave the room with the submarines in your pocket, so to speak. That gives rise to other things, and those other things are processes that have to be finalized, because this involves matters such as training, equipment, spare parts, operational tests, and so on. All of these have to be stipulated in agreements, and these matters are in the process of being finalized.

So, there are no orders at the moment.

We shall not be undertaking these processes of finalizing if there were no orders. The hon. member should not drive me too far as regards these matters. The hon. member has been acting in a very responsible manner, but he must not drive me too far. I do not want to disclose here everything that has been finalized. [Interjection.] I am not prepared to say more than this, namely that such negotiations as resulted from the ministerial agreement, are in the process of being finalized.

The hon. member referred to the question of the dissatisfaction of the technical officers; and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) also referred to that. Yes, it is being settled, because the Public Service Commission has already attached its approval in that regard. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) and the hon. member for North Rand referred to the question of the Defence Force’s representation on the Public Service Commission. The Groenewoud Committee has already recommended that the Defence Force should be granted better representation on the Public Service Commission, if it so happens that it cannot be a separate service commission. There are many reasons why it cannot be a separate service commission at this stage, but I cannot think of any reason why there cannot be better representation for these services—that is the Defence Force, Police and Prisons—on the Public Service Commission. It is my intention to raise this matter with the Cabinet when the opportunity presents itself. At this stage I do not want to take this matter any further.

Then hon. members referred to housing and side benefits, particularly the hon. member for Pretoria (West). I agree with him and with the hon. member for Simonstown that the provision of housing is one of the most elementary things one has to do, not only to improve the working conditions of one’s people, but also to enhance the morale of the Defence Force. In the second place, by those means one should make it possible for these people to feel sure that, when they are away from their homes, their families will at least be safe and be living under good conditions. In my opinion the solution at this stage of inflation is not so much increasing salaries, but I feel that better terms and conditions of employment, of which housing is one of the important elements, should have priority over all other matters. If you would look at the Estimates, you will find that in the current Estimates an amount of R1,334,000 has been made available for housing at the following places: Bloemspruit, Bloemfontein, Da Gama Park, Grahamstown, Wingfield, Wynberg, Ysterplaat, Langebaan Road, Lenz, Oudtshoorn, Potchefstroom, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Upington, Ellisras, Kliprand, Devon and Mariepskop. Simonstown is not our only concern. I want the hon. member for Simonstown to realize that. We cannot assume responsibility for building all the houses in Simonstown. Nor can we do so for the Navy. We also have an air force and an army to take into account. But I am not satisfied that at this stage we have already done enough in respect of housing. even though a great deal has been done. I think that more ought to be done and I am convinced that under the Department of Community Development, which is undertaking this task at present, we shall alleviate this position within a few years. [Interjection.] Yes, it is the Department of Community Development that builds houses, excepts under given circumstances where emergency housing has to be provided, when we have houses built through our own works branch, such as at Walvis Bay for example. But then it is not the type of house that is being built by Community Development.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I nevertheless want to raise a few other matters. People often want to know why South Africa needs a powerful Defence Force. I think that we should make the country realize that we need a powerful Defence Force, in the first place, to serve as a deterrent. That is the whole approach in the world to-day, namely that defence forces should be re-inforced so that they may serve as deterrents. In the second place, this is necessary as a result of our strategic position in this country, and, in the third place, as a result of the fact that there is an old proverb that says: “Europe can be overthrown in Africa.” In this regard I want to read from a prophetic speech made by Salazar in 1959. when, inter alia, he said the following—

That has happened in Africa time and again and also in other parts of the world. I think that the West and the Free World are gradually coming to realize that the old proverb that Europe can be overthrown in Africa, is all the more applicable in these times in which we live—and that was emphasized by the hon. member for Hillbrow. If we realize that, we must go out of our way to convince the Free World with a powerful Defence Force ready for combat, that there is only one stable element in Africa, namely Southern Africa, which can prevent Europe from being overthrown in Africa. Once the Free World realizes this and shoulders the responsibilities they have towards South Africa, the time will come that there will be new hope for the hungry and under-developed countries in Africa as well. That is the task we must perform, but if we want to do so it will be of no use for us to provide military training only, nor will it be of any use to us merely to purchase new armaments. We shall have to see to it that under our new legislation, which we hope will be passed, the members of our Citizen Force and our Commandos and our Permanent Force will know who their enemies are. what they are fighting for and what they are standing for. This does not mean party political indoctrination, as is often being said; it simply means that the South African way of life and that which has always been dear to the South African civilization should be impressed upon every member of the Defence Force, young and old alike, but also that they should understand the methods of possible enemies and that they should therefore not only be prepared for conventional war, but also for unconventional war, because terrorism leads to guerrilla warfare and guerrilla warfare leads to full-scale warfare. Those are the new danger points in the world, and the Defence Force of South Africa will have to be geared for those contingencies, not to have our young men killed in action owing to their defective knowledge of the methods of their enemy, but in fact to allow our young men to live for South Africa because they know their enemies. This is the spirit in which this debate has been conducted so far. and, I hope, will be conducted further.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me whether we should not, with a view to this threat, also have other bases along our east coast. My reply is that another basis is being planned on the east coast, and it is the intention to re-occupy Salisbury Island as soon as possible in order to bring about that new situation.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that we should bring the Defence Force to the people and the people to the Defence Force. I think that I replied to that when I referred a moment ago to what the relations should be between this country and the Defence Force, between this House and the Defence Force and between the nation and the Defence Force.

The hon. member for East Rand said that he was concerned about the manpower drain in our Permanent Force. I think I have replied to that, namely that in order to prevent that drain, we should think of various side benefits, and I can assure the hon. member that we do in fact think along those lines. But everything cannot be accomplished within a year or two. All these things must be done within the framework of our country’s economic capacity. I cannot spend money in such a way that I may subsequently be accused of being responsible for an unbalanced Budget. At the moment our expenditure on Defence amounts to 3.7 per cent of the gross national product. As compared to comparable countries, that is small. Australia, Canada and all those countries spend more.

That is 18 per cent of the Estimates.

I referred to the gross national product. The hon. member wants to compare that with the Estimates. [Interjection.] I think I have the figures here. South Africa’s total Defence expenditure, expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, amounts to 3.17 per cent. In Switzerland it is 3.5 per cent; in Australia, 4.8 per cent; in Canada, 3 per cent; in Israel, 11.7 per cent; in Portugal, 6.5 per cent, and in Tanzania, 6.3 per cent. I am referring to the national product. [Interjection.] No. I am referring to the national product. [Interjections.] Listen now; do not make interjections again. The figure for Tanzania is 6.3 per cent; for Kenya it is 10.1 per cent, and for South Africa it is 3.17 per cent. Our total Defence expenditure— including research, housing, postal services and public works—expressed as a percentage of the total Government expenditure to be defrayed from the revenue accounts, amounts to 18 per cent. And that is not too heavy a burden.

That is what I said—18 per cent.

In comparison with other countries that is not too heavy a burden. That is why I want to express the wish here to-night that we should stop creating the impression—even by means of a single sentence —that South Africa is spending too much on Defence. In the next few years we shall try to keep the expenditure account in check, but I want to say at this stage already that on the Special Account—the “R” in the Estimates— that will not be possible if we have to get the modern equipment we require.

I think I have replied to everything raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). The hon. member for Pretoria (District) pleaded for a church building at Oudtshoorn. I wish I had enough money to be able to erect church buildings everywhere. We are trying to give satisfaction gradually as far as church buildings are concerned. Until a permanent building can be erected, I think a temporary or a pre-fabricated building will serve the purpose. We have to crawl where we cannot run.

I think, Sir, that with these few words— which were quite a few—I have replied to most of the questions put so far.

Mr. Chairman, I also just want to refer to the mark of honour bestowed upon the hon. the Minister by the Portuguese Government and I want to say that as far as I am concerned this is a most significant gesture on the part of the Portuguese people. It is a long time since something of this nature has happened to South Africa. I want to express the hope that the Minister will display that Order to us regularly at appropriate occasions.

He can wear it on his uniform.

The Minister does not wear a uniform, but he may wear the Order with civilian dress as well.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to ex-Minister F. C. Erasmus, who died shortly before the commencement of the present Session. He was the first Minister of Defence after the National Party came into power in 1948. He made a monumental contribution to the development of our Defence Force after 1948. I think that in view of the fact that our Navy celebrated its “coming of age” last week one may remember particularly the part he played in establishing and developing our own South African Navy.

While listening to the speeches of the Opposition, particularly in the tone set by the hon. member for Durban (Point), it struck me that we have had a change of heart on the part of the Opposition as far as defence matters are concerned. I just find it a pity, however, that in that change of heart I noticed an attitude of “holier than thou” or perhaps “more National than thou”. [Interjections.] I think if they persist with that attitude we may perhaps remember what the defence force which we took over from them in 1948 looked like. It was a defence force in the process of deterioration. It was this side of the House that started to build up that defence force, and to-day the whole of South Africa is indebted to the National Party Government and the three National Party Ministers of Defence we have had for what they have achieved in this connection. To me as a upcountry man my recent acquaintance with the Navy was a noteworthy experience. What particularly struck me was the preparedness of and the spirit prevailing among the officers and other ranks, and what struck me even more was the fact that so many young men from upcountry are doing their compulsory military service at sea. Our Navy is a relatively small one, but the impression I gained after my visit to the Navy was that its strength was far greater than its size would suggest. In view of the fact that the striking power of the Navy is going to be increased as a result of the acquisition of submarines, I want to express the hope that the cream of our young men will come forward to be trained for service in the submarines. I find it a pity that the hon. member for North Rand said by implication that South Africa did not have the kind of young men needed for training in submarines.

Nonsense, he never said anything of the kind.

We have many men of that calibre. I shall remember that reflection —we shall remember it. I see in this an opportunity for the young men of South Africa to come out on top with flying colours.

To get the maximum out of a member of the Defence Force, whether he belongs to the Navy, the Air Force or the Army, there are to my mind above all three factors which should receive constant attention, namely, firstly, his physical preparedness and efficiency, secondly', his morale, and thirdly, whether the person himself is satisfied in his mind and feels content. I am not going to enlarge on the last factor. I am glad to learn from the hon. the Minister how the need for housing is being met. Housing is something essential. I just want to say that in my opinion housing should be provided as near as possible to one’s base. As far as morale is concerned, the Minister has already told us what to expect. I believe that with the appointment of Brig. Claassen and the establishment of his section this aspect will, in fact, receive the necessary attention. It is simply essential that a young soldier should know at all times and in all circumstances why he is fighting and what he is fighting for, and that in that process he should be taught to love what is his own so that he will be prepared to protect it.

As far as the physical preparedness of our men is concerned: I believe things have never been better than they are now. However, there is one matter I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice, something to which I feel attention should be given at all times. That is fieldcraft and shooting. I get the feeling that there is no longer that strong bond between the soldier and his rifle, and the soldier and the soil, that we had before. The soldier regards the soil as something on which he walks and his rifle as part of his equipment. I want to appeal to our soldiers and to their commanders to see to it that shooting and field-craft receive the necessary attention at all times. A soldier must know his rifle, must know the peculiarities of his rifle, they must be companions—I almost want to say they must be one. A soldier should know the soil on which he sleeps, on which he fights and which he has to defend. The South African soldier has always been known for his field-craft and marksmanship. I think our urbanization has given us less opportunity to practise those arts. When the opportunity presents itself, I almost want to say at every possible and impossible opportunity, these arts must be developed. We shall need them when we have to defend South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, when I made a speech a short while ago and referred to the men who would be available to operate our submarines I said very explicitly that I had no doubt at all that we did in fact have the people in South Africa to do that work. But then the hon. member for Waterkloof, a young soldier, got on his feet and said that I had implied that we did not have the people to do so.

But you did say that.

How can one save a nation with such men? How can I put it more clearly? I cannot put it more clearly.

Why then did you use the word “totally”?

I should very much like to comply with the hon. the Minister’s request to keep the level of this debate as high as possible. Consequently the hon. member for Waterkloof will be able to understand that I cannot join him in paying tribute to an earlier Minister of Defence—I am merely complying with the Minister’s request.

Before proceeding, I should like to draw the attention of this House to a report in tonight’s paper concerning the death of a very honoured and valuable ex-member of our Navy, namely Commodore Fougstedt. Many of us knew this gentleman very well and we are conscious of the exceptional service he rendered to our Navy. We are truly sorry that he could enjoy his well-earned rest for such a short period only. I hope that those he left behind know, and will be informed, of our appreciation of the services rendered by this very excellent officer and of our regret about his death.

I am pleased with the statement made here to-night by the Minister, particularly in regard to the so-called “secret weapon”. I think the Minister is quite right—he cannot go through every newspaper and refute the reports. The newspapers—and I am not going to specify any particular newspaper—created the impression, however, that we did have such a weapon and that the only thing which had to be done was to press a button and nothing would remain of our enemy! They went so far as to allege that the Minister had said that he would give further news in that connection three months later. I think the Minister could at that time already have corrected the wrong impression which had been created.

We were also very glad to hear the Minister’s statement in regard to the submarine transaction which had been clinched. I do not want to go deeper into the matter, except to say that I hope that the negotiations which are in progress at present will be brought to a successful conclusion soon.

We also welcome statements by the Minister in regard to the representation of the ser vices on the Public Service Commission. I think that is a step in the right direction which may eventually lead to the establishment of a commission for the services.

The Minister said that he did not agree with us when we complained that there was too much secrecy. What we mean is this. To-night we are discussing the Vote with the highest expenditure in the entire South African Budget. What we should very much liked to have had at this stage is a White Paper in which the Government gives particulars to this House in regard to what it has to cope with, what its plans are, what its requirements are, etc. I think we should move in the opposite direction, we should have more publicity about our Defence Force. The Minister was quite right in saying that a great deal of publicity had recently been given to our Forces. But we want even more publicity. If I consider the equipment which had arrived for the Defence Force, if I consider the publicity given to the Navy during the past few weeks on the occasion of its coming of age, I feel that we are on the right road. Even if we have to ascertain eventually on what dates anniversaries fall, we must make an attempt to keep the Defence Force as much as possible in the public eye. I have found that certain ranks of the Forces are so afraid that if one asks them where they are stationed at the present time, they feel uncomfortable. For the public to know that the Fifth Brigade, for example, is at Swellendam or Potchefstroom, can do no harm. Let us make the world realize that we have large formations throughout the country! The Minister pointed out, quite rightly, that we were spending enormous amounts of money at the present time to make a deterrent of our Defence Force. Well, develop that image of a deterrent in such a way that our enemies need be under no illusion of what they will have to tackle if they look for trouble with us!

At least, we did not have any secrecy in respect of Spitskop.

Quite right. I do think, however, that we should have more publicity in regard to the entire matter.

Now there is another important matter which the hon. member for Green Point raised and in respect of which I hope the Minister will give us a reply at a later stage. At present a tremendous war is in progress in Vietnam. Those of us who have made a study of the situation there are astounded by the reports coming from there. Here we have the spectacle of the most powerful military country in the world—America— simply being unable, with nearly ½ million men and the latest equipment on land, at sea and in the air, to bring that war to a successful conclusion. The question we all ask ourselves is: “What is happening there?” You know, Sir, we always say that one war starts where the previous war left off. Well, the last great war ended 25 years ago. In the mean time there have been enormous changes as regards arms, etc. At present many interesting things must be happening in Vietnam. Costly lessons are being learned. Those lessons are costly. The Americans and the other people who are fighting there are paying dearly for the lessons they are learning. I do not want to suggest that South Africa should have any share in that war: far from it. But I do think we should try and learn as much as possible from that situation, should try and derive as much as possible from that situation as regards knowledge, lessons which can be learned, etc. I naturally do not know what the position is at present, but where there were similar wars in the past, in Korea, Algiers and Spain in the thirties, for example, there always were large numbers of observers. Well, I wonder whether we are not entitled to send observers to Vietnam? If not, is it not possible for us to learn from other sources what is happening there? I think it will be cheaper to acquire knowledge in that way than it is for the people participating in that war. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us a reply in this connection.

In the few moments at my disposal, I still want to raise only a few other small matters. I should like to refer to a matter in respect of which we have already put questions to the Minister. We often hear complaints from the parents of young ballotees because their children often have free week-ends but cannot go home unless they hitch-hike. Is it not possible to make arrangements with the Railways to let men in Uniform travel either free of charge or at concessionary rates over weekends when they are free? At present young men hitch-hike, and that is, of course, a very undesirable habit. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one thinks of a defence force, one’s first thought is that it is an organism which is geared for waging war. However, the situation is quite different as regards our Defence Force in the Republic of South Africa. This Defence Force is geared for defending our native soil, the Republic of South Africa, against external aggression or against internal threats. Consequently it is a real defence force in the true sense of the word.

Consequently, to be able to implement this praiseworthy and extremely important function, the Defence Force has first claim to the services of our youth between the ages of 17 and 18. To protect hearth and home against onslaughts from outside is a primitive characteristic and inherent to man and consequently basic to his nature, his approach to life and his view of life. But because a measure of so-called law and order exists in our modern community, this primitive characteristic of man has become latent. Particularly in our case, where no call has been made on the youth of our country for the past 50 years to defend hearth and home, this characteristic has become completely latent and our youth will not Or cannot realize that this protective urge is peculiar to his human nature. But it is nevertheless most essential, in the times and days in which we are living, for this protective urge to be aroused and fully developed in everyone. I make the statement without any danger of contradiction that this protective urge really is basic to the love which there is in every one for his country and his people. Because hearth and home is the nucleus of the nation’s existence and because that existence is threatened if the native soil is threatened, it is only natural for this specific love to be projected in respect of the protection of the native soil and its people. Consequently the task of the Defence Force is not only a mechanical one. It is not only to make the citizen acquainted with arms, their use and their properties. The task of the Defence Force is not only to make the citizen capable of defending himself physically. Its task is also to make the citizen capable of defending himself spiritually.

The basic task of the Defence Force is to inspire the citizens entrusted to it with an ideal, and in our case with the ideals of an individual and independent nation with its own way of life. The love for those things with a South African identity must crystallize as a manifestation of that basic protective urge towards hearth and home which is present in everyone. The Defence Force must embark on that crystallizing process with all the power at its disposal. The role we have to play in the world we must play from strength and not from weakness. I am not mentioning these things because I have found that no attention is being paid to them in the Defence Force, on the contrary. It is with satisfaction that I have been able to observe that these matters are constantly enjoying the attention of our Defence Force and that, as far as the ability of our youth to defend themselves is concerned, our Defence Force and its officers are fully conscious of their task and calling.

I am mentioning these factors merely as encouragement for those who are engaged in these things, and also to emphasize that this is a matter which should never be allowed to be pushed to the background but that it is something to be pursued positively and constantly. I am convinced that a man can only be an efficient soldier if his love for those things which are peculiar to his nation inspire him to such an extent that he comes to regard the defence of his country, also on the battlefields, as a matter of course and a privilege. If this pride and love in and for those things which are our own can be fostered and strengthened within a national context, it is obvious that the youth of our country will also develop a love for and pride in our Defence Force. That in turn will lead to individual pride, which in turn can only lead to the promotion of healthy values and a healthy outlook on life. The sooner we start this process amongst our youth, the easier it will be for us to instil these things in our youth as an attitude to life which is peculiar to every South African boy— Afrikaans speaking or English speaking. Consequently it is of great importance that the cadet corps in our schools receive sympathetic attention, and not only from those people who are concerned with them at present. The plan which exists to develop these corps to become part and parcel of the Defence Force must be carried through with might and main. But here I want to make a very serious plea for a change in the design and quality of our cadet uniforms. I can hardly imagine a less imaginative and colourless uniform.

I am aware of the fact that the Minister has already received representations in regard to this matter, and that he is giving his attention to the matter. I nevertheless want to urge him and those who have to advise him in regard to this matter very strongly to give their imaginations free rein as far as this matter is concerned. We feel that this uniform ought to be of colourful design so that the wearer of that uniform may be inspired with pride when he is wearing it. He must feel that it is a privilege for him to be seen in such a colourful and imaginative uniform.

The hon. member for North Rand made an appeal to the Minister in regard to the hitchhiking habit of members of our Defence Force. There are few things which I find more repugnant and irritating than seeing row upon row of our Defence Force boys in uniform standing begging near our cities and our military camps. I am using this word “begging” on purpose because that is what it amounts to. We fully realize that there are problems for these boys who want to go home for week-ends. We nevertheless want to make an appeal to the Minister. These boys form part of a dignified Defence Force and wear a dignified Defence Force uniform. The Minister and his officials must give positive attention to this phenomenon so as to ascertain whether it will not be possible to take measures, with the aid of other bodies or persons, which will make it possible for these boys not to make use of hitch-hiking. I think I am speaking on behalf of thousands of fathers and mothers who observe this phenomenon with concern. It is something which has already developed into a real evil on our roads. For the sake of the morale and self-esteem of our boys, the necessary facilities must be created so that it will be unnecessary for them to make use of this doubtful and highly undesirable form of transport. It is encouraging to see that there are private bodies and persons, as was reported in one of our English newspapers yesterday, who have introduced a bus service so as to overcome this problem to a certain extent. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Cradock has just raised several matters of importance. However, I do not want to comment on them because I am. convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply to them. I first want to have clarity in regard to a remark which I think was made by the hon. member for North Rand. When my colleague, the hon. member for Waterkloof, paid tribute to one of our former Ministers of Defence, Mr. F. C. Erasmus, who died recently, the hon. member for North Rand said, that is how I understood him, that he did not want to make any comment or pay any tribute to Mr. Erasmus because he allegedly wanted to keep the debate on a higher level.

Quite right.

I want to tell him that that was a scandalous remark to make in this House with reference to an honourable Afrikaner who had rendered outstanding service to South Africa, to this House, in this Government, and to our Defence Force. It was scandalous behaviour on the part of the hon. member to have made such a remark with reference to such a man under these circumstances. I find it reprehensible.

I too would like to express my gratitude to the Minister and the Department of Defence and the Defence Force for the visits we were able to pay to certain Defence Force establishments here in the Western Cape and as far away as Saldanha Bay. Those visits were of special value to members of this House because they enabled us to see in what way the money voted by us in this House was being utilized. We were impressed by the skill of the men who handled the equipment. We could satisfy ourselves about the new munitions which were demonstrated to us. We were particularly impressed by the circumstances under which members of the Defence Force and ballotees found themselves there. Of course, housing remains a difficulty which will probably be the case for a number of years to come. We are nevertheless convinced that the Minister is doing his utmost to eliminate this difficulty as soon as possible. We found the cultural aspects of the life of the ballotees there of particular interest. We on both sides of this House were particularly proud to meet the chaplain at every one of these establishments and to note the special position he occupied in the organization of our Defence Force. At each one of the places we visited, the officers and the chaplain were proud to show us their place of worship and to show us what attempts they were making to make that place of worship as satisfactory and dignified as possible. I know that the hon. the Minister himself has a very sympathetic attitude in regard to this matter. In this connection I notice that there is an amount of R7,000 on the Estimates for the construction of a prefabricated building at Oudtshoorn, because there, in particular, there is a real need for such a building. I am grateful to the Minister for the attitude he is adopting in regard to this matter. To parents it is particularly reassuring to know that the chaplains in the different camps form a link of special importance in the organization.

Another matter which I want to raise now, is one in regard to which we often have inquiries from constituents. It concerns the situation at the borders of our country, not so much our sea borders as our borders on land. The hon. the Minister said on a certain occasion that the biggest mistake any nation could make iq time of peace, was not to show any interest in his country’s military strategy and preparatory planning. In South Africa we do not make that mistake. We fully realize the importance of our situation. For the defence of our coastline the modem and accurate Decca navigation system is being installed at present. On our northern borders there is an effective radar complex consisting of a central control centre which is linked by radio telephone, printing telegraph and telemetric communication networks to a large number of satellite radar stations which are able to observe enemy aircraft far beyond our borders. In addition we are equipped with particularly modern short and long distance aircraft. To a large extent our entire air defence system on our nothern border is geared for defending our industrial and military bases in the north of our country. However, now we are being asked what the position of our land forces is. We must take cognizance of the fact that our northern border extends beyond Waterberg from Alexander Bay in the west to Kosi Bay in the east. It passes through arid desert areas and semi-desert areas to more or less the centre of the Molopo area; from there it passes through broken bushveld and hilly country more or less up to Messina; from there it passes through alternating bush, mountain and semi-tropical regions up to Kosi Bay. The concern which exists in regard to this area flows from the fact that it is very densely populated by Bantu—particularly the eastern and northern areas. At the same time it is very sparsely populated by Whites. Over the major portion of this area communication routes are insufficient or non-existent. In this entire area, from the east coast to the west coast, there are three military bases—Upington, Zeerust and the Air Force station at Pietersburg. I do not include the commandos which are spread over an extensive area. That, more or less, is the geography of our northern border. Nevertheless our training centres are at four different places away from that border. The infantry goes to Oudtshoorn. The artillery to Potchefstroom, armoured units to Bloemfontein and the A.S.C. Pretoria. If we have regard to the fact that more than one-third of our White population lives in the industrial complex of the Vanderbijlpark triangle and that far more than half of our White population lives in U’-ban areas, the question of where these men are receiving their training arises. At present they receive their training at these four places demarcated within military areas. These areas are not quite identical to areas on our nothern, western and eastern borders.

Do you want to eliminate Potchefstroom?

No. Potchefstroom remains a very important centre.

Progress reported.