Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to a matter raised yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton—I am sorry she is not present at the moment—in regard to the demarcation of constituencies for the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. However, I shall return to that again.

I now want to refer to a speech made yesterday by a stablemate of the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. Dr. Wollheim of the Cape Provincial Council. Sir, he raised this same matter when he appeared before one of those sandwich meetings of the Progressives during the lunch hour. What he had to say there was conveyed in more or less the same spirit as that in which the hon. member for Houghton approached this matter. According to a report in the Cape Argus of yesterday evening, Dr. Wollheim made a great issue of the fact that according to him only 63 per cent of the possible Coloured voters had been registered. But surely it is clear that these people do not know what they are talking about. Surely these Progressives are talking through their hats, for how can one determine what a truly 100 per cent registration of voters will be? It can of course only be a guess. Now it is quite clear that, theoretical as these people are, they have obviously taken the population figure of the Coloureds and calculated the registered voters as a percentage of that. But, Sir, you who know how these calculations ought to be made, also know that this is not correct. It is not correct, because there are after all certain qualifications for the registration of voters, which of course exclude certain persons from registration. Another question is how one is going to determine what percentage of the Coloured population is over the age of 21. In addition the calculation is based solely on the figures of the general registrations. The fact remains that with the supplementary registration, which also qualifies for this Coloured election, 70,000 additional voters in the Western Cape Division of the electoral office alone have been placed on the voters’ roll. In the Port Elizabeth area approximately 10,000 additional voters have been placed on the voters’ roll. This tremendous reacting on the part of the Coloureds in respect of registration is probably one of the most surprising events in our entire experience of elections. In this percentage, which, for all we know, could be close on 100 per cent, the Department of the Interior has played no minor role. This was a voluntary registration and the work was not done by registration officers. Nevertheless the Department went out of its way to make registration cards available, i.e. to employers, school principals, police officers and at any possible distribution point where it was convenient for the Coloureds to register. For this great effort we are grateful to the officials of the Department. This eruption on the part of the Progressive Party is clearly an indication of their bitter frustration. They did not want this matter to succeed because the Coloureds, and the Coloured voter in particular, were the last on whose backs they were able to ride, but these have now shaken them off. The hon. member for Houghton launched an attack on the demarcation of constituencies. She said: “This is really a very skew delimitation indeed.” The hon. member linked this to the fact that the quota per constituency in the Provinces differs from 16,116 in the Cape, to 2,615 in the Province of the Free State. On this she then based the following charge: “This whole claim of ‘one man one vote’ as far as the Coloured people of the Cape are concerned, is nonsense.” Now, what I find significant is that the hon. member is so fond of the word “nonsense” precisely when that is what she herself is speaking. Does the hon. member not know that the number of constituencies in each Province in respect of Coloured constituencies is laid down in the Act? Does the hon. member not know that the quota per constituency is obtained by dividing the number of registered voters in that Province by the number of constituencies? The hon. member quoted the Free State vote which would supposedly be such a valuable vote in contrast to the Cape vote. The Free State, at the time of demarcation, had 7,846 voters. When that quota is then divided by the three constituencies one arrives at that quota for the Free State constituencies. But surely this is no new principle. Surely this principle has already been confirmed by us in this House. The number of representatives for South-West Africa is, according to law, set at six. In other words, the number of voters in South-West Africa is far less per constituency, i.e. approximately 7,000 than that of the constituency represented by the hon. member, where she says she has 15,000 voters. In other words, we already have the principle of differentiation. The hon. member also has a further characteristic feature, i.e. that she is always looking beyond the borders of our country, for according to the hon. member nothing fair can be done here. Let us therefore join the hon. member for a while and look beyond the borders of this country to Britain.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that he should not go into this matter too deeply since it actually falls under the Department of Coloured Affairs.

What I am concerned with in particular is the demarcation of constituencies, which is the function of this Department. I am trying to indicate the ratio between quotas for our constituencies and those in Britain.

This matter falls under another Minister, but the hon. member may round off his speech if he wishes.

In Britain we see that the number of voters varies from 10,000 in one constituency to 200,000 in the next. This is a frustration which means such a great deal to these people. What they want is that there should be no constituency in the Free State, which has a total of 7,800 voters. They want those voters to be incorporated into another constituency so that the number of voters is as great as those of the constituencies in the Cape. The hon. member for Karoo, who is in fact a kindred spirit of the hon. member for Houghton has often complained about the distances to be covered in Coloured constituencies. Now the hon. member for Houghton wants us to increase the size of the Coloured constituencies beyond the borders of the Province. To-day we would like to convey our sincere thanks to Mr. Justice Van Wyk and the other officials of the Department who undertook this demarcation, and want to testify to the fact that they have done a fine piece of work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak about the Publications Board, and I want to say at once that there are two matters in this regard on which we are agreed, and which we therefore need not discuss. We do not differ on the question of pornography. We are in favour of reasonably strict control over that. There is also no difference between us as far as communist propaganda is concerned. We know what the communists’ plans are, and our standpoint has always been that there is no reason why the machinery of democracy should be made available to the communists so that they may destroy democracy itself. About that we need not argue, we agree on that. What I find a little disconcerting in connection with the work of the Publications Board, however, is that it applies a form of domestic political censorship. In so far as I can watch the lists, my impression is that books are banned because they adopt a critical attitude towards the Government and the race policy of the Government. Previously, when Mr. S. E. D. Brown served on the old Censor Board, this was very clear. I concede that it is no longer as bad as it was then, but nevertheless it happens regularly that works criticizing apartheid as a political system, are placed on the list of banned books.

I can mention many examples, but as I have only ten minutes at my disposal I shall deal with only one. The one I want to mention is the book by Alex Heppel on the life of Dr. Verwoerd, which appeared in the Pelican series “Twentieth Century Leaders”. We know that Mr. Hepple was a member of this House for ten years and was the leader of the Labour Party. We obviously differ from this man in our political outlook. I had the opportunity of reading this book, but unfortunately only halfway. It belonged to someone else, and I had to return it before I could read all of it. In my opinion, judging by what I did read, this book is excellently documented. It goes without saying that, where people belong to different parties and have different political views, everybody will not necessarily agree with all Mr. Hepple’s conclusions, but I must say that essentially this book contains the observations of one South African political leader on the life and political policy of another. As I said, Mr. Hepple sat here for years, and I found nothing in this book which he did not say in this House and which is not recorded in Hansard in any event, and which he did not write in the many newspapers he published or which he would not have said. As far as I did read, I found nothing in this book which would create any sensation if it appeared in a newspaper in South Africa to-day in the form of a series of articles. It is the kind of political analysis one finds in newspapers every day, and obviously, in this case, in newspapers opposing the Government.

But you only read half of it.

I concede that, but one can make a reasonable judgment on the basis of that. If I have to judge why such a book is banned, the only reason seems to be that it is a little awkward for the Government. The author quoted from history at length, inter alia, from articles that appeared in the Transvaler during the war years, the days when there was a fight about advertising by Jews, for example. There was a war on in those days, and sharp articles were written. In my opinion this is the only reason why the Government (prefers these matters not to be raised again, i.e. because they could be awkward for the governing party. But it is not the task of a Publications Board to protect the Government or the governing party. The hon. the Minister himself said yesterday, and we agreed with him, that politics was no “sissy game”; if you want to govern, you must also be prepared to suffer criticism.

There are two things the Publications Board must bear in mind. The first is that there is nothing it can do to prevent people in the outside world from reading any particular book. Many books, of course, do not do us any good, perhaps because there is too much truth in them. If the Publications Board had the power of preventing (people in the outside world from reading any particular book, there might still be some sense in prohibiting such a book. The Publications Board, however, can do nothing in that regard. All the board therefore has to take into account in judging a political book, is whether the people in this country should read it. As regards the outside world, an author actually benefits by the fact that his book is banned, because that book immediately gets a little band around it, saying “banned in South Africa”, and as a result its sales increase. But the Publications Board is concerned with one consideration only, i.e. whether the South African reader should be allowed to read the book. As far as this is concerned, I think a reasonable norm would be to say that if what appears in that book, is normally also written by newspapers that criticize the Government, that book should be allowed, In my opinion this is a reasonable norm. My judgment of the book written by Mr. Hepple is that what appears in it is something which is written every day in the form of criticism in the political columns of newspapers in South Africa, and is even said here in the House of Assembly in connection with Government policy and the history of the governing party. I feel that if we reach the point where the Publications Board bans a book, a book that was written by one political leader about another political leader and the development of his policy, we already have political censorship in South Africa. This is something dangerous. There is, in any event, no logic in it, because at the same time a political writer can write virtually anything in a newspaper. If he writes a book, however, it is banned, as has in fact happened in this case. There are other examples I could mention and discuss. I have watched the lists over the years, and I must say that there is a long list of political books which stood on the shelves for a long time, some of them for as long as two years, before the Publications Board banned them. I think that they are going too far in this respect.

There are two things I want to ask the Minister to do. The first is to go into this question of political censorship and to see whether a more satisfying norm cannot be applied, especially as regards political books written by South African political figures. In the second place I think some plan should be devised to make it a little easier for Parliament, especially for those hon. members who specialize in this field, to get acquainted with the activities of the Publications Board. Then we would not need to come here and simply vote an amount, but would at least be able to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the Publications Board was doing its work properly. I am not saying this by way of reflection on any of the members of the board; we have the same regard for them as the Minister has. But principles are concerned here.

Then there is another little matter. It seemed to me yesterday as though there was some doubt about our attitude towards race classification. Well, our point of view is that this is an Act which does not belong on the Statute Book, not in a civilized country such as South Africa. In fact, I do not believe that any Act which, as a result of doubt about their descent, separates a married couple who are leading a settled life and have children, is something which is permissible. I was shocked yesterday that the hon. member for Waterkloof virtually pleaded that we should act in a less humane way. In this connection I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. In the first place, what happens in the case of an immigrant? Tens of thousands of immigrants have come to South Africa in recent years; thousands of them come from countries bordering on the Mediterranean; thousands of them come from countries where there is a strong element of Moorish blood in the veins of the people. They make no secret of that; in fact, they are proud of it, because they are as proud of their history as we are of ours. But tens of thousands of people have come to South Africa to whom the Government will issue white identity cards purely on the grounds of the fact that they say they are white, or are white in appearance. There is no way in which we can screen immigrants as to their descent. And tens of thousands have one in who, if they were tested according to our criteria, would not pass the test. Is it fair that South Africans must live through all this misery, people who are leading settled lives? They must live through all this misery; their families must be broken up, but any Dick, Tom and Harry may come from overseas, settle in South Africa and receive a white identity card without there being any proof of his being of white descent. [Interjections.] If I am wrong, I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will correct me and tell me what system we follow in connection with the thousands of immigrants who entered South Africa during recent years. The rules should apply equally to all. (Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will forgive me if I do not follow him up now. I cannot discuss the book by Alex Hepple, because I have not seen it. But I do want to say this to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that he has a way of making wild statements on the basis of the most slender evidence imaginable. He said here this afternoon that there was the impression that the Government banned books if those books were critical of Government policy. In support of that statement he adduced one single example, and admitted, moreover, that he had only read the book halfway. But he nevertheless went on from there and said that the only apparent reason for the banning of this book was the fact that it contained criticism of the Government and its policy. This being the case, the hon. member said, we already have political censorship. Do you see the haze of suspicion that is drawn over a wide field on the basis of such slender evidence? The hon. member knows that “White man think again” by Anthony Jacob was banned last year. If he brings this into relation with what he said here this afternoon, surely he must admit that his extreme statements of this afternoon are totally unfounded.

Prove the contrary.

What are you going to do with Veg?

I also want to refer to the Publications Board and express my appreciation for the fact that a man such as Mr. Jannie Kruger has been appointed as chairman of the board. I have a great deal of appreciation for the work of the board, and I realize that they have many problems. At the same time I want to say that there is concern in South Africa, concern among a very wide circle, that there is a lowering of the standard of selection, especially as regards the selection of films. It is true that it is a feature of our times that the new permissiveness in regard to sex is being blatantly exploited by most of the mass media. At the moment ethical and artistic considerations still apply to some extent, but these gradually fall away and give way to pure decadence, leading to pure pornography. This is something we have to take into account. The other feature of our times is the increasing incidence of violence in various societies, the precipitation it finds in representations thereof in films, books and periodicals, and the effect this in turn has in stimulating violence. The occurrence of these two phenomena must contribute to our more and more coming up against the presentation thereof in films in the future. As a result there will be very strong pressure for the lowering of the standard of selection.

Together with these two features of our times there are two sets of factors which, probably from two sides as well, have an effect on the standards of selection in the case of films. One of these is the growing number of cinemagoers which we have in South Africa, too, as a result of the process of urbanization and everything connected with it. The growing number of cinema-goers necessarily leads to a growing number of cinemas. This in turn stimulates a greater demand for films. The mere increase in the demand for films must have an effect on the standard of selection. After all, it is axiomatic that the smaller the quantity to be selected, the stricter the selection will be, and the larger the quantity to be selected, the poorer the standard will be. This is one of the reasons why I believe that the board will have to guard very carefully against a lowering of its standards of selection. This is a creeping process. It is something which cannot be easily pinned down, but which is not less real for that reason.

There is another set of factors as well which influences these standards of selection, i.e. the set of factors relating to the production and the distribution of films. It is a truism that in the production and distribution of films the tendency is to push down the moral standards and to adopt a more and more daring attitude to them, especially in regard to sex and violence. There are explanations for that. This is not merely a statement taken out of the air. Here in South Africa we mostly have to rely on the United States for our film material. During the past decade the American film industry has been exposed to very serious complications which have had a great effect on the film industry. In the first place, with the advent and the development of television the number of cinema-goers decreased overnight. At the beginning of the sixties the number of cinema-goers decreased from 75 million a week to 40 million a week. This led to fewer films being made. But in the competition to lure the people back from television to the cinema, use was made of the recipe of laying more emphasis on sex and violence, and of lowering the moral standards. Moreover, the code that was adopted by the Movie Producers’ Association of America in the thirties, and which tried to maintain reasonable standards, came to be seriously threatened. I just want to quote from a book what the standards were that were adopted by the Movie Producers’ Association. They laid down, inter alia, the following standards—

This is a very sound code. It was also reasonably successful, but when the complication arose that films were imported into America from France, Sweden and other countries, films which often did not have the right to be exhibited in those countries, they were exhibited by people who were not bound by this ethical code. This led to American producers coming up against competition on a level to which they were simply forced to descend. Then independent producers who were not bound to this code, also started producing, which lowered the standard still further. This state of affairs disrupted the code in America to such an extent that it led to a serious lowering of the standard there. In actual fact the code became quite inoperative, and we are confronted with this cycle in South Africa today. Films that were imported into the United States from Sweden, France and other countries, lowered the American standard there. The lowered American standard is now being imported into South Africa. This is again exercising an influence on our standards of production and our standards of selection. With all these factors in operation the pressure to lower the standards of selection in South Africa is inevitably very strong. Through the Minister I want to ask the board to guard against this very carefully. I do not want to mention any names now, in order not to advertise them, but films have already been passed for exhibition in South Africa which were below standard and which should not have been passed. This causes concern. It is in any case the tendency for standards to be continually lowered. There is no factor or element which, as far as I can see, is in any way an incentive to raise those standards.

Now, as I learnt from a discussion with one of the importers of films, the position is that the contracts for the importation of films are drafted in such a way that the distributor here simply has to accept everything that is offered him, unless it is banned by the Publications Board. The importer therefore does not exercise any selection himself. The most blatant examples of infringement of the standards we have in South Africa, he dare not reject. He must wait until they are rejected by the Publications Board. He is therefore freed of all responsibility. He shifts it onto the board. In the first place this means that the board has to devote a great deal of time to this, at the taxpayer’s expense. In the second place it means that time that the board could have spent very profitably on the selection of other films, it has to spend on this. But, in the third place, and this is perhaps even more important, the position is that, if one has to scrutinize such a large number of films which do not meet the standards, it must necessarily influence the standards of selection. If you are dealing with many poor examples of films, and you eventually come across a mediocre one, the tendency is to equate that mediocrity with excellence. In this way, too, our standards of selection are being influenced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should like to reply to a few matters which have been raised so far in this debate. Although I would have liked to have started with the hon. member for Green Point, I shall let my reply to his questions stand over a while since he is not present at the moment. In the first instance I want to touch upon a matter which is of considerable importance. It is a matter which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton in regard to the non-white tourists in South Africa. The hon. member referred to an article which she had read. I should like to elaborate on this a little. This report which appeared in Washington on 9th May this year, as well as one which appeared in the British Daily Telegraph, arose from replies from my Deprtment to two tourist organizations here in South Africa in regard to passengers in transit. I may just mention that in both cases the replies were worded in exactly the same way. Nowhere in the replies was it stated that non-white tourists would not be allowed into the country, and that tourist organizations had been warned not to handle non-white applications. Non-Whites who want to visit the country as tourists must, in the same way as Whites, with the exception of course of those who are exempted from the visa requirements, apply for visas. All such applications, be they from non-Whites or from Whites, are dealt with according to merit. The replies furnished by my Department to the two tourist organizations concerned, as I said, passengers in transit who were travelling by ship and who wanted to go on day tours and other tours in the interior, and then leave the country on the same ship. Naturally, when it comes to passengers in transit, we are not dealing with people who are travelling through by aircraft, because such passengers in transit depart from the country again on the first aircraft leaving for their place of destination. If they do not do so they are not passengers in transit and then they need a visa to obtain entry to the country on a temporary basis. In other words, they can then, if a visa is granted, be allowed into the country on an aliens’ temporary permit. In case there are perhaps a few air passengers in transit who want to undertake a quick tour of the interior, that is, where they, are waiting for a connection, they can always negotiate with my officials at the port of entry, that is at the airport, and they will be assisted as far as that is practicable.

It is very clear from the replies furnished by my Department to the tourist organizations that non-Whites who are travelling through as part of tourist groups are in fact allowed to leave the ship on which they are travelling through without any need for them to apply for visas. In such cases certain restrictions are in fact applied, but it is in no way aimed at the non-Whites so as to injure their dignity. These restrictions, and this is also what appears from the replies of the Department, are there merely to ensure that the visitors are saved any possible embarrassment. I am certain that visitors to our country, whether tourists or passengers in transit, and whether non-Whites or Whites, will enjoy their stay here and that is the way we want it and that is why we are taking steps to ensure as far as possible that there will be no room for possible incidents which might mar their visit to our country. I hope this matter is now clear to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Houghton referred further to the demarcation of constituencies for the Coloured elections which ’S being carried out by my Department of the Interior and the demarcation itself which is being carried out by the hon. Mr. Justice Van Wyk, and she drew a comparison between the demarcation in the Free State and that in the Cape. The hon. member for Tvgervallei has already replied to that, to the effect that it is provided in that way in the Act, i.e. that a certain number of constituencies are allocated to the Free State and a certain number to the Cape, and for the present I do not think we can go any further into that matter.

But while I am dealing now with the speech of the hon. member for Houghton there is still a further matter which I would just like to raise here before I proceed to the discussion of other matters. It is that earlier this year—and this is also a matter which falls under my Vote —the hon. member, as it were, arraigned me before the Prime Minister in this House, and she made use of this House to, as it were, berate me on my clumsiness or lack of diplomacy, or whatever it may be, on the occasion when I appealed to the Jewish community because I thought that they should help us with the problems we are experiencing at the universities. The hon. member for the Transkei also mentioned it in these debates, but I should just like to state emphatically to the House now that I am not running away from the assertion I made there. On that occasion I said to the hon. member for Houghton that if she wanted to raise the matter again and wanted to have it discussed in this House, I had no objection to doing so, but I would like to tell her that she must simply accept that if she did so, she would have to take the responsibility for the ensuing discussion squarely upon her shoulders.

Do not challenge me. It arises from your bad manners.

Is that a challenge? [Interjections.]

Order! It is stated in this House all the time that the one member is challenging the other. What is wrong with that?

I am quite calm and in deadly earnest. I did not raise this matter in this House.

But say what you want to say.

Under the protection of the Chairman, I shall say what I want to say. The hon. member must just give me a chance. Why are they so nervous? [Interjections.]

Order!

It seems to me you are afraid to say it.

I did not raise the matter in this House and all I am saying at the moment is that if the hon. member who raised the matter in the House has fault to find with this and, as she promised, wants to criticize me in the House, then she must do so, but personally I think that the discussion of this matter should be kept out of this House because as a responsible person I can predict that the discussions which could arise out of that, and I can also predict the feeling which could be built up among the various sections in our country if the hon. member does not want to do so. [Interjections.] I know that hon. member opposite wants to ask me why I said that there. All I want to say about this matter is that over and above the Department of the Interior, the Department which looks after domestic security, viz. the Police, has also been entrusted to me, and I reserve to myself the right to make an appeal to any section of our population, if I think it is in the interests of South Africa that I should make an appeal to them for the proper administration of our country. And I shall make that appeal to our English-speaking people, and I shall do it to our Afrikaans-speaking people, and if it is necessary I shall do it in regard to any other church community.

Why do you say “if it is necessary”?

If the circumstances justify doing so, I reserve to myself the right to make an appeal to any group, no matter what identifiable part of South Africa it is. [Interjections.] There were no attacks; it was merely an appeal and now the hon. member, in her ignorance, is making these allegations. I want to end on this note. I said to her what I wanted to say. I corresponded with Jewish Affairs on an article which appeared in error there and I held an interview with the Jewish Board of Deputies. We had a friendly interview and we came to the joint conclusion that it was not I or we who had caused the difficulty, but the troublemakers, the inciters who were responsible for that.

Typical! [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please keep quiet now.

I am not ashamed of what I said there, and I reserve to myself the right at any time in future, if I think it is in the interests of South Africa, to make an appeal to the United Party as an identifiable group, or to any other identifiable group in South Africa.

Yes, but not as a race group.

That is all I want to say. If necessary I shall make an appeal to any race group in the country. If I want to make an appeal to the Coloureds for the sake of peace and good administration, I shall do so. Why do hon. members want to prevent me from making an appeal to an identifiable sector of our population? and that is all I did. There sits the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He was present and he can tell you what happened there. Now all I say is that I know what will result from such a discussion. The hon. member for Houghton promised me that it would come, but I just want to tell her I can foresee the kind of discussion which will take place here if we throw this matter open to the House. As for me, I am not discussing this any further. If someone else wants to raise the matter, he must simply be prepared to accept responsibility for it.

Why did you raise it in the first place? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the Minister a chance.

The hon. member for Green Point was the main speaker in this debate. Before I go any further, I should like to rectify a mistake I made yesterday. You will recall that the hon. member for Orange Grove asked me a question in regard to mini-skirts and arising out of that the hon. member for Green Point put a further question t-o me: “Arising from the reply, can he tell us whether the report of his correspondence which appeared in the daily Press was a correct report?” I then said to him: “No, there was no report of my correspondence.” I want to admit that I gave the wrong reply. Unfortunately I did not have much time to read the newspapers yesterday morning, and I saw the dead Merino lambs on the front page of Die Burger, but I did not note that beneath it there was an article about these mini-dresses. I just want to inform the hon. member that this letter, as it was reproduced in Die Burger is correct. It is a correct version, in so far as it is quoted here, of the letter which I wrote to Mr. Yssel. But there were other people as well who addressed representations to me, and that is the reason why I still feel that it would be wrong to expect a Minister to give an account in this House of all correspondence from private individuals, or anybody else for that matter, which may reach or leave his office. It is for that reason that I replied to the hon. member for Von Brandis and stated that I felt I was justified in not disclosing all this correspondence, because some of it has apparently not even reached its destination yet, and I cannot make it public before the individuals who wrote to me have received a reply from me. But in any case, apart from that consideration, I feel it is very doubtful that there should be an obligation on a Minister to disclose all correspondence across the floor o-f this House. But it is not a matter which we must take further now; we should rather discuss the Vote further.

The hon. member for Green Point gave us a high percentage for the economically utilizable part of our population, which we are in fact utilizing in Government and semi-Government institutions in South Africa. I almost think the percentage he gave was 37 per cent.

It was 32 per cent.

Very well. He then proceeded and compared this to the percentages in certain other countries of the world. I think that for various reasons, that is an unfair comparison to make. In the first instance he will realize that our infrastructure, that word which has been used so often in this House during the past few years, is to a much greater extent than in any other countries o-f the world administered and controlled by the Government. In this way, for example, our railways are not controlled by private initiative, n-or are our telephones, and there are numerous other services which in other countries are carried out by private initiative but not in South Africa. Apparently the hon. member went and added up the Government Departments, as well as the Railways and the Provincial Administrations, and even local authorities, and then arrived at that high percentage. But I think there is still a further consideration which we must also take into account when we say that this is not a sound comparison. It is that we would be justified in saying that 3.5 million of our population has, to a large extent to bear the administration of 18 million people. That position is gradually improving. I shall reply in a moment to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to the increased employment of non-Whites, but the fact o-f the matter is still that in our administration at the moment use is being made to a certain extent of non-Whites, but not in proportion to their numbers in South Africa. As a result of that important consideration it is not quite fair to compare these percentages with each other. A proper study was made by the Public Service Commission of the Fulton report to which he referred and we are taking thorough cognizance of it, but I feel, and this is also the information I have, i.e. that this Fulton report merely discusses the basic things we already to a large extent have in our Public Service in South Africa.

The hon. member also raised the question of classification. Perhaps I oan, at the same time, also reply to the hon. member for Wynberg, who offered her excuse for not being able to be present here to-day. She unfortunately received bad news and it is not possible for her to be present to-day. She also raised here the question of applications for classification which came before the court and which were then dealt with so slowly. I doubt whether it is necessary for me to explain the position to the hon. member for Green Point. He knows that it was common cause between us in 1967 that third party objections would be abolished. As a result a year passed during which time no third party applications whatsoever were considered by these boards. But subsequently a case came before the court; the case was taken on appeal and the Appeal Court decided that these pending third party cases should in fact be reconsidered. In the meantime the handling of third party cases came to a standstill and only with effect from July, 1968, did the boards once again begin to deal with third party applications. As a result o-f that there was a tremendous backlog which, according to figures which can be furnished, is gradually being eliminated. According to my information, these cases are being dealt with as rapidly as possible.

The hon. member and other hon. members as well, particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove, then discussed the so-called Book of Life, and what our intentions were in regard to it. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to say in the first place that the hon. member for Orange Grove read out a long speech here which had been made by my predecessor in regard to this matter. I do not think he did so in order to further his argument for or against this Book of Life; he only did so because he wanted to cause embarrassment. I do not think that the means he applied in order to cause embarrassment of this kind was in good taste. We shall therefore leave that part of the speech of my predecessor, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, which he read out here, at that. I just want to say in passing that I do not think it was in very good taste. As far as this matter is concerned, it is our intention to proceed with this scheme. The Cabinet has decided that every separate facet of this new population registration system must be approved by the Government. As progress is made with the introduction of this new legislation system the various facets are approved by the Government. For the information of the Committee I want to say that there are certain parts which are approved by the Cabinet and which are being proceeded with, and others which are not being proceeded with. So for example the Cabinet has already decided that passports will not be incorporated into the identification documents which are being envisaged. I agree that passport control is important. We cannot regard a passport as a document which will be issued automatically. In order to exercise proper control, application has to be made. Passports will therefore no longer form part of these identification documents, but there are many others with which we are proceeding. We are at the moment engaged in preparing legislation which it is hoped will be introduced in this House next year to effect the gradual introduction of this new system in the ensuing year.

Will voters’ regulation be included?

No decision has as yet been taken in that regard.

The hon. member for Green Point also discussed modern methods in the Public Service. We have discussed this matter often before. We are both in favour of the use of modern methods in the Public Service. I should like to refer him to paragraph 78, on page 6 of the latest report of the Public Service Commission, where something is said about this matter and that is in fact all I can say at this moment …

I found it after my speech.

As far as possible every attempt is being made to make use of modern methods in the Public Service.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) discussed the dissatisfaction in the Public Service. This is an old objection of the hon. member; he comes forward every year with the general accusation that there is dissatisfaction in the Public Service.

I said in certain circles.

If the hon. member’s purpose is to help me, then he must be a little more specific and tell me in what circles and where there is dissatisfaction. It has not been my experience that there is general satisfaction. We realize that we have problems with employees. We also realize that great demands are being made on the officials to-day, and we realize, too, that full satisfaction in the Public Service is an ideal which we will probably never achieve. We will probably never reach the stage where we will be able to say that in the entire service there is not a dissatisfied person. That is a simply unattainable ideal, but nevertheless I feel that I am justified in saying that there is in fact a large measure of satisfaction in the Public Service. As far as conditions of service, salaries scales, etc., are concerned, the circumstances of the day are continually being taken into consideration with a view to further concessions to Public Servants. The hon. member is aware of the fact that we recently announced adjustments which, to a large extent, have brought alleviation to certain sectors of the Public Service. Recently I also made an announcement in regard to the new concessions in respect of the rate of interest on housing loans for Public Servants, and in this way we are continuing with our attempts to establish a happy Public Service. Since I said yesterday that it would be my task to try to effect an efficient Public Service and at the same time a happy Public Service—for the one is dependent upon the other—I would rather ask the hon. member to help me build up that happy and efficient Public Service and not to dismantle it.

The hon. member for Umbilo expressed an idea here which one could in fact take into consideration, particularly since I am of the opinion that it is a matter which gives rise to resignations on the part of public servants. He suggested that during the first ten years of a person’s period of service he should not make any contributions to the pension fund. That means of course that if he retires from the service during the first ten years he will receive no repayment of pension contributions. Sir, this is a matter which can be considered. It will of course simply mean higher subsequent contributions on the part of the employee, or higher contributions on the part of the State. We are aware that the repayment of pension contributions plays quite a role amongst certain young people when they resign. If they have been working for a couple of years, then it comes in quite handy for them if they can get hold of a capital amount when they retire from the Public Service. I want to tell the hon. member that there is a permanent pensions’ committee on which Social Welfare and Pensions, the Treasury and the Public Service Commission are represented, and where all these matters are taken into consideration from time to time. I will in fact take the thoughts expressed here by the hon. member into thorough consideration. The hon. member also spoke about study assistance for the children of public servants. They are receiving the same assistance as others. I want to inform the hon. member that in the Public Service there are a tremendous amount of opportunities for study aid. Any person who wants to join the Public Service, whether it is a child of a Public Servant or not, will then be able to obtain study assistance.

In addition I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday, and more specifically to what he said about increased employment of non-Whites in the Public Service. Sir, that is in fact what this Government is envisaging, i.e. that non-Whites must play a greater part in the administration of the State, but obviously in a different way than that envisaged by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Our policy, as the hon. member knows, is separate development, and if one talks of separate development in regard to the employment of Whites and non-Whites in the Public Service, then this gives as it were the entire picture, i.e. that we believe that the different race groups should be served by their own people. The hon. member will agree with me that these people first have to be trained before they can serve their own people. In fact there are a tremendous number of non-Whites in the Public Service to-day. They are not so much in our white Public Service although certain non-Whites are being employed in our Public Service, but they serve their own people. I should just like to furnish the hon. member with the figures. He spoke yesterday about the police and stated that we had integration in the police service because we were, to a large extent, employing non-Whites. But, Sir, that is not so. We have been able to employ non-Whites in the Public Service to very good effect because we were able to use those non-Whites to serve their own people. While one is not able to do so in other divisions of the Public Force. So for example we are using between 15,000 and 16,000 in the Police Force, for police work among their own people. We are also using Coloureds and Indians to do police work among their own people. These two things cannot be compared with each other. Sir, do you know to what extent we are already employing non-Whites for Public Service work, not in our Public Service but in their own service. In Bantu Administration and Development there are 36,011 Bantu in service. In Bantu Education there are 27,388 in service. In Coloured Affairs there are 19,154 in service. In Indian Affairs there are 6,305; in police there are 15,500; in Prisons there are 7,489, a total therefore of 101,847.

And the Railways— is that integration?

Sir. I am not even mentioning the Railways. The numbers I mentioned here, do not include the non-Whites in our own Public Service; these are the numbers that work separately for these non-white departments. These numbers apparently include the thousands who apparently work in the railway service as well. We believe the non-Whites should be trained for the administration of the country, but we believe that they must serve their own people separately, and we are training them towards that end. That is the difference between our approach and the approach of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

What do you do in a case where a white official in a post office serves both races? Can people be included who serve the non-Whites? What about the mixed services?

Our standpoint up to now has been that where there are mixed services, Whites must render their services. This is our standpoint for two reasons. Firstly because we feel that the Whites can serve both classes better and secondly because the non-Whites are not trained to the same degree to render those services. As we make progress with the process of separate development we will gradually make better use of the services of non-Whites.

The hon. member also referred to passports and the delay in regard to passports. I want to inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that it is an old failing on the part of the public to wait till the last day or two before they apply for their passports. But I want to give him the assurance that under normal circumstances a passport is issued within a day or two or three. The hon. member will agree with me that there are many cases where they may perhaps have to refer an application for a passport to Bantu Administration, or perhaps to the police where security considerations are implicated. These are exceptional cases, but it is obvious that in those cases we cannot issue the passport in a day or two. But the hon. member can rest assured, if he does not know this already that in normal circumstances, where this reference to other departments is not necessary, the passport is issued without any delay. For the sake of interest I still want to mention that last year almost 140,000 passports were issued in South Africa by the Department of the Interior. It is therefore quite a considerable task. When there is a little pressure here and there and applications flow in rapidly, it is after all necessary to exercise a little patience.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of travelling facilities for non-Whites as well as the deposits which have to be paid. This was also raised by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Wynberg. If this House has not forgotten it yet, I want to state emphatically that as far as these deposits are concerned, no distinction is made whatsoever between Whites and non-Whites. If a person wants to leave a country with a single ticket or if he cannot prove that he has permanent residential rights and the country asks us to take that person back, it is our responsibility to pay the expense of the return journey. Only on those grounds do we ask for a deposit from those people. In cases where we charge deposits and the person subsequently obtains permanent residence in the country where he has settled he can apply and then the deposit is paid back. Surely we cannot be fairer than that. We must protect the State’s interests and the circumstances I mentioned here are the only circumstances which are taken into account when claiming deposits. I think that deals with the matters which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised here.

What about the endorsing of passports?

Oh, yes. The hon. member raised another point which was that there was, in fact, an allegedly negative approach in respect of the endorsement of passports. He said that since we had previously provided that the passport should be granted for specific countries, a passport was now being granted, except for the following countries. These are indicated on the passport. We can argue this point. I should like to inform the member that it is organized in this way because we feel that it will entail less work and that the procedure involved is easier. I must admit that the hon. member has an argument in that it could cause a negative impression. It is a negative approach when persons are told that they can go to any other country except certain countries, instead of the positive opposite. These countries which are excluded are in any case those countries which are not sympathetically-disposed towards us. This however does not mean that a country which is not sympathetically-disposed towards you should be further estranged. I admit that as well. In the past we followed the present procedure because it was easier and simpler. If the hon. member wants to travel in one of those countries which are excluded he can always come and state that he wants to go say to Poland for example. Poland is apparently excluded but the passport can then be endorsed to the effect that he can in fact go to Poland. I must admit that this is an argument. I want to tell the hon. member that this matter will in fact be given thorough consideration. The hon. member will agree with me that it is easier as it is at the moment, than when the whole series of countries to which you may perhaps not want to go are mentioned there. For the sake of the easier and simpler handling, we decided to do it like this. However I shall give attention to this matter.

I think that for the present I have discussed all the matters which were raised here. Hon. members must excuse me if I have furnished only a brief reply to certain aspects, but time did not allow me to make an extensive discussion such as this even more extensive.

I do not want to follow up the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his argumentation, but I nevertheless consider it the duty of every Government to preserve and to protect the spiritual values of the people in its area, and to ward off anything that could undermine those spiritual values from within, as well as from outside, the country. Just as any government would build tariff walls to protect its economy, it is also the Government’s duty to build ramparts to repel any possible attacks from within or without, aimed at destroying or assailing spiritual values. That is why the Publications Board is necessary and that is why it is necessary for us to see to it that the Publications Board will function in such a way that the spiritual values of our country will be preserved and not assailed by the various spiritual diseases which germinate in the world from time to time.

I want to come back for a while to the hon. member for Green Point. Yesterday he tried to impress us by a salvo of ostensibly impressive figures. I consider it necessary for one to review critically the statements he made here. Inter alia, he claimed that during the six years from 1960 to 1966, the entire Public Service staff, Whites and non-Whites, increased by 19.2 per cent. I accept this figure. I have the unrevised copy of the hon. member’s Hansard speech and I notice that he neglected to mention a few important concomitant aspects. For example, he neglected to mention that our real gross domestic product increased over that period by R2,087 million, or 40.4 per cent. He also neglected to tell us that the gross domestic product at market prices increased by 63 per cent over the same period. The hon. member’s criticism concerns the fact that this Government is simply cramming the services with people. Thereby, so the hon. member implied, the economy is being weakened. But how does he reconcile that criticism with the figures I have supplied? Or does the hon. member not accept my figures? If he is in doubt let him merely look at page 5 of the White Paper which was issued together with the Budget. And what is more, the real gross domestic product increased per capita by 21.4 per cent from 1960 to 1966. If the hon. member now wants to prove that the numerical increases in the Public Service are pre-judicing our economy, I can only say that he did not have a good look and his judgment was poor. As I said, the real gross domestic product increased by 40.4 per cent and pet capita by 21.4 per cent. His argument about the Public Service being loaded at the expense of the private sector therefore does not hold water. Mr. Chairman, I considered it necessary to rectify this crooked image for the sake of the record. In another respect the hon. member also put his foot in it. He tried, for example, to compare non-comparable things. I tried to reconcile his figures. He said that in 1960 the Central Government had employed 219,736 persons as against 321,192 in 1966. But I could not succeed in reconciling these figures. We are talking here about people who fall under the Internal Affairs Vote and the Public Service Commission. These are the people he has in mind when he speaks of “Central Government”, but then he arrives at figures which I cannot reconcile. The fact is that the 1960 establishment, for Whites and non-Whites, of the Public Service Commission comprised 148,592 persons as against 202,934 on the 31st December, 1966. The hon. member claimed that there was an increase of 46 per cent in the establishment of the Central Government.

My figures are the official figures.

Then the hon. member must please reveal his sources, because the figures which the Public Service Commission furnishes in its report do not agree with the figures which the hon. member supplied. The hon. member spoke of an increase of 46 per cent in the establishment of the Central Government. According to my figures there was an increase of about 36 per cent. Another important aspect, which the hon. member fails to consider, is that preference should be given to the infrastructure, about which hon. members have so frequently shed tears, in economic expansion. For example, how can iron ore be exported without a railway line and without harbour facilities? How can one communicate between Johannesburg and Cape Town or between here and abroad without a telephone service? It goes without saying that in a period of intense economic growth one’s infrastructure must receive preference. But who must provide the infrastructure? Is it the private sector? No. The hon. member knows very well that it is the Government’s job, and yet the hon. member still comes along and criticizes the Government for having created an infrastructure and for having maintained it in order to make economic expansion possible. In my opinion that hon. member argues in very much the same way as the editor of the Commercial Opinion in his May issue in which he said that there was no decrease in Government expenditure, and then in brackets he said. “A miracle for which we have thus far prayed in vain”. In other words, this person stated that constant prayers are being offered for a decrease in Government expenditure. The hon. member for Green Point said the same because he said that the Public Service should be made smaller. He said that the Government had enlarged the Public Service injudiciously because it had withdrawn manpower from the private sector and thereby had detrimentally affected progress in that sector. Surely the hon. member does not deny having sa’d it? Surely he did say so. Thus this editor also prays for a decrease in Government expenditure, but at the same time he gnashes his teeth if he has to wait 20 minutes for a telephone call. In other words, he is, in fact, asking for greater Government expenditure, but at the same time he is praying for less. That, therefore, is the approach of the opposite side of the House.

Then the hon. member continued by implying that the Public Service is very unproductive at present. He reproached the Minister and the Government with the fact that the costs of production are not fixed. He quoted examples of that. I want to mention the Government Printer as an example. The Government Printing Works is simply a factory supplying certain services. Who mans that factory? Whites, because out of an establishment of 1,273, there are only 12 non-Whites. The hon. member said that the Public Service was unproductive, but does the hon. member not know that certain publications are furnished by the Government Printing Works at a difference in cost of as much as 100 per cent, by comparison with the private sector? Take the Gazette as an average example. In that respect the Government Printer charges about 13 per cent less than the private sector. But the hon. member levelled criticism on the grounds that the costs of certain articles are unpayable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the time available to me, I cannot deal in detail with the speech of the hon. the Minister, plus those of two members of the Government who spoke before and after him. Firstly, we had the hon. member for Innesdal. He made a speech we could have expected. The hon. member made two points. In the first place, he breathed a sigh of relief that there was no political censorship and therefore Veg was unlikely to be silenced. Then he made an appeal to the hon. the Minister. He appealed to the hon. the Minister to be more “verkramp”. He objected to the “verligte” approach of censorship. The hon. member said that our censorship approach of films was far too enlightened. He asked the hon. the Minister to please bring in a more “verkrampte” attitude. I suggest that the hon. member for Innesdal thrashes that out with the editor of Die Beeld, who feels strongly that there should not be censorship of films, and I leave the “verkramptes” and the “verligtes” to sort out their differences on censorship. I noticed that the hon. member did not refer to mini-skirts. His friend the hon. member for Sunnyside has strong feelings on mini-skirts.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. the Minister. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for agreeing with my friend the hon. member for Green Point and for repudiating the hon. member for Parow and other members on that side of the House. The hon. member for Green Point made the point that the white population of South Africa was carrying a disproportionate burden in having to provide a public service to 18 million people in South Africa. He was attacked by the hon. member for Parow and various other hon. members for allegedly having pleaded for a Black civil service, for having pleaded that Whites be thrown out of the Civil Service and be replaced by non-Whites. All sorts of imaginative “afleidings” and conclusions were drawn. The hon. member for Witbank did the same. They were trying to play politics, but the hon. the Minister stood up and substantiated everything the hon. member for Green Point had said. The hon. the Minister said that it was the policy of the Government to have more and more non-Whites playing their part in the Public Service on behalf of the 18 million people in South Africa. I therefore sincerely hope that we will hear no more of that sort of speech.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister chose to launch a personal attack on me. The hon. the Minister did so in terms of cricket. He said that I was a person who played cricket and that yesterday I had not played cricket. I want to tell the hon. the Minister something about cricket. In cricket you have an umpire and you have rules. And it ill behoves a member of this Government, and particularly a Minister of this Department, whose affairs we are debating now, to talk in terms of cricket. I say so because every time this Department has been “given out” by the umpire it has changed the rules and even the umpire himself. Let me give the Committee some examples. When they tried to pass a Bill in conflict with the Constitution of South Africa and the courts threw that measure out, the Government simply created a High Court of Parliament. When that was thrown out, they created an enlarged Senate. When this hon. Minister’s Department finds that it is overruled by the courts on a race classification case, then it simply changes the law. On every single occasion on which the Government is given out by the highest umpire in South Africa, namely the courts of South Africa, it changes the law or the umpire. Therefore I say that a Minister of this Department is the last person to come and lecture me about playing cricket.

What are the facts? I bowled the hon. the Minister a googly in the form of a question. He snicked it and was caught in the slips. And now, instead of saying like a man: “I made a mistake; I am sorry, you caught me out”, the hon. the Minister gets up and attacks me and says that I am not playing cricket. And why am I not playing cricket? I asked the hon. the Minister whether there had been a special investigation into problems and difficulties in the Public Service—in the Departments. The hon. the Minister replied that there had been no such investigation. But yesterday he admitted that there had not only been an investigation but that a special Cabinet Committee had been appointed to investigate. Why was that Cabinet Committee appointed if there were no problems and if there were no dissatisfaction? Why did the Government appoint a committee to investigate Government Departments if it did not believe that there was something to investigate? Why did it appoint a committee specifically to go into the problems created by the Public Service Commission? The hon. the Minister appealed to me to give details. He asked me to help him. I helped the hon. the Minister. I gave him a specific example. I said that there was dissatisfaction in some circles over the Public Service Commission. Instead of accepting that and thanking me for telling him where the dissatisfaction lay, he tries to pretend that no general investigation was carried out. Last year when I moved a private member’s motion the Government said that there was no dissatisfaction and that there were no problems. Yesterday the hon. the Minister had to admit that there in fact, was a special investigation by the Cabinet.

Then the hon. the Minister attacked me for reading a secret document. Why was that document secret? Was it secret because the hon. the Minister did not want certain Government Departments to know about it, including his own Department, the Public Service Commission or other heads of Departments? Why was it secret? The hon. the Minister must not come and attack me. The hon. the Minister must admit that he made a mistake.

Yesterday I was also attacked by various members. I was accused of attacking public servants. I want to say—and I have my Hansard here for anyone to read—that nowhere did I attack public servants in general. There are two exceptions. The one is where I believe that there is undue political influence and the other when I believe there is racial prejudice or language group prejudice being practised in a department or by an official. If those two things happen, I will continue to raise those issues. I will go on raising them and I will go on drawing to the attention of the Legislative Assembly of South Africa instances where I believe there is either language discrimination or political influence being brought about in any Department. I want to raise an example of the sort of political influence to which I referred. Here I have with me the Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957. Section 17 of this Act deals with the things a public servant may not do. Paragraph (g) of this section reads: “Becomes a member of any political organization or takes part in political matters”. Now, this year a member of the Public Service stood as a candidate for the Nationalist Party. In terms of the constitution of the Nationalist Party he has to be a member of the party in order to be a candidate. In terms of this section he may not be a member of a political party. He was a member because he was a candidate and was allowed to stand as a candidate. He therefore broke this rule. He stood for nomination as a Nationalist Party candidate and he, therefore, took part in politics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to see and hear how hot under the collar the hon. member for Durban (Point) can become. My only problem is that it is difficult to determine whether he is really serious about it. He frequently states his case in sporting terms. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, judging by remarks and utterances made here, that he once more had the wrong end of the stick and that he was not even sure of his facts. I believe that the Minister and other hon. members will still furnish him with a forceful reply.

I should like to refer to an important event this week, when the Publications Control Board is to decide about the film “Katrina”. A great deal has already been written about it and there is an interest in the pending decision.

In the Press earlier this week mention was made of the fact that the restriction on the making of films in South Africa was stricter than that on the Press and the Broadcasting Corporation. The Broadcasting Corporation and the Press are only subject to the ordinary laws to which the citizens of the country are subject, but films are in a totally different position. A plea was made for these restrictions on the making of films to be abolished, that films should have the same freedom as the Press and radio. This is a very serious question to which I should like to draw the attention of the House.

In this connection it is very interesting to note what happened in the U.S.A. In the U.S.A, the Supreme Court decided the following, as is apparent from a book by a certain person called Kilpatrick. He states it as follows in this book “The Smut Peddlers”—

Then they give the reasons, and it is very interesting and important to note why that is the position. They state—

This refers to films—

It was in 1915 that the American Supreme Court made that statement. A short while later, in another case, it was confirmed that “the exhibition of motion pictures is not to be regarded as part of the public Press”. This is a very important point. That was in 1915. Shortly afterwards, in 1922, the following case took place. Kilpatrick states it as follows—

Why? For this reason—

That was the case in 1922. In 1948 we find a total reversal in the attitude of the American Counts in respect of the Press and films, and Mr. Justice Douglas, a famous American Judge said—

In other words, after 53 years one finds, on an authoritative level, a total reversal in the attitude of the American courts in respect of the original standpoint which prevailed for almost 53 years. Now one would think that this was the still valid standpoint in the U.S.A., i.e. that films should be as free as the Press and radio as far as what it wants to transmit to its audiences is concerned. But in 1959 we find that, in connection a decision about a book of doubtful moral standard, the American Supreme Court adopted the following attitude—

Here, therefore, they go as far as leaving this entire matter out of account. The courts did not want to touch it again. But the “Motion Picture Association of America”, writes Kilpatrick, “itself has considered the question, and historically has not contended that its freedoms of expression should be co-extensive with those of newspapers, books, or stage plays”. From this the very important and interesting fact is thus apparent, that the American Film moguls think that the motion picture is more dangerous by way of the manner in which it transmits its message than even books or stage plays and, of course, newspapers. In other words, the implication of this is that they accept the standpoint that stricter censorship is actually more essential to films than to other media, mass or non mass media, in respect of the transmission of a message. Therefore my plea in this connection to the Minister, and through him to the Publications Control Board, is that they, as has been the case up to the present day—for that we thank the Government for the policy which is being adopted in this connection—will continue to guard against the breaking down of the spiritual values on which we, here in South Africa, have established our white civilization and are continuing to develop it.

Now hon. members may ask me why the Motion Pictures Association of America adopted this very important standpoint, in spite of the important decision of Mr. Justice Douglas. I should like to quote the reasons why. Their reasons are the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will forgive me if I do not continue the discussion on film censorship. First of all, I must confess to not being a film addict myself. Secondly, I think the Minister knows my views, since he has tested me on one doubtful film.

The reason why I stand up to address the Committee this afternoon, is to deal with certain comments made by the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Waterkloof, who is unfortunately not here at the moment. But before I do that I want to conclude, if I may, certain remarks which were made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member referred to the provisions of section 17 of the Public Service Act which are quite explicit in regard to non-participation in political activities. It is accepted that the following section, that is to say section 18, leaves of course a discretion as to the type of action that should be taken against an official who contravenes that particular section. The case which we wish to refer to is the case of a Mr. Boshoff, who is Deputy Secretary for Bantu Education and who sought nomination as a Nationalist Party candidate for the Newcastle election. This particular official was at one time temporarily in the Transkei. [Interjections.] The point I am coming to is that having contravened section 17, information was sought from the responsible Minister. When he was asked for this information by a Senator the hon. the Minister informed the hon. the Senate that his attention had been drawn to the fact that there was contravention of section 17 and that this official had taken part as an aspirant candidate in party nominations. The hon. the Minister then said that the taking of disciplinary action or not as laid down in section 17 of the Public Service Act of 1957 is the prerogative of heads of departments. J want to say straight away that if a spirit were to get abroad in the Public Service that regulations and statutory requirements need not be complied with, because a person might be lucky enough that the head of the department will not do anything about it …

As long as you are on the right side.

That will be the beginning of the undermining of discipline within the Department. I do hope the hon. the Minister will not tolerate a continuance of this state of affairs within the Public Service.

As I have said, I wanted to refer to certain matters which have arisen during the course of this discussion. The first one is the question of mechanization and investigation within the service to ascertain whether there are posts which could be abolished and also, as I asked in my initial remarks in this debate, whether there were posts that need not be created. Unfortunately, when I spoke yesterday, the Public Service Commission’s report for 1968 was not in my possession. It was only tabled during the course of proceedings yesterday. But the justification for what I had asked the hon. the Minister, appears in this report itself. I am very pleased to see it. If one looks at paragraph 85, one will find that during ffie year work study teams carried out certain investigations. As a result the following savings were effected, i.e. 585 posts were abolished and the creation of 456 posts were obviated. That is exactly what I raised with the hon. the Minister yesterday. The hon. members who sit on the other side of this House regarded me as criticizing the efficiency of the Civil Service. The Public Service Commission has found it necessary to do just that what I asked should be done and done more efficiently.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Parow. I do wish that an hon. member with the status of the member for Parow would stop sometimes playing party politics when we are debating matters in this House.

What else can he play? [Interjections.]

Col. 7246:

Line 33: For “plymecic”, read “polemic”.

Yesterday he stood up immediately and reacted to my suggestion regarding the employment of more non-Whites in the Civil Service of South Africa. He said that I was advocating a policy of integration.

Quite right.

The hon. member says “quite right”. Can I now (proceed and draw attention to the fact that the hon. the Minister has stated that that is his Department’s policy? Perhaps the other hon. members who support the Cabinet in power might realize that it is Government policy to increase the number of non-white posts in the Civil Service.

You want to replace Whites.

I have never for one moment suggested that. This hon. member is trying to play politics the whole time. Let me just tell him what his own Government has done when he talks about replacing. I want to show what the position in the Post Office this year is. I want to quote to the hon. member for Parow the reply from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on the 8th April. He referred to the fact that there are temporarily employed in the Post Office 859 Coloureds, 225 Indian and 1,117 Bantu. I hope the hon. member for Parow will listen to the hon. the Minister’s comments which I now want to quote. He said—

Those are the 2,500 I referred to. Are they employed against white posts or are they not? The Minister of Transport told us that he is employing up to 8,000 non-Whites filling posts which on the establishment are White posts. If we go further we find that in 1964 there were in the Civil Service temporarily employed surplus to establishment a number of 304 non-Whites. By 1967 there were 1,782 non-white persons employed surplus to establishment and filling posts which were otherwise classified for Whites. That is what we are asking to be done. That is what I believe should be done. These posts should now be reclassified as Coloured or non-white posts. The hon. member for Parow who is a responsible member then stands up and says that we are pleading for integration!

In the time that is at my disposal I want to deal quickly with one other matter. Both the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Waterkloof had something to say to the hon. member for Wynberg in regard to her endeavours for persons affected by the Population Registration Act. The hón. member for Waterkloof said that we must draw a line somewhere in regard to the difference between Whites and non-Whites. But we have said over and over again—and I think we have been justified by the decisions of the courts—(that we are attempting to do something that neither a scientist, nor a doctor, nor a sociologist or nor anybody else can do, namely to define the difference between a White and a non-White. This has resulted in people being caught up in what Mr. Justice Hiemstra referred to as “sterile legalisms” of the laws which have been passed. That is what has happened. I want to remind those two hon. members that of the appeals that have been successful 234 people who were classified as Coloureds have now been classified as White. These were people who have proved that they were white. We are being told that these are 506 stories, but are we not trying to help people? Yet not one appeal has resulted in a white person classified white being classified as Coloured. [Interjections.] I can only say to those two hon. members that it would be a sad state of affairs if Parliament subjugates our humanity to party political expediency which these two hon. gentlemen attempted to do in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak about the Press. To start with I want to read what I wrote about the Press in 1959, and I am doing so in order that I may not be connected with the present-day plymecic about the Press. On 22nd June, 1959, I wrote an article in a newspaper and said that the Press should appoint its own watchdog. The first amendment to the American Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or Press.” This is a principle which is acknowledged by everybody as a good principle. But the freedom of the press is not a freedom which is appreciated and correctly understood by everybody. This is how it happened that to-day two-thirds of the world does not enjoy any freedom of the Press in the sense of the meaning given to it or as contained in the American First Amendment. This is how it happened that here in our own country the Press Union had to constitute a press council which laid down a certain press code, a body which listens to certain objections raised by individuals in regard to reports and then takes a precipitate worthless decision. And now I want to say this. This press council which we have and which has to watch over the freedom of the Press is, to my mind, not an efficient body. It has no statutory powers. It has no enforceable disciplinary powers. This is a body which may easily and every effectively be replaced by a body such as the one I proposed as far back as 1959, when I wrote as follows (translation)—

I have already said what I think of the press council. I think it is an inefficient, ineffectively functioning body for watching over the freedom of the press and giving finality on acts committed by journalists and by publishers who are guilty of the same thing that hon. member was when he sabotaged our country and said: “We are waiting for a shock from outside.”

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that. He may not say that an hon. member has sabotaged the country.

But what else did he do?

Has the hon. member withdrawn it?

I shall withdraw it and later on I shall think of a word to replace it.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member must withdraw without qualification.

It is unqualified.

On a point of order, Sir, in regard to the dignity of Parliament, it is surely not sufficient for an hon. member to withdraw in such a manner that there is a roar of laughter. A withdrawal should be unequivocal and clear; otherwise it is derogatory of the dignity of Parliament, and I appeal to you, Sir, to maintain that dignity.

Order! The hon. member said he was withdrawing unconditionally, The hon. member may continue.

Having said that in regard to the present press council, I want to say the following. I think it is high time a register of journalists was opened, a register in which the qualifications, the training and the background of every person who makes journalism his career would be clear for all to see. A person who joins the teaching profession, or a person who joins the legal profession, or a person who joins the medical profession, is not ashamed of putting on record his qualifications and his accomplishments.

What pressman is?

And what about members of Parliament?

I think that if we were to set that requirement, there would not be one on that side. I say that I think it is time we started thinking of opening such a register. I shall welcome into the ranks of our pressmen a journalist and pressman who has completed his studies successfully. It also gives me pleasure to state that the University of Potchefstroom now has a faculty of journalism in which a student can graduate, and I am proud to say that my daughter was one of the first students in that faculty. I have here a curriculum of that faculty at Potchefstroom. Time does not permit me to read out this curriculum, but I can tell you, Sir, that any person who has completed this curriculum and written this examination, is a person who will not only be armed with knowledge in regard to journalism, but will also be saturated in spirit with the code of honour of the journalistic world.

Did you pass that examination?

I referred to my daughter, but that kind of question one can always expect from that corner. I think she has much more brains than that hon. member has. Permit me to furnish reasons for my having said these things, and I shall be very brief. I said that the freedom of the Press was a possession of the community. This is one of the great freedoms in the democratic world. Next to freedom of speech and religious freedom, freedom of the press is one of the great fundamental freedoms. Secondly, I want to say that freedom of the Press is a special privilege, granted by the community to certain individuals or groups of individuals. This privilege involves responsibilities and duties. Thirdly, the guarantee for the preservation of this freedom of the Press is granted by the community, which is the possessor of that freedom and which grants the privilege for handling that privilege. Therefore, no publisher who handles this possession, or enjoys this special privilege, or is in possession of this guarantee given by the community, may disparage the spiritual foundations and the moral and ethical norms of the community. To be more specific, in our fatherland no press service may serve as a forum from which and through which the Christian national foundations of our State, as recognized by our authorities, are undermined.

And what about Calvinism?

If only you were steeped in Calvinism, you would not have been such a weak-kneed Opposition. [Time expired.]

I just want to make a few comments. It has been very noticeable that in this debate the hon. members who have taken part have only been the “verkramptes”, like the hon. members for Innesdal, Wonderboom, Waterkloof, Carletonville, Rissik and Pretoria (District). Nobody else has taken part, and this is an indication to us that the “verkramptes” have taken over. The speech by the hon. member for Carletonville has been a clear warning to the Government—freedom of the Press and hands off Veg and hands off the S.A. Observer.

The hon. member for Transkei has just made a speech in which he really wandered very far from the Department of the Interior. He was lucky to get in with that speech. I do not think there are many other points for me to reply to, but here and there there are still outstanding matters which I should like to discuss, and I think I should start by saying a few words on the Publications Board. You will agree with me, Sir, that to a large extent the discussion this afternoon dealt with the Publications Board, and that is why I want to say something about it.

As far as I myself am concerned, I have every confidence that we may leave this matter in the hands of the Publications Board, but I nevertheless think that it would serve a good purpose to have a discussion here in regard to matters which fall under the Publications Board and, in particular, also in regard to the norms to be applied in their considerations, because in that way, even if the Publications Board were only to take cognizance of this, they may at least be given an idea of what the feelings of Parliament are in regard to the work done by that board. In the Publications Board itself we have people from all the various walks of life. We have highly trained academical people there; the arts are well represented there and the same applies to the various races. The Bantu are well represented, as are the other non-Whites. As far as possible we are catering for the various population groups and also for the various schools of thought which may exist in South Africa I think it is very important for us to do this. I am aware that all of us claim for ourselves the right to speak on these matters, because we read the books and the newspapers and we look at the films. Then we are inclined to say: I am only a layman, and who am I to speak, but I am nevertheless prepared to express my views on all these matters. I feel that in view of the way in which the Publications Board has been constituted and the liaison which I maintain with that board in connection with its work, we may very confidently leave this work in its hands. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout started by referring to the Publications Board, and he referred in particular to a certain book which he said he had only read half way. I agree with him in so far that no publications board ought to be used in order to further the interests of any internal political party. In that regard I agree with him, but there are nevertheless broad terms on the basis of which politics as such is a consideration with the Publications Board. I should like to refer him to section 5 (2) (c) and (d) of the Act. Paragraph (c) provides that a publication or object shall be deemed to be undesirable if it or any part of it “brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt” and (d) “is harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic”.

In that case one might just as well ban the political pamphlets of parties.

If the hon. member differs with this section of the Act, it is another matter, but the hon. member must, after all, admit that this measure does exist, and within the scope of that definition I think it is desirable and essential for the Publications Board to take certain aspects into account. In any case, it is essential for the Publications Board to ensure that anything which might cause friction between the various race groups should be eliminated. I do not think the hon. member differs from me in this regard, and in that process we may assume that there must be political considerations, the result being that one should not exclude politics in the broad sense from the considerations of the Publications Board, but that politics in the narrow sense, in the party-political sense locally in South Africa, should in fact be excluded from the considerations of the Publications Board. In that regard I agree with the hon. member. The hon. member also raised the question of immigrants here. He said he actually intended to make a plea for those people in our country who were applying for being registered as White or whatever other class and who were not being accepted as such.

Who pass for White.

In the process of that plea which he made, he referred to immigrants who came to South Africa and who, by virtue of their background, were probably not White but who nevertheless came to South Africa as immigrants and were admitted as such. He regards this as being wrong. Viewed from the angle of the principle involved here, I think that the one is as wrong as the other.

I do not think it is wrong, but a distinction should be drawn in favour of the foreigner.

He advances that as an argument to support his plea on behalf of inhabitants of this country who, in his opinion, ought to be registered as White. My standpoint is that if it is wrong in one case, it is also wrong in the other case. If the hon. member wants to advance the argument that it is wrong to register as Whites, immigrants who by virtue of their appearance may be completely White but actually have non-White blood in their veins, then the hon. member must agree with me that the other thing is as wrong.

Why is the immigrant judged by his appearance only, but not so the South African?

That is what the Act provides, and I do not think that this is the occasion for discussing the merits of that Act. In 1967 we accepted that principle in our Act. I do not think that this is the occasion for discussing the advantages or the disadvantages, but I want to tell the hon. member that immigrants who come to South Africa are screened by a selection board on the basis of their appearance and acceptance in their country of origin. One of the considerations in screening immigrants, is that it should be possible to assimilate them in South Africa, and the hon. member will agree with me that that means that it should be possible to assimilate them in South Africa as Whites. The points the hon. member mentioned here, will obviously be taken into account. Even if an immigrant were to come to South Africa and it were to appear later on that it is not possible for the community to accept him as a white person, an objection can still be lodged and a reclassification can still take place. I agree wholeheartedly that it would be unfortunate if such a procedure should be found necessary; I should like to avoid it, but it is nevertheless possible to reclassify such a person. As regards immigrants, I want to emphasize that there is a selection board and that the selection board has to ensure that the immigrants can be assimilated in South Africa and that it will be possible to assimilate them as Whites. However, the hon. member may not compare the two considerations.

Mr. Chairman, to-day the hon. member for Durban (Point) really bowled wildly here. His bowling was so far off my crease that I could not get a bat to the ball.

He bowls wides.

I do not want to refer again to an accusation which was levelled here yesterday. Yesterday I said that I was calling this whole House as judges to tell me whether they were of the opinion that I should conclude from his questions that he could possibly mean that it was the Cabinet Committee which was dealing with this matter.

Was there or was there not an inquiry?

Sir, there has not even been an inquiry as yet. Yesterday I told the hon. member explicitly that even if he had told me that he meant the Cabinet Committee, my reply would still have been “no”. The Cabinet Committee gathered certain information and the Cabinet is still engaged in considering that information. Now the hon. member wants to know why it was necessary to appoint a Cabinet Committee if there had been no problems. Sir, a responsible government, a government which has the interests of its people at heart, always tries to further the interests of its people, and this also applies to this Government. Since I took over this office as Minister of the Interior, we have continually been devoting attention to the interests of our Public Service. The Public Service falls under us, and that is why we are always devoting attention to the interests of the Public Service. If it is not in respect of salary increases for a certain section of the Public Service, then it is in respect of better conditions of service in another department of the Public Service, or in respect of establishing a more effective Public Service, for which purpose this Cabinet Committee was appointed.

That is our complaint; everything is ad hoc.

I told the hon. member yesterday that while the hon. member for Green Point was speaking, I had made a note to the effect that this Cabinet Committee had been appointed; it was in fact my intention to explain to the Committee that this Cabinet Committee had been appointed to inquire into the question of enhanced efficiency in the Public Service and to promote it on the Cabinet level, if that were at all possible. This Cabinet Committee is still engaged in its work. The inquiry, in so far as it may be called an inquiry, has not been completed at all. But this is not an inquiry in the true sense of the word; it is a Cabinet Committee which was appointed to gather certain information, and if hon. members on that side are envious because we have a Government which is so active and full of life that we appoint a Cabinet Committee to occupy itself with this work, then they might as well feel envious.

But why is it such a secret?

After all, it is unnecessary to point out that any Cabinet meeting or any Cabinet Committee meeting is a secret meeting. Hon. members of the Opposition have been in Opposition for so long that they do not have the faintest notion as to the procedure followed in the Cabinet.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in reply to his request to Departments, problems were in fact brought to his notice by the heads of the Departments?

I do not want to go into the details now, but I can tell you, Sir, that in regard to this matter we have gathered a very great deal of information which is still being considered. Improvements were suggested here and there, but the representations were not in the form of complaints or objections. The task of this Cabinet Committee, of which I wanted to tell this Committee, is to see whether more efficiency may be brought about in the Public Service. The hon. member for Green Point raised a matter here which I have not dealt with as yet; he said that there should be more consolidation and less diversification. Sir, this is a matter which receives our attention all the time. I do not wish to say that the hon. member’s objection in regard to diversification is completely unfounded. The Public Service Commission has an inspectorate which carries out a proper investigation every time a new service has to be introduced. On that basis the necessity of such a service is considered on its merits, and then it is either introduced or not introduced. Every year the Public Service Commission prepares an establishment estimate, which is dealt with by a Cabinet Committee so as to give the Cabinet an indication of what, according to the Public Service Commission, the establishment should look like. Investigations are constantly being carried out to ensure that there is no overlapping. The hon. member will agree with me that a considerable number of arguments can be advanced in favour or centralization on the one hand, and in favour of decentralization on the other hand. One may advance the argument that every single government department should have a separate head and a separate administration, but it is also possible to raise quite a number of objections to a large department which, owing to its largeness, is becoming unwieldly. One may advance the argument that one has more efficiency if one has a smaller administration. Therefore one has to try to determine what the most effective form of administration is. Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) told me that he wanted to help me, and then he went further and said that there was dissatisfaction in certain sections of the Public Service.

Were you sleeping?

He did not help me by telling me in what departments there was dissatisfaction; no, he only said that there was dissatisfaction in certain circles. This is the kind of assistance he gives me.

Read my Hansard.

The hon. member wants me to take notice of that, and then some of them on that side still have the audacity to say that the arguments of hon. members on this side are advanced for political reasons. Sir, if the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Point) was not a political argument, then I do not know what a political argument is.

It was a pointless argument.

What about Boshoff?

I shall come to that. The other matter which I should still like to discuss is the question of non-Whites in the Public Service. Hon. members opposite tried to drive in a wedge between us and tried to indicate that there was a difference in our approach. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s plea was that we should train more non-Whites and employ them in the Public Service. There is a difference between our white Public Service—and this is what I want to emphasize …

White or non-white Public Service?

No, it is a white Public Service, but from time to time we feel obliged to make certain posts available to non-Whites. We want to keep our white Public Service white, and, in any case, we do not under any circumstances want to dismiss Whites and appoint non-Whites in their place. I do not know whether this was the hon. member’s plea, but this is something we shall not allow. We believe that in so far as non-Whites are absorbed into the Public Service, they must in the first instance, be absorbed into a Public Service for the purpose of serving their own people. In that regard we have already made considerable progress. Although I am in favour of our having to train non-Whites in order that we may use them in the Public Service, we must train and use them to serve their own people and not for the purpose of integrating them with our own white Public Service. The hon. member for Green Point referred here to the Department of Posts. Circumstances often make it difficult for us. I know that there is a manpower shortage. There is certain work which has been done by non-Whites for years. Even when the U.P. was in power non-Whites were employed in the Railways and in the Public Service to perform certain work, but we are simply not agreeable to the thought expressed here by hon. members on that side, i.e. that we should increase the percentage of non-Whites in our white Public Service by training more non-Whites and introducing them into our white Public Service. We shall train them to serve their own people in their own areas.

Mr. Chairman, the Boshoff case has already been submitted to me. I replied to it in the Other Place and I doubt whether it is necessary for me to add anything in this regard. I can give the hon. member for Durban (Point) the assurance that that person was not a member of the National Party or of any other party. Apparently he was a candidate for nomination, but he was not nominated. I gave my reply in the Other Place, and what the hon. member read out, is quite correct: If any disciplinary action is to be taken in any Department against any person, it is to be done by the head of the Department, and if any member of this House has an objection to any person in the Public Service, he should lodge his complaint with the head of the Department concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude and thank hon. members for the pleasant and constructive discussion we have to such a large extent had here.

However, before I resume my seat, I just want to make a few observations about the last part of the hon. member’s speech, in which he dealt with the Press and the Publications Board. You will remember, Sir, that on a certain occasion last year I said that the Cabinet had decided that consideration should be given to removing the protection enjoyed by the Press in terms of the Publications Act. A great fuss was made about this, and subsequent to that I had an interview with the Press Union. The newspapers which are members of the Press Union are not included in the control exercised in terms of the Publications Act. I conducted an interview with the Press Union, and they explained to me that they had a code on the basis of which they felt that they could control themselves better than we would be able to do through legislation. The general feeling was that we had to afford them an opportunity of doing so. Now, I must admit that from time to time there are substantial objections in regard to articles and reports published in newspapers. As far as the Cabinet and I are concerned, we did not proceed to taking any decision in this regard. I want to make it clear—because I think it is in the pubic interest—that at the moment it is not being contemplated to take any steps in his regard. I should like to give the Committee the assurance that the position is being watched closely. I do not think the one side of the House differs from the other in this respect, i.e. that there should be some control, call it censureship if you wish. There has to be some control over publications. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now stated clearly in respect of which matters he and his party believe that there should be some control. One does not wish to exercise control unnecessarily if it is not compulsory, and in the circumstances we are exercising control over a wide range of publications. We are exercising it in respect of films, on which the hon. member for Worcester elaborated at length, and I want to repeat that I have every confidence that the Publications Board will keep an eye on this matter. In respect of all these cases there is still a right of appeal. If it is not to the courts, there is, in respect of films, a right of appeal to me.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 46, — Water Affairs, R13,286,000, Loan Vote E,—Water Affairs R74,250,000, and S.W.A. Vote 24,—Water Affairs, R12,000,000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? We now come to what we on this side of the House believe is one of the most important issues that come before Parliament year by year. I would like to say right at the commencement of my speech that we have a new Minister and a new Secretary for Water Affairs.

Hear, hear!

I hope that the hon. the Chief Whip is not going to provoke me too far, because I might express a wish in regard to other things that we hope would be new before very long, perhaps a new government.

Or a new Chief Whip.

That is chicken feed. Here we have, from the point of view of South Africa, I suggest, a sad position. Over the last few years this portfolio has moved very rapidly from one Minister to another. We think that this is a sad position. We would like to see a Minister for this portfolio who is given the opportunity to learn the ropes as it is not an easy portfolio and will have a few years in front of him in which he can put into effect any policy which he has adopted. Of course this hon. Minister will not have that opportunity. Provided such a Minister can obtain the necessary finance from the Treasury he can go along with the preservation of what is probably our most precious natural possession, namely water. I want to start with a quotation from my old friend, Senator Paul Sauer, who was then the Minister of Water Affairs. So far back as 1956 he said:

The then Minister of Water Affairs found that that may be the basic principle upon which the progress of South Africa would be founded. We on this side have looked on this particular Vote and this issue from that point of view for many years past. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that at this stage we are very willing indeed to help him. I think we have shown this in connection withe legislation that has been passed during this current Session. We do not want this matter to go wrong. The hon. the Minister must not believe that he can rely upon us to turn a blind eye to faults and failures. We on this side are willing to help him, but then he must succeed. The hon. the Minister must know that he has the whole of this Parliament and the whole of South Africa behind him in his attempts to conserve our water supplies, but he must succeed and not fail.

We therefore once again postulate as we have done in the last few years the three basic principles which have been adopted by this side of the House. The hon. the Minister has had an opportunity to consider the matter and I hope that he will be able to say later in the debate that he accepts those principles. Let me repeat then. Firstly we believe that existing communities should have their water supply assured. Our first duty is to existing communities. They should have their water supply assured. Secondly, before we go out in foreign adventures we should see to the full exploitation of our own domestic water supplies. The water that we have in South Africa is limited in quantity; whether it is in the form of rivers, underground water or whatever, the supply is limited. We on this side of the House do not believe that purely on the grounds of our economy we should take part in foreign adventures and sink millions of rand in these adventures with foreign countries and into works designed for border areas where we can never control or defend them if trouble should arise. We spend all these millions while it is still possible for us to go further with our own development. Let me give an example of this right away. The present Orange River Scheme, as proposed by a Select Committee, has now been approved of and passed by Parliament. It is now merely a portion of what was originally the concept of the Orange River Development programme. The development in the Van der Koof Dam, Torquay Dam and further down at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam area was fruitless expenditure. No development is taking place there, but millions are being spent on projects on our borders which, I repeat, we cannot protect and defend. If there are ever cases where there are diplomatic reasons behind expenditure of that kind then we should be told frankly that this flows from a good neighbour policy and that is why for diplomatic purposes we are prepared to enter into such and such projects with our neighbours. This is not economics and not the development of South Africa’s water resources, nor is it the protection of our water resources. We therefore, secondly say that all our own resources should be developed before we start on foreign adventures and spend these vast sums of money where we cannot protect and guard them. Thirdly, I want to mention the grid system. In the American Digest of the 29th May, 1969, one of their authorities said the following:

This year we want to come to a further development. This year we want to suggest to the Minister that a fourth principle be introduced, namely the principle of apportionment. I want to deal with that for a moment. Let us consider briefly the position in regard to the Vaal Dam, the drought which has been suffered up there, and the difficulties people have experienced there over the last two or three years of drought. The folk up there have been in trouble because of a drought, or a succession of droughts. Sir, we knew it was coming. Any man can make a mistake because he has had no warning. Even by applying his mind to the problem, he may not be able to make provision beforehand. Here, however, we have had warning after warning. We have even reached the stage where it is said that droughts in South Africa are an inevitable part of our way of life here in South Africa. Drought conditions are a part of our way of life. Such conditions are normal and natural. Every year we have a drought somewhere. When one views the position from that point of view, one realizes that what happened at the Vaal Dam was a grievous blunder. The Minister has recently proposed that work on the Spioenkop Dam be continued, so that water can be taken from there and passed up through the Wilge River into the area of the Transvaal where it is needed. The Spioenkop Dam was provided for nearly three years ago. The Government of the time, not the present Minister, suddenly held up operations. The drought came and it caught them again. We found ourselves in the position that our basic principle of ensuring supplies of water to our existing communities, was departed from. That principle was violated. Now there is a rush on to have the Spioenkop Dam built to take the water across the mountains into the Transvaal. We do not want to call that a grid system. There is a principle involved in taking water from one river drainage system to another. But this is not really a grid system. I want to come to the grid system in a moment.

Sir, I should like to mention what Dr. Kuschke, the Managing Director of the Industrial Development Corporation, said. I should like to quote from the Natal Mercury of 3rd May, this year. The report reads, inter alia, as follows:

I do not know what they had to do with it.

… he outlined the main considerations planners would have to bear in mind in the 1970s. These were: (1) the possible interlinking of rivers to gradually achieve a national water supply grid.

It has taken five years for Dr. Kuschke to appreciate what we have been preaching here, namely the need for a national grid system. But he goes on:

The third point is written in big black capital letters—

This is merely what I said, namely the provision of water to people who are already there, the existing communities. His next point is “improved water conservation technology”, and the next is “research into using water to the maximum”. His last point is “greater and more co-ordinated exploitation of the country’s ground water resources”. Now, Sir, let me come back to the question of apportionment. Why we are putting this forward now as a fourth principle, is because, throughout South Africa, we have seen in the past a hand to mouth attempt to deal with the water problems as and when they have arisen. But the Minister has recently said that in something like 25 years time we shall be using all the visible fluid water supplies of South Africa. They will all be committed. In 25 years we shall be facing a shortage. We believe that the time is ripe now for the water to be apportioned. We shall probably have to deal with such fresh developments as oil wells. That is an unexpected development and the Minister cannot be expected to have the foresight to be able to say where the oil will come from, and where the oil wells will be found. If he has that foresight, I hope he will let me into the secret. I shall be grateful if he can do so. What he has to do at the moment is to find wells that produce water and not wells that produce oil. But when we find oil, as we will, a growth point can be established, which will call for an immense amount of water. There may be developments such as those in the case of Richard’s Bay. That came out of the blue only a few years ago. If Richard’s Bay is to grow to the size which is anticipated, as a community, it will require an enormous volume of water. Certain iron and steel works have recently been postulated for Newcastle. Development will take place there. There are already dams in that region, but are they big enough? Can they provide sufficient water, not for present requirements, but for the future requirements of the area, which will grow under the impetus of this enormously important force which is being let loose with the establishment of a third Iscor in Newcastle. These are things which are not here yet. We do not yet have them. We have to have a surplus supply of water available to cope with these developments when they come, as inevitably they must. My reason for asking for apportionment is that the people who are already in settled communities will know that their water is safe. That is the first principle. They must also know from which source they are going to get their water. The water on hand must be sufficient to be able to cater for these unexpected developments when they come. I say “when they come” and not “if they come”.

Let me therefore deal for a moment with this question of apportionment from another angle. We have ever-growing factories. We are becoming more and more industrialized. The Government is trying to send factories and industries of all kinds to the borders, to the border industries, as they are called. In the main they will require water, as well as labour, raw materials and so forth. They will need water, and there should be an apportionment. We should not go blindly ahead, establishing industries in a particular spot, unless we are sure that there will be water for them.

I should like to interpolate for a moment and say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that this side of the House will support him if he will introduce a Bill which says: “The primary natural resource in South Africa is water, and everything else must give way to it. We do not want railways, townships, roads, or anything to stand in the way of the preservation of our water resources in the places where they can be preserved.” One can build a railway somewhere else, and one can build a road somewhere else. One can lay out a town somewhere else, but one cannot build a dam for water on top of a mountain. These things are so important to-day that I believe the principle should be embodied in law that our natural water resources are the most important resources we have. Such a law would receive the backing of this side of the House.

Let us have a look at this one angle of the question of the conservation and apportionment of our water resources. Here I have another quotation from an American Journal, The American News Digest of 29th May this year. A Mr. Duminy, the retiring U.S. Commissioner of Reclamation, is reported to have said—

He went away from the usual idea of seeding rain clouds and getting rain. What he said was that we should get snow. He went on to say that with a 20 year programme to tap snow clouds they have been so successful that they were in a matter of two to three years half way to the end of their programme. They were about 10 years ahead of the mapped time for their research programme. He further says this—

Now, Mr. Chairman, our suggestion of a water grid system which will permit of water being taken to various watersheds and then apportioned for various purposes and even to meet the unexpected demands which may develop, can be well served by the concept of the deposition of snow on what we call the high berg. We do not refer to the Drakensberg. We refer to high mountains which may normally be expected to have a snowfall during the normal winter. A mountain so high that it normally gets a snowfall is a good basis for the capturing of our water in that form. We do not use it as snow, but it is one of the finest forms of water which we can get. If in fact the American experiments indicate that that snow can be augmented to this extent, which, as Mr. Duminy calls it, is one of the brightest features on the horizon of our water supply, then surely this is the kind of thing which we should be applying our minds to.

The hon. the Minister may be able to tell us that he is doing so and that this is one of the things he has in mind. This question of water apportionment is not merely a case of allocating all the water that we have in our rivers at the present time. We have to carry out proper and full investigations, hydrological investigations, into our underground water supplies. We have to see what we can do in regard to bringing further water from the clouds in the form of snow. I think it can be said in so far as South Africa is concerned, that we are at the moment somewhere near the middle of an interpluvial period. We are in the middle of an interpluvial period. We are striking a very dry time over a long period of years. It is not 100 or 1.000 years, but over a very long period of time. All that is happening in Southern Africa would indicate that this is the position. You will get years when you will have very heavy floods and heavy rainfall and you will have other years when you will be continually striking droughts. But on balance, as the years and the centuries roll by, we get less and less precipitation in the form of rain and snow. Areas are drying up. There is an encroachment of dry, arid and semi-arid conditions. This is not because of the work of man which is merely an augmenting factor hastening the process and hastening it very fast in some areas such as on the edges of the Karoo and so forth The broad picture as far as we are concerned is that we are in an interpluvial period at the present time. It behoves us therefore to have a look at the future and to make provision for the apportionment of our water which is available.

With that goes the last point that I wish to make namely the pollution of water supplies that we have. Last year I dealt with the statement made by the former President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon Johnson, when he found lit necessary, desirable and wise in an election tour to go around and speak to the people about the pollution of the lakes and the rivers in the United States. Here is a man who did not just go and talk politics. This was a matter of such importance to his country that he was prepared during an election tour to go and deal with the question of the pollution of the lakes and rivers of the United States. He dealt with the pollution of Lake Erie, one of the big five of American lakes. This lake to-day is virtually a cesspool and is going to cost heaven alone knows how much money before it can ever be made use of again in the form of pure water. We should learn by other people’s failures.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House are very concerned about this matter. I know that the hon. the Minister is also concerned about this. But he has the power and the authority and we have not. We have to stand by and bring matters to his attention and then hope that he will do something about it. And I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in no respect will he as an administrator of his Department be more likely to stand or fall in the history of South Africa than he will in connection with the way that he stops pollution of our rivers. There is a general feeling at the present time that the Indian Ocean, or the Atlantic Ocean for that matter, is so vast that it does not matter what impurities are poured into them, because once these impurities get beyond the area of turbulence, that is beyond the waves, then it does not matter. It is argued that there are millions and thousands of millions of gallons of water there and that pollution is negligible. This is not so and elsewhere in the world it has been found not to be the case. But when it comes to our rivers then there is no argument as to how small the quantity of water is into which pollution can be channelled and which can be completely corrupted.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in my opinion the question of the Umgeni River at Durban is a crying scandal screaming to high heaven at the present time. I know the hon. the Minister went up a year ago to have a look at a certain factory which is based on the Umgeni River. Reports have recently been received that they are trying to pooh-pooh the idea of contamination. They say that it is nothing very much that has happened over there. I believe that the C.S.I.R. were recently asked for a report on the matter. They replied that they had never been consulted. They knew nothing about it. This is what is wrong. The previous Minister of Water Affairs said that the enforcement of the penal provisions in the Water Act would be undertaken by his Department. That Act was passed in 1958. During discussions of the Bill in Select Committee we pleaded and added a rider to the Select Committee report and asked for an enforcement agency. It is no good having an Act on the Statute Book until you have somebody to enforce it. We wanted teeth in the matter. An enforcement agency is what we pleaded for. A year or two ago the then Minister said that his Department would see to it. You simply had to report any signs of pollution or what you fear to be pollution, and it was stated that all this would be investigated, that technical advice would be sought and that any criminal prosecutions would be undertaken by that Department. In our rivers at the present time, be they large or small, the biggest threat to our water supplies in South Africa is that of pollution.

As a country we are developing industrially with more and more border industries and factories coming into existence with their effluents and so forth usually running into a river valley. Somehow or other proper care and attention should be given to the necessary treatment of that effluent so that it shall be completely in compliance with standards which can be laid down by the Department, with the approval of the Minister, and made applicable to every one of these rivers. To the extent that a river becomes polluted, that is a black mark against the Department and the Minister in his administration of this particular matter. Day and night these rivers run. In tire case of the Umgeni I was told to-day by one of our top scientists in Natal that if the pollution were to stop to-morrow, it would take 10 years before the saturated muds and silts in that river would have Cleared themselves by natural means so as again to permit a normal biological process and conditions to exist in the river. We have other rivers too that are threatened. I therefore say to the hon. the Minister: Get rain from the clouds. Get rain from underground. Desalinate water. Dam the rivers. Protect the water that we have. But for heaven’s sake see that we do not pollute unnecessarily the water that we already have, because somebody or other is trying to make a profit for the time being out of manufacturing processes at factories and so forth where it is necessary for them to use water. By the cheapest possible means they get rid of their effluents even if it means throwing it back into a river. Here is one of the crucial points in this whole matter, namely the protection of what we have against pollution.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to me to be able to say that I agree with every point raised here by the hon. member for South Coast. I believe we are in all in earnest when it comes to the conservation of water. I also want to express my congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and to the new Secretary for Water Affairs, Mr. Kriel, who are this year holding their respective offices for the first time. I want to wish them strength and every success in this very important task which rests on their shoulders. I want to go so far as to say to the hon. the Minister that there is hardly any portfolio in which so many demands are going to be made on him as in the portfolio of Water Affairs. I think I am speaking on behalf of every inhabitant of South Africa when I say that he will enjoy the support of the entire House and of the entire population outside in watching over the interests of one of our most sought-after and one of our most necessary commodities, namely water. We want to give him all possible support. I want to thank him for the idea he expressed, i.e. that we shall hold a water year next year. I trust that the persons charged with the organization of this water year will make everybody, young and old, White and non-White, in other words, everybody using water in South Africa, conscious of the value of water in South Africa. We are aware that it is probably the most restrictive factor in South Africa; restrictive in the agricultural sphere, to industrial growth and development, and to our population growth in South Africa. There is hardly any sphere in which water is not the most restrictive factor. It is also necessary that every member of the community should make his contribution and support the hon. the Minister and his Department when appeals are made to respect water and to treat it as the source of life of South Africa. If we read the reports correctly, then it appears that we, if we continue as at present, will have all our water sources harnessed to the maximum in 40 years’ time. Unless something drastic is done, hon. members must realize that after 40 years have passed we shall have no further development and no further expansion. We shall then become static, and we do not want to do this to posterity. Consequently we shall support the hon. the Minister and assist him whenever he comes forward with long-term planning to conserve water for our people and for the generations to come.

I should now like to bring another matter to the hon. the Minister’s notice. I want to plead here for the farmer who has to sink boreholes in times of drought when he has no water for his stock. There are a large number of formalities to be observed before the farmer qualifies for a subsidy. One of the formalities is that his application has to be approved by an extension officer. These people are very scarce in the Department, and they are not readily available. My plea is that the farmer who has to sink a borehole, should be supplied with a set of specifications of the Department’s requirements, so that he may sink a borehole and erect watering-places. If the investigation that is ordered and carried out subsequently finds that his case is a deserving one, and I stress this, then my plea is that in those circumstances he should qualify for a subsidy, because he is helping to keep the stock of South Africa alive, and he cannot wait until all the formalities have been disposed of.

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

Evening Sitting

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for South Coast, where he stressed the strategic importance of the water sources of our country and the judicious conservation and utilization thereof for the future, and also where he stressed the important fact of the danger of contaminating our rivers. I want to support him in these matters and express the hope that the hon. the Minister will in due course pay serious attention to this matter as well in order to see to it that our water sources will not be contaminated.

But I want to proceed and to bring especially one matter to the notice of the Minister, a matter to which I personally attach very great importance, and which is very important to the part of the country I represent. I want to speak about the distress of the semi-desert and the rain-shadow areas in the Western Cape. We have several areas in the Western Cape that are situated almost within a stone’s throw from considerable water sources, but which are almost continually experiencing serious water shortages. One thinks of an area such as the Warm Bokkeveld near Ceres, which is situated within six miles of Ceres itself. While the rainfall at Ceres is approximately 40 inches a year, the average rainfall in the Warm Bokkeveld is approximately 5-15 inches, and sometimes closer to 5 than to 15 inches a year. I think of the Piketberg Karoo, where a small distance from the mountains the rainfall is in some years as low as 3 inches. In these areas water for drinking and for stock-watering purposes is extremely scarce. In addition I want to mention other areas such as the West Coast area and the Hardeveld area north of the Olifants River. These are areas where farming suffers enormously as a result of a scarcity of water. In addition it is found, when boreholes are sunk, both for drinking and for stock-watering purposes, that the water is of a very poor quality. In order to make you appreciate the seriousness of the position, I briefly want to mention a few figures. As you know, the Department of Water Affairs with its State water-boring machines is continually helping farmers throughout the length and breadth of our country to bore for subterranean water, and this is also the position in this area. The former Secretary for Water Affairs on occasion specially sent pneumatic boring-machines to this area in order to assist the farmers and to try to alleviate their distress. I want to mention the example that in the Nuwerus-Bitterfontein area, or actually the Nuwerus-Langplaas area, there are 34 farms, covering an area of approximately 107,000 square miles. During the past years, over a considerable period, 180 boreholes were sunk in that area. The total depth bored is 54,990 ft. Of those boreholes, of the almost 55,000 ft. bored, there were 41,504 ft. of dry boreholes. In other words, on the whole the boring endeavours of private farmers as well as of the Department were a failure. Of the 180 holes bored, there are 50 holes that yield water, but only 16 of those 50, that is to say, 16 out of a total of 180 boreholes, yield approved, usable and drinkable water; 34 of the 50 were disapproved for human consumption or for stock-watering purposes, although I must point out that the farmers in those areas are nevertheless using the poor quality water of these 34 boreholes as well. These few figures, in my opinion, represent a much larger area in the Western Cape where the search for water for human consumption and for stock-watering purposes is just about as disheartening, as is stressed by these figures.

I want to mention a few other figures in regard to an area a little farther south in the Graafwater area. A survey was made in the Graafwater and Ratelfontein vicinity, and in past years there used to be 407 water sources in this area. These included both strong and weak boreholes and also springs, which are slightly more common in that area. During the past 20 to 40 years no fewer than 268 of these 407 boreholes and fountains have given in; they have either dried up or become so weak that they have become useless. Farmers there tell us that virtually their main task is to provide water for their farming operations, and that what causes them most concern is how to do this. I can tell you that there are big farmers in that area who make a considerable contribution to State revenue by way of taxation. These are not people to be disregarded; they are good people, and I want to stress that these people, even if they are a bit spread out over the countryside, are worth the State’s paying serious attention to their distress, and that the Department of Water Affairs will have to find another method of helping them. I want to state it as my considered opinion that the old, and I almost want to say, stereotyped method of sinking boreholes in that area is inefficient and unsuccessful and that we should rather forget about it. But I want to point out that Graafwater is situated 18 miles from the Clanwilliam Dam, and this area extends from Graafwater in the direction of Ratelfontein and Doring Bay. I want to point out that the Nuwerus-Langplaas area is situated 18 miles from the furthest point of the canal from the Olifants River. Bitterfontein is situated approximately 35 miles from there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his serious attention and to consider bringing water for drinking and stockwatering purposes by pipeline to these areas, so that we can make assured provision for the water needs of these people. It is very important that we should look for a different method, a more effective and a more permanent method, to offer a solution. At the same time I want to say that while we are undertaking water conservation on a large scale in our country and developing the largest water sources, there are adjacent areas experiencing the same distress, and we must not only think of conserving water with a view to irrigation here and there and with a view to our urban needs, but must also pay serious attention to these adjacent areas, and we should, where it is economically possible, distribute that lifeblood of our country as widely as possible to alleviate the distress of neighbouring farming communities, and to make provision for their daily needs. I would very much appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would attend to this matter. Perhaps it has never received serious consideration, but we must check what the percentage of useless boreholes is in those parts of our country which are within practical reach of existing water sources, and what we can do to alleviate this distress. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the universal nature of this Vote, which is being taken care of by the hon. the Minister, could not be better illustrated, I think, than by the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Piketberg, whose area includes places which have a rainfall of five inches a year, and my constituency where some of the areas have a rainfall of up to 100 inches a year. This is the magnitude of the problem with which the hon. the Minister’s Department has to cope. Sir, I had occasion last year to compliment the hon. the Deputy Minister, as he then was, for taking a step which I believed to be of the utmost importance in the interests of preserving the water-flow in the rivers of my particular area in Natal. I refer to the steps which were taken by the then Deputy Minister, now the Minister, to declare the river catchment areas of the Nyamvubu, the Karkloof and the Ixopo as controlled areas. The purpose of this was to prevent injudicious afforestation of the catchment areas. Our reason for approaohing the hon. the Minister and the reason for the action that he took, was the report brought out by the interdepartmental committee which reported on the effect of afforestation on water-flow. Sir, a year ago to-morrow, on the 5th of June, I wrote to the chairman of the Rietvlei Farmers’ Association telling him that I would hold a meeting in his area with his farmers’ association to attempt to set out the implications of the controlled area which had been proclaimed by the hon. the Minister. But a year later, to-day, we have as yet heard nothing at all from the hon. the Minister’s Department as to what exactly is intended, what steps are going to be taken and what practical measures will have to be implemented by the farmers in those areas to protect the flow of water to the Craigieburn Dam, to the Umvoti River and the Nyamvubu itself and also the Ixopo River which is of such particular importance to the stock farmers in that area. I realize, Sir, that there are many factors involved, and I wish to say that I think the hon. the Minister has bitten off a considerable mouthful in taking it upon himself to declare these areas to be controlled areas. Sir, this to my mind illustrates the point that we on this side of the House have made many times before, and that is that it is impossible to plan soil conservation adequately in this country without including water conservation in that plan. We believe that there should be one Minister in charge of soil and water conservation because only in that way can you have the real down-to-earth planning which has to be done if water conservation and soil conservation are going to go hand-in-hand. Sir, the report of the inter-departmental committee proved conclusively to my mind, and I believe also to the hon. the Minister, that water-flow is best maintained by well-managed grassland. The hon. the Minister immediately comes up against this problem: How does he guarantee that the grassland, which he has now prevented from being afforested, is going to be well-controlled and well-drained and well-conserved? It is this practical problem which I believe is holding up the hon. the Minister in the implementation of his declared policy in those areas, where the scheme was to be a pilot scheme for the rest of South Africa of conserving the water-flow in our rivers for the future. I believe that the problem can be met to a certain extent by enlisting the services and the interest of the local farming community. I do not believe for one minute that the Minister’s Department have all the staff that they require to be able to carry out this policy on a national scale, because it is going to require considerable research it is going to involve a tremendous amount of fact-finding on the part of the Minister’s Department before he can declare these areas to be protection areas. Sir, what happened in the Ixopo area was that the farming community through the farmers’ association and the timber-growing community through the various companies and other interests involved there, got together and sorted out a plan which they believed was going to do what the hon. the Minister has attempted to do and has said he will do in the Ixopo area, and that is to preserve certain of the catchment of that river for grassland and to prevent afforestation in that particular area. I believe that in this line the hon. the Minister’s Department perhaps had a seed which will help them to develop the policy which he is obviously feeling towards and that is to prevent the afforestation of these very, very vital areas. Sir, this is just one very small area. The Karkloof River and the Yarrow and the Nyamvubu together are not big rivers, and the Ixopo River is a small river which serves a specified area. But I am absolutely convinced that not only in Natal, but throughout the whole of the Transvaal as well, the idea of conserving and preserving the catchment areas of our streams is something which the hon. the Minister must look into very seriously indeed.

Sir, there is another matter that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. I have raised it with the Department and I make no apology for raising it here again, because I think it is of importance that the Minister’s attention should be drawn to it and that he should at least be made aware of the problem which we are facing in our area. It has to do with irrigation in Natal. Sir, it may seem odd to farmers who farm in the dry areas of our country that irrigation is playing an increasingly important part in farming production in Natal but in every single area throughout the whole length and breadth of the Natal Midlands particularly, which are blessed with water, you are finding that farmers are turning to irrigation for the dry winter months and they are getting tremendous results with the irrigation that they are implementing. The point that particularly concerns me is an amendment to the Water Act, to section 11 (1) (a), which is the section which places a limit on the amount of horsepower that one may develop by extracting water from the river for hydro-electric purposes. Sir, throughout the length of the Umzimkulu River, which is a considerable river, there are large numbers of farmers who have made application in terms of a document which I handed to the Department for the right to extract water for the development of up to 200 horsepower, the purpose being to enable them to lift water and to extract power from the river, with the water merely coming out of the river through the turbine and back into the river. I make the point that the water itself is not consumed; it is merely used as a motive power to allow these people to extract whatever amount of water is allocated to them in terms of any permit that they might be required to get from the Minister’s Department. I make this point because I believe it is going to be of more and more importance in Natal, where you have adequate supplies of water and where the water is not being used as water for irrigation purposes but merely to develop motive power, to these people who are so tremendously concerned with the increase of irrigation. Sir, I can tell the hon. the Minister that the use of irrigation in Natal is going to double within the next five or six years, particularly where people are involved in dairy farming, and I think it would be as well if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to this particular matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast merely touched on the problem of the pollution of water. Obviously this is something in which all of us are very interested. I was struck the other day by a report in the paper to the effect that the Rhine River in Europe is so polluted that the only sort of fish life that can live in the Rhine is the eel and, sir, if one has the temerity to catch this eel in the Rhine River you have to out it in fresh water for three weeks to get the taste of the phenol out of the eel before you can eat it. I believe that in dealing with the question of water pollution we in this country must be on the ball right from the outset. [Interjection.] No, Sir, this is not a fishy story at all; this is an absolute fact and I hope the story will illustrate the point that I am trying to make, that we in South Africa with the limited water resources that we have, have to take the utmost care to make sure that the pollution of our rivers is not allowed.

Look how the Nats are polluted with “verkramptes”.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to turn to the question of the pulp mill which is being proposed for the Mondi area near Creighton on the Umzimkulu River. There is a report in the Natal Mercury of today which lists an order of R4,900,000 by the Anglo-American Corporation which is buying machinery for the Mondi Valley Paper Mill. This is merely the first stage of the mill to be erected in Durban [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River must excuse me for not following up on what he said as regards the sickly fish of the Rhine. I should just like to point out in the first instance that the Prime Minister regards this Vote as so important that, for the first time in the history of our country, a separate Minister was appointed to take charge of this Vote. The Cabinet and the Prime Minister realize the seriousness of the water need in South Africa. For that reason Water Affairs and Forestry have, both been included under this Vote. It is vitally important that these two matters should go hand in hand. I also want to congratulate the Minister on the special attention he is giving to this problem and on the conscientious steps he has taken in this regard in the short time he has been Minister of Water Affairs. We are satisfied that the Minister, who is an expert on water affairs and who is aware of the scarcity of and need for water, will give his serious attention in tackling this major issue. I want to express my gratitude for the fact that the hon. the Minister has undertaken to shoulder this task. We are confident that this matter will receive special attention. In recent times the Minister took various steps as regards reorganization, and so forth, in the Department to tackle this matter which is of vital importance to South Africa. We wish him and his Department well in this matter.

I just want to deal with a few local matters. I know it has always been the policy not to name dams after persons. To my mind this is a sound policy. Of course, there are a few exceptions, for example, the Dr. Verwoerd Dam, the P.K. le Roux Dam and the Strydom Dam. We also have the Oppermansdrift Dam near Bloemhof. I think the reason for this policy was that nobody will know where a dam is situated if it is named after a person. I think this is the right attitude. Oppermansdrift is the name of a farm on which only portion of the wall of this dam is situated. The names of the farms on which this dam is really situated, are Warnaksvlei and Lake Warden and, on the Transvaal side, Kalkfontein. I accept that the name Kalkfontein has been used before. But this dam should obviously be called the Bloemhof Dam. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration could not be given for the name of this dam to be changed to the Bloemhof Dam. All the people in the country will then know where this dam is situated.

In the second instance, I just want to refer to the riparian owners of the Vaal River. To my mind the riparian farmers between the barrage and the weir in the Vaal Dam have received the worst treatment of all the riparian owners in the country. To my mind they have been treated even worse than the riparian owners of the Lower Vaal to whom 30 morgen per person were allocated. These farmers were allocated one-fifth of a cusec every five miles. In 1965 a further announcement was made and it was announced that water would be allocated according to the size of the land. The result is that many of these riparian owners have been allocated water to the extent of 7,000 to 18,000 gallons per 24 hours. However, one can extract more water from a borehole by means of a windmill. The amount of water allocated to them is not even sufficient to water a vegetable garden properly. I am convinced that, particularly as regards the Oppermansdrift Dam once it is filled with water, a further allocation will be granted to the riparian owners along this part of the Vaal River.

The following matter I want to raise concerns subterranean water or, as it is called, underground water (ground water). In the first place, I want to say that the instruments which are being used at present for investigations regarding subterranean water, are absolutely primitive and obsolete. This is how I feel about it, and I think the hon. the Minister agrees with that. The instruments which are being used, are not instruments with which water can be sited. All these instruments can do is to indicate cracks, rock formations and gradients in rock formations. We know that our subterranean water in large areas of the country is not only found on rock gradients or cracks in rock formations. Subterranean water is also found on not-clay and other levels. The hon. the Minister announced in the Other Place the other day that he was going to appoint a special committee to go into the question of subterranean water. The figure for subterranean water is calculated at between 1.500.000 and 12 million morgen-feet of water. If this figure is correct, it gives us an idea how ignorant we are and how many things there are we still do not know. If the figure is 12 million morgen-feet of water, we have an enormous amount of subterranean water at our disposal. Surface water amounts to approximately 20 million morgen-feet of water per year. I think this is more or less the correct figure. If this figure is correct, we have a great deal more subterranean water than we ever realized. If this committee is to carry out its task, steps will have to be taken to acquire improved instruments for the purpose of mapping our subterranean water. To my mind this is quite essential. One gets a good indication of this at the West Driefontein mine in Carletonville. One of the dolomite formations was found to exist there. All the water has been extracted from some of the pipes and this has caused the subsidences. When one considers the tremendous amount of water that was pumped out of that mine at that time and if the information is correct, namely that the water level of the farmers in the vicinity is almost back to what it was before, the enormous water basin in that area must have a feeder dam. The water must be replenished from one source or other. What is more, what effect would it have on the low-lying areas if all the water is extracted from this enormous water basin? For that reason we are extremely grateful that this matter which is one of long standing and which should have been tackled years ago, is now going to be tackled by this Minister. However, this is a difficult task. Nobody is able to see what is going on under the surface. This task involves a tremendous amount of work. Moreover, we do not have many officials at our disposal. I have already mentioned the obsolete instruments which are being used. I also think that it is extremely essential that geophysicists be given the necessary training now. I do not think one of the universities in South Africa has the training facilities for geophysicists. In view of this process of development which has become so essential, I think the necessary subjects should be taught so that the necessary people who have to carry out this task, can be trained. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his serious attention to this matter so that he will be in a position to carry out his task in a proper manner. Since more than half the population of this country depend on underground water at present, one realizes how essential it is that this task should be carried out. In what way can this underground water be replenished? According to scientific information, our subterranean formation is extremely limited as far as the replenishing process is concerned. However, it must be substantial. Since we have this amount of subterranean water we are supposed to have, we can at least replenish it artificially. This is water which either runs away every year or seeps through to the bottom or it is old water. As hon. members know, with old water we mean water that has accumulated underground through the years. At what rate do we pump out this water? At what rate do we extract it? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member who has just sat down because of the emphasis which he has laid on the importance of underground water. I saw in the Press that the hon. the Minister recently announced the appointment of a committee which will investigate the quantities of water which are available underground and attempt to obtain some sort of plan of the compartments in which this water is to be found. A tremendous amount of work was done by the French in the Sahara Desert, when the French still occupied that territory. They found that there were great shelves of rock very deep in the earth, sometimes as deep as 15,000 feet, where water was present in considerable quantities. The hon. the Minister might tell us how he intends going about the research he intends to carry out and what steps he intends to take in this regard. He might also tell us whether he has any contact with the French organizations which planned that research in the Sahara Desert because I am quite sure that there is a flow of water very deep in the earth. I think that the French have established this conclusively by the research they carried out in the Sahara Desert. This water is situated very deep in the earth. I think that the figure of 15,000 feet is an average for the Sahara Desert but I do not know what this figure would be as far as our country is concerned.

But the French were looking for oil.

No, they were looking for water and while they were looking for water, they found oil. I think this hon. member must make a better study of history as he is not quite on the ball. I was interested to see a report by one of our laboratories to the effect that borehole water is thousands of years old. An interesting question then comes to mind. If this water is thousands of years old, how are we going about replenishing the water which we to-day are pumping out of our boreholes in great quantities. The report reads as follows—

I think that this must be one of the reasons why so many farmers in our desert areas put something with their water to help it along. The report continues as follows—

This is of course the crux of the matter, namely that we do not really know what is going on at those depths. We still have to do a great deal of work in this regard. According to this article these results well help to “indicate the flow rates of groundwater and the way underground reservoirs are being replenished by rainwater”. It is also a reassuring thought that “water which is thousands of years old tastes the same as more recent water, except that it is usually saline”.

I wish to return now to the question of the pulp mill which will be erected at Mondi by the Anglo-American Corporation. I seek a reassurance from the hon. the Minister and his Department that they are moving step by step with the engineers of the Anglo-American Corporation in investigating and approving the process which will be used to purify the effluent from that pulp mill because it is well known throughout the world that a pulp mill is one of the major contributors to pollution of any industrial process.

And the smells.

There are also smells associated with it but that does not fall under this hon. Minister’s department. I want the assurance and the people in that area also want the assurance that the hon. the Minister’s department is intimately involved in the planning of the process which will eliminate the pollution of the Umzimkulu River which flows through that area because there are many people who are producing an increasing amount of food by means of irrigation from that river. One of the points which worried them especially was that the water which will be returned to the river will be pure of all elements except perhaps traces of sodium. One of the facts we could learn through the inquiries we could make in this regard is that sodium is an element which tends to build up when it is present in water used for irrigation. It can attain a certain threshold level beyond which it can affect crops. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us something about this matter when he replies to this debate, especially since the Umzimkulu River is intended to be an international river by the hon. the Minister and his Government. In this particular area it is the boundary between South Africa and the Transkei. This immediately raises the question of the practical problems which will result if for instance a village is established by the Transkeian authorities on the other side of the river. Is the hon. the Minister’s department going to set standards of sewerage and effluent disposal, etcetera, for that village which is under the control of the Transkeian authorities? This matter was raised by the hon. member for South Coast before to-day. On a previous occasion, during a water affairs debate, the hon. member raised the question of the control the Department of Water Affairs will have over developing Bantu territories. By failing to have that kind of control, we can destroy all the work the hon. the Minister and his department are doing in our country because unless we insist that the standards which are laid down in regard to the pure water which we use, will apply there too we will find ourselves in difficulties. All our factories are guided by these standards. There is also the human problem and the human waste. I do not know how many factories we will have in these developing Bantu areas but we will have concentrations of people. I should like to have a reassurance from the hon. the Minister that in those areas there will be a standard which will be applied and I should be interested to know how the hon. the Minister intends to apply it. I say this because in other debates we have had talk by other Ministers of treaties which will have to be signed between our country and other developing countries. I wish the hon. the Minister would give us some kind of reassurance to the effect that there is some machinery in existence today which will allow the hon. the Minister and his department to control that problem.

I also wish to raise the question of the future planning of the storage capacity of dams, especially in the higher berg areas to fit in with what the hon. member for South Coast called our “water grid”. In my own constituency there is the Underberg area where you have a considerable flow of very pure water coming straight from the mountains. I wonder whether it would not be a sound policy to plan catchment areas or dams there to hold the water there and allow a regular flow of water down the river. This will enable us to avoid to a certain extent the problem of building dams in lower areas, namely the problem of silt. I mention this because near Pietermaritzburg there is the Henley Dam which was built by the corporation and which to-day is virtually a write-off. The Pietermaritzburg Corporation has accepted that the Henley Dam is a wasting asset. I think that it was built in 1936 and at that time it was intended to provide the area with an assured supply of water but because of the erosion taking place in the catchment area of the river above the Henley Dam, that dam is to-day virtually a write-off. Pietermaritzburg is increasingly dependent on the Midmar Dam for its water supplies. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider the possibility that this might be the ideal place to store water, namely in the higher berg areas where the catchments are within easy reach of one another, should it become necessary by means of engineering works, pumping, etcetera, to transfer large quantities of water from one catchment area to another.

I suggest that this will have the effect of avoiding the problem of siltation of the dams which will be established further down these rivers. The hon. member for South Coast touched upon a question, and I am not sure whether this quite falls under the hon. the Minister’s department. I am speaking of the pollution of seawater as a result of the offshore pipelines which are being laid by various industrial concerns and also by large municipalities. I think it does comes under this Minister’s department, because if plans are to be made for desalination of seawater for industrial and human use, this Minister and his department will be intimately concerned with any development of that nature. We had a report just recently from the C.S.I.R. on current and tide flows in the Durban area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have so often heard in this House and outside that water is the Achilles heel of South Africa. That is why we are so grateful that these problems as regards water have now been entrusted to a Minister who has made it the task of his life to solve these problems. We are convinced that he will carry out this task successfully. When considering the Estimates, one of the things that strikes one immediately is the fact that, unlike previous years, a far greater amount of money is appropriated for equipment this year. This creates the impression that the Department is determined to tackle an increasing number of construction works itself in future and to cope with the problems and complete the works itself. I say we are grateful for this because to my mind this is a step in the right direction.

There are a few problems one has to face when considering water affairs. To my mind there are particularly three problems. In the first place, we have the question of food production until the end of this century and even longer. In the second instance, we have the balanced allocation of water that is available for distribution and, in the third place, there is the return of the water to the hydrological cycle. I do not want to say a great deal about the production of food, except to say that it is important that we should bear in mind that nineteen-twentieths of the water that falls on the ground in South Africa, never reaches the rivers. These are the areas which carry all our livestock, and in which the whole of our maize crop and 90 per cent of our wheat crop are produced and in which the maximum quantity of water has to be used. When considering this matter, we find that it presents the greatest challenge to our engineers to preserve the water where it falls on the ground, so that we shall be able to provide in this need.

But there is also a second problem, namely the problem of the balanced allocation of the water which is available for distribution. A decade or two ago the water was pre-eminently distributed to agriculture. We have now reached the stage where industry and institutions responsible for the supply of electricity are also laying considerable claim to that water. As a result of the fact that industry is also laying claim to this water now, tension has built up between agriculture and industry as regards the use of available water. As far as agriculture is concerned, it is important to see to it that the water which is used for irrigation purposes, be used with as little waste as possible. This wasting of water is one of our major problems. It is estimated that 160 million gallons of water are wasted daily through evaporation in the Vaal Dam. Approximately 150 million gallons of water are wasted daily between the Vaal Dam and Warrenton. It is estimated that wastage through evaporation at the Verwoerd Dam will amount to 300 million gallons per day. Another 150 million gallons of water are likely to be wasted per day through evaporation at the P. K. le Roux Dam. The water that is being wasted in this way, may be sufficient to irrigate 60,000 morgen of land. It should therefore be our aim to use the water as near as possible to the area where it falls or where it is stored. In this connection I regard it as a pleasure to put the following question to the Minister: When does he expect to be able to proceed with the P. K. le Roux Dam? When considering the White Paper which was originally published to annouce the Orange River project, one sees that a great deal was said about the fact that approximately 600 miles of channels would be built far into the interior parts of the country. Of course, one does not want to deprive anyone of any water, because we all know how much value our people attach to water, but in view of the fact that we should guard against the wasting of water, I want to say again that we should use the water of the Orange River project as near as possible to the dam. Even if we were to pump this water to areas higher up where the best land is to be found, we should try to avoid wastage. When it comes to the utilization of this water from these dams, we can have only one norm, namely that only land which involves the least amount of wastage and land with the highest production, should be irrigated. I know that, as far as the P. K. le Roux Dam is concerned the Minister is building channels and that these channels had to be widened on two occasions. I want to say that this is one of the major reasons why I have so much confidence in the hon. the Minister. It is clear to me that when one widens a channel, one wants to let that water flow onto the best land near the channel. This is our second problem, namely the balanced distribution of water. But I realize, too, that as far as the distribution of water is concerned, the price factor of the water should be taken into consideration as well. We appreciate that industry can produce more with such water than agriculture. However, from the nature of the case, it is essential that water should be used for irrigation. It is calculated that mankind needs approximately 2,000 gallons of water per day. This figure is calculated in terms of the water that is required for the production of food. To enable him to enjoy a complete diet, every individual needs approximately 1,000 lbs, of wheat, or the equivalent thereof, per year for which 1,000 gallons of water per day are required. For this reason we say that we appreciate that the competition between industry and agriculture as regards this extremely important substance, water, is going to become a very serious matter in future. We appreciate that the price of water will become something of real importance. For that reason we are prepared to leave this problem in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

The third aspect of the problem is the return of the water to the hydrological cycle. Various members on that side of the House discussed the reclamation of water this afternoon and to-night. I do not want to elaborate on this aspect. I believe that the reclamation of water and the return of polluted water to the hydrological cycle for the purpose of using that water again, will be one of the most difficult problems we are going to face in future.

A fourth problem we will have to face in future, is the supply of additional water when it comes to the desalination of sea-water.

Mr. Chairman, few people seem to appreciate the value of a commodity while it is plentiful. The moment we find ourselves running short of any particular commodity and when there is a scarcity of a substance, it is only natural for people to start waking up and valuing the particular substance which is becoming scarce. So far, during this debate, we had a quiet discussion on this very important subject, namely water. I do realize that everybody in this House appreciates the importance of water, particularly in a country such as ours, South Africa, where we have an increasing population. Between now and the turn of the century South Africa’s population will increase ever so much faster; we are told that by the turn of the century we shall have a population somewhere in the region of 40 million people. Because of the problems facing us in South Africa, it is only natural that we should start careful planning to-day and be particularly meticulous in our planning for our requirements in the future. Our rainfall happens to be very erratic and our water supplies have always, and will in the future be very limited. As I have said, only when one runs short of something, does one appreciate the value of it. Only when we are rationed with water in our towns and cities, do our people start realizing that water does not automatically run when a tap is opened. I happened to be one who spent more than a week in the Western Desert without water. I can assure you, only when you have been suffering from thirst for more than a week, and when your tongue becomes so thick that you cannot speak, do you realize the value of water, and what it can mean to man.

That is when there is no water in the well.

It is a pity you were not there.

He will make sure he never gets there.

Order!

When one suffers from thirst, indeed a great thirst, one cannot even make the funny noises that that hon. member has been making. Our problem up to the present in South Africa has been that we have, and I should think that we must all admit it, been over-developing certain growth points in our country. Hence, we found ourselves in difficulties during the drought of the last few years. I refer to areas such as the Witwatersrand in particular, and here in the Western Cape or the Cape Peninsula. We have always discussed the matter of the decentralization of our industries, which we on this side of the House support wholeheartedly. We support it, simply because we realize the importance of the allocation of our water supplies to the different regions and the different growth points in our country. When we speak of developing areas such as the Eastern Cape or the Border, or the border reserves, it is not because we support this Governments policy; it is simply because we realize the importance of decentralizing industries to growth points where we have sufficient water.

Even if they are border areas!

Mr. Chairman, my time is limited. If I have the privilege of an extra ten minutes I shall come back to the remark of the hon. Chief Whip. We have spent so much money in South Africa taking out gold from the earth, we have been prospecting for oil and we are all happy about the success we have achieved, but it has cost us a lot of money. We are producing more and more food every day for our increasing population, but if we should find ourselves running short of water, our whole economic growth in South Africa will obviously come to a standstill. If this were to happen it would be a tragic day for South Africa. There is no substitute for water, it is a substance which cannot be substituted. We can substitute anything else, but never water. I have failed to find anybody as yet who can estimate the value of water, especially in this particular part of the world, where our rainfall is so erratic. What precautions have this Government taken to ensure that South Africa’s water will be guaranteed to the industrial growth points? Hon. members on this side of the House have already made mention of the snowfall areas or our country. They referred particularly to the Drakensberg Range, Natal and the Eastern Cape. The Drakensberg is the natural watershed of South Africa where our principal rivers and our perennial streams arise. They all rise on the crest of the Drakensberg. It is the natural watershed which runs almost the full length of our country, from North to South. Hon. members on that side of the House will admit, that nothing so far has been done to conserve our water in the snow and high rainfall areas in the high mountain ranges. It has often been mentioned that if a horseman is out riding, and is thirsty, and comes to a stream, he should first see whether his horse drinks the water before he drinks it himself. If the horse refuses to drink water, he cannot make it drink. You will find that any horse will take to water on the upper ranges, the snowfalling areas, simply because it happens to be fresh, clean water. It is there that we should start preserving by conservation, the sponges of our fresh water supplies, and conserve all the water and, as has already been mentioned here, through the grid system allocate this water to many of our growth points. In other words, it means the “apportionment” of our water supply. Everybody will admit that our rivers in South Africa to-day belong to us; every drop of water belongs to the jurisdiction and falls under the control of this Parliament. [Time expired.]

The quiet and serious manner in which this House is discussing this Vote to-night, is certainly proof of the fact that the value of water is being appreciated in South Africa to-day. I should like to continue in this vein and although I want to deal with matters of a more local nature, I am nevertheless of the opinion that it is of particular importance that I should submit this matter to this committee. As you know, Sir, water, together with land and vegetation, is certainly one of the most important factors which determines the agricultural potential of any region. If any one of these factors is lacking or unfavourable in the agricultural region without the possibility that it may be replenished in one way or another, the remaining production factors cannot be utilized to the maximum. The greater part of my constituency covers the area which stretches south of the latitudinal line on which Cape Town is situated, and this is known as the downs of the southern Cape. This part of the country is known for its particularly fine vegetation and its soil, and it is also known for the fact that there are no restrictive factors on agricultural production, but the lack of fresh and sufficient water for both human beings and animals places a damper on the full utilization of the other production factors of this region. The climate of this region is known to favour agriculture. As a matter of fact, the steady and relatively high rainfall experienced over a long period throughout the year in that part of our country, makes this region very attractive as can be clearly seen from the fact that the prices of land for agricultural purposes increased considerably during the past few years. The favourable grazing conditions which may be created, often cannot be used because this region is suffering from a scarcity of water. The result is that particularly in the agricultural sphere as well as in other spheres, planning has to be carried out on a conservative basis in accordance with the short, critical dry summers, while the real benefits of the relatively high rainfall during the winter months cannot be fully utilized. In an attempt to cope with this critical condition, the farmers have incurred considerable expenses in the past to exploit subterranean water. This is clearly proved by the fact that the Department of Water Affairs recently tried to find water in this region in conjunction with geologists of the Department of Mines. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude on behalf of those farmers who had to incur the costs of boring for water, to the Minister for his kindness and the assistance he rendered them during this time of crisis. However, this attempt was of limited value as far as the supply of water was concerned, but I believe it was of decisive value in that the attempt has proved irrefutably that there is no water available that can be used economically for agricultural purposes. There is no doubt that the enormous restrictions placed on stock-breeding by the dry summer of 1969 was no exception, and we can expect that this will become a yearly phenomenon because the number of livestock has increased tremendously as a result of balanced conservation farming in that part of the country. This region is particularly rich as regards surface water, of which the Riviersonderend is the main source, but this has not been developed yet. However, there are other Government water works in the area, for example, the Buffeljachts Dam and the dam at Heidelberg, both of which are reliable water sources. The only other solution for this water problem lies in the fact that full use should be made of these surface water sources by means of an effective pipe distribution system in order to make the water available to the whole area. By virtue of the fact that the catchment area of these water sources and these rivers, is entirely situated within the boundaries of this area, it is logical that the inhabitants of this area certainly have first claim to the available water, also as far as their future needs are concerned. In order to make sure and to be able to submit a case for which proper scientific proof exists, the Overberg development association had a proper survey carried out, which involved everybody. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude towards those people for the tremendous success they have achieved in this matter. I should like to mention here that organizations, from the women agricultural associations to the large agricultural co-operative societies, from the ordinary shop-keeper to the large trust companies and financial institutions in our area, have contributed to the cost of this survey. We should like to thank them all, as well as the management of the association and the scientists who came from Stellenbosch for the purpose of carrying out this survey and to draw up the reports. The reports they submitted, were valuable. I have one of these reports here and it concerns a soil survey as well as an economic survey into the possibility of water supply and water utilization, and some of our best scientists in this area had a share in this. The most important findings of these surveys, undoubtedly show that the agricultural potential of this region is seriously hampered from being exploited to the full owing to a scarcity of water. It was found that income from agriculture could be doubled if permanent fresh water supplies could be provided. I want to give an example; the regional gross product of this area amounts to more than R27 million. Of this amount more than half, i.e. 51.8 per cent, is derived from agriculture. It varies from R10 million to R16 million per year. As an example of the rapid development which is taking place in these parts, livestock-breeding serves as a fine example, which is proved by the fact that wool production during the 10 years prior to 1966 increased by 42 per cent. The limiting factor as a result of the scarcity of water applies particularly in the case of livestock-breeding. Moreover, the greatest asset is the fact that additional water must be regarded as something which will have a stabilizing effect in this area. Because there are towns in that area as well, we should like to submit their case to the Minister and I want to say briefly that Professor Truter found in the survey he had made that the towns will require more than 2,000 morgen-feet water within the next 30 years. We believe that the utilization of public money for a water storage and water distribution project is in the national interest, and that the Minister will certainly be favourably disposed towards us. [Time expired.]

When my time expired, I was telling this Committee how we appreciate the fact that we still to-day have control over all our rivers in South Africa and every drop of water flowing down those rivers. We have seen problems arising through water. We have heard so much about the Water Act and we have seen terrific squabbles taking place between irrigators over the question of water; these problems have arisen all over the world as well. We have seen it arising in India, where since 1948 there has been a continuous quarrel between Pakistan and India over the Indus River, those people are continually fighting about the water in that river. We have here in South Africa also perennial streams flowing in some of our biggest rivers arising in Native territory, or flowing through Native territory. We have rivers from Durban down to the borders of the Cape Province, and every river along that coastline either rises in Native territory or flows through it. This problem has been raised in this House before, but to-day we have a new Minister of Water Affairs who, I am sure, will realize that he has to face not only the problems relating to drought and the allocation of our water supplies to the different growth points, but also the problems arising due to his own party’s policies. It was only the other day during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote that we heard the hon. the Prime Minister make this statement. He said—

What has that to do with water?

Of course we on this side of the House reject the policy of separate development and all its consequences. It is not because we are contrary in any way, but because we have the foresight, and we see the dangers involved in this policy of separate development.

Tell us about the dangers of integration.

We do not stand for integration either, and you know it, but I do not know whether the hon. member has changed his mind?

But that was your philosophy right through.

No, it never was, you see that the moment I start discussing Government policy, they start making a noise, but when we ask them to explain their policy to us they remain silent. We tried in desperation and without success, to drag from Government members the ultimate end of the road of this separate development policy during the Bantu debate.

How many of them are here during this Water Affairs debate?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what plans he has in view to solve this problem created by the policy of ultimate independence for the Bantu. You see, Sir, this problem was also raised in 1966 and this is what the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said in reply to a question relating to International Water Agreements—

That was in relation to international agreements on these particular rivers which I have mentioned. The question was then put to him by the horn, member for South Coast, “And you foresee that that stage will be reached?” The then Prime Minister replied—

That is to say, before these people have been given independence—

That is foresight.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs of the obligations which he has to meet. It has been suggested by previous Prime Ministers that this problem must be settled before these people are given independence. Sir, the hon. member over there shrugs his shoulders, this is so typical. Our problem is that too many Nationalists shrug their shoulders when we discuss their policy. Yet it is a very dangerous policy.

They do not know the answers.

“Leave it to our children to solve them.”

Sir, we must have foresight, and we have to face up to the problem. We in the Eastern Cape are very concerned and worried about it but no Nationalist Member of Parliament or Cabinet Minister will venture to explain the problem to us. We are worried because we see a “black cloud” hanging over the Eastern Cape and Natal, a “black cloud” which will never give us water when our water supplies are exhausted or dry up. [Interjections.] The black cloud is being formed by the policy of the Nationalist Party and we expect the hon. the Minister to tell us to-day or to-morrow what agreements have been made or reached, between this Government and the parliaments which his party is forming all along the eastern aspect of the Drakensberg Range, to ensure that we have a permanent supply of water for the growth points in those areas.

But you have the Indian Ocean.

Do you expect us to utilize and drink the Indian Ocean? I sincerely hope that the next speaker on that side of the House will explain this problem to us, because if they refuse, we will have to drag it out of them, when they appear on platforms during the next election.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker mentioned the dark cloud hanging over the Eastern Province. That is typical of speakers on that side, and it reminds me of the motto of the pessimists: Every silver lining has a dark cloud.

I wish to raise a matter here to-night which affects my constituency as well as the neighbouring areas of Durban, namely the question of urban water supply. This is a matter which has already been discussed with the Minister by a deputation. The hon. member for Pinetown, as well as a member of the Other Place, was present at that interview. The question which I want to raise relates to water which is supplied by the Municipality of Durban to the regional water supply corporations of Pinetown, Amanzimtoti, the North Coast, as well as the Municipality of Queensburgh, the Town Council of Glen Ashley and the health committee of Yellowwood Park. Sir, the principle involved here is that water ought to be regarded as an essential item on which no profit should be made. By way of legislation, i.e. Act No. 24 of 1921 and Act No. 20 of 1937, Durban was placed in the position of virtually being the sole distributors of water for the surrounding areas. The trouble is that Durban has the sole right to determine what the rates will be, to whom they will supply water and how much. This places the surrounding areas in a rather difficult position. We find, for example, that different rates apply to the different areas. The Amanzimtoti and North Coast areas are charged 271 cents per 1,000 gallons, supplied in bulk. Over against that, the regional water supply corporation of Pinetown, which entered into an agreement with Durban earlier, gets a certain quantity at 14 cents per 1,000 gallons in bulk, but—and this is the snag—when they take more than a certain quantity (and they have now reached the stage where they regularly take more than a certain quantity), they have to pay 37 cents per 1,000 gallons. The Pinetown area and to a lesser extent the Queensburgh area, which falls in my constituency, are rapidly developing areas. In the Pinetown area there is an industrial explosion in progress at the moment, and there is a terrific increase in the number of inhabitants building houses there in the past few years, with the result that the water requirements of these areas will continue to increase in the immediate future, so that the water now being provided to that area in bulk will be supplied at 37 cents per 1,000 gallons. This entails considerable costs for the consumers of water, especially in view of the fact that these regional water supply corporations, over and above the cost of the bulk supply, also have to bear the cost of the reticulation of the water to the individual consumers. It boils down to this, that the final cost to the consumer will in many cases amount to something like 56 to 60 cents per 1,000 gallons. This imposes a very heavy burden on the consumer, and I repeat that no profit should be made on the supply of water, because it is an essential commodity. The position is that the agreement with the Durban City Council provides that in assessing their costs a certain amount has to be included in redemption or in reduction of their local authority rates. On each gallon of water which the Durban City Council supplies to areas outside the city, they make a profit in order to reduce the rates to be paid by the inhabitants of the Durban Municipality. This is a principle which, in my opinion, should receive attention. The ideal is, of course, that there should be a water supply corporation for the entire region, such as the Rand Water Corporation. The position is that Durban has constructed the waterworks and has incurred considerable costs, and if a metropolitan area water supply corporation were established now, it would entail considerable costs to take over these capital works. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has investigated the possibility of water being supplied to all these areas without a profit being made on it and at a reasonable and equitable rate. I should also like to hear what steps, if any, are being taken to ensure that no water will be wasted. At the moment the position is that Durban has no water meters. The cost of supplying water to the inhabitants of Durban is covered out of municipal rates.

Do you want there to be meters?

My point of view is that if they did have water meters it would bring about a considerable saving in water consumption. The cost involved in installing meters could be covered without much difficulty by the saving of water. I would be in favour of the introduction of water meters in Durban, because I am aware of the fact that considerable quantities of water are wasted in many cases. There is still no waterborne sewerage system in my constituency. The plots are large, and the water revenue is collected out of rates on land and property. If the properties are larger, as is the case in my constituency, their contribution towards the cost of the water is larger than that of the normal consumer who has a smaller plot and a smaller house. I am therefore of the opinion that the cost of water to the consumer should be determined according to his consumption and not according to the value of the land or the property which he owns.

I am also aware of the fact that there are industries in Durban which, because they have industrial effluent which has to be diluted or purified, use excessive quantities of water in order to dilute the effluent to the necessary degree of purity. In other words, instead of using a scientific method of purifying the industrial effluent, they use large quantities of water to dilute the effluent. In the present circumstances we cannot afford to misuse water in this way. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to report to us on any investigation which he may perhaps have carried out, and to give us an indication as to whether he sees any possible solution to the problem of water consumption in the Durban area.

I cannot tell you, Sir, how delighted I am that the hon. member who has just sat down is now supporting the hon. member for Pinetown. If he reads the Hansard of the hon. member for Pinetown over the past ten years, he will see that he has been fighting that very thing. Here I have News Letter No. 2 of last year dealing with this matter.

I said so in my speech.

I am only saying that I am delighted that he is now supporting the hon. member for Pinetown.

He is beginning to see the light.

Sir, at the outset I wish to welcome the Secretary of Water Affairs to his new post and to congratulate him on his appointment. I am certain that he is going to enjoy his period of office and that we are going to be happy to have him in that position. I have had very good reports about him and I am quite certain that those good reports will continue. Sir, at last the green light has been given for the development of the Tugela Basin, the development of which has been on the boards for a very long time. The point is how this is going to be tackled. Sir, I should like to quote a portion of, inter alia, the inaugural address of Mr. Nixon, the President of the United States—

In his inaugural address he said the following-

I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister has tackled the water question of South Africa in a bold way. He has given us the various schemes he is going to tackle during this year and that is something we are all looking forward to. The development of the Tugela Basin is humming, but at the present time the only dam that is being built is the Spioenkop Dam on the Upper Tugela. That supply is mainly to augment the water in the Witwatersrand area across the Drakensberg. We in Natal have never begrudged sharing our water elsewhere in South Africa, but one thing must be remembered, namely that it must not be done at the expense of Natal. Something we have to think of is what we must build in the Basin now that the Iscor works are being sited at Newcastle. Towns like Ladysmith, Colenso, Newcastle, Dundee and most likely Vryheid itself will have to be rebuilt. Newcastle itself envisages large Bantu areas for thousands of Bantu workers and also areas for Indians and Coloureds. Iscor itself has to be built. The Ingagane Dam power station to supply the town with electricity has to be built. I envisage thermal power stations straddling across the coal fields and possibly a nuclear power station on the coast, to supply the ever-increasing demand for power that the Tugela Basin will require. There will be large industrial development from Colenso northwards, probably embracing Dundee, Glencoe, Vryheid and Newcastle.

In these towns that I have mentioned, there will be thousands and thousands of people and everybody, including the new industry, will shout for one commodity only and that is water. I want to ask in all sincerity where this water is going to come from. The Regional Town Planning Commission of Natal set out a very comprehensive plan for the Tugela Basin, especially concerning the waters of all the rivers in the Basin. May I ask whether the hon. the Minister is going to follow this plan? Are the dams going to be built with the necessary hydro-electric plants on the sites that have already been selected? The report itself envisages four sieves for the development of the area. Is the hon. the Minister going to develop these sieves in the rotation as set out in that report or in putting Iscor at Newcastle in the centre of the Tugela Basin is that going to jumble up the whole works? It will be a great pity if this is the case and if the systematic plan which was set out is not followed. I think the hon. the Minister will be well advised to tackle this question immediately if he does not wish to be caught, as they say in English “with his pants down”. This is good advice and the type of advice being sought by the President of the United States of America, Mr. Nixon, from what he calls “the other side”.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate every speaker emphasized the importance and necessity of water. I should like to do so in the following way. The most important book in our lives, namely the Bible, runs into 838,000 words and the 34th word in the Bible is the word “water”. This great Book comprises 117,128 lines and in the fifth line one comes across the word “water”. This Book of books was written in 13,860 verses and in the second verse one comes across the word “water”. This Book comprises 1,155 pages and on the very first page the word “Water” appears no fewer than 11 times. It takes one five days of uninterrupted reading to read through this Book, but after only five seconds reading one comes across the word “water”. The meaning is therefore clear when this Book of truth mentions water so many times.

Man and beast are dependent mainly on two things to be able to live, namely food and water. It is alleged that one can live for as long as 90 days without food, but it is also alleged that one can only live seven days without water. South Africa is a prosperous country and its prosperity is generally attributed to its gold production. I think the time has arrived that we in South Africa should have a new approach and should come to realize a new fact, namely that water is more valuable to us than gold. We can live without gold. It shall, admittedly, be difficulty for us to live without gold, but we cannot live without water at all.

It is said that cattle from the time they are still small until they are three years old consume 10,950 gallons of water each in the form of drinking water only. It is further alleged by scientists that cattle require 1,600 gallons of water in the form of drinking water and water used for grazing, fodder, etc., for the production of only 1 lb. of beef. To produce wheat for one loaf of bread 300 gallons of water are required; 50 gallons of water for the production of one maize-cop, and 1,400 gallons of water for one batch of potatoes. A Scotsman who loves his whisky and drinks an average of two whiskys a day from his 25th to his 75th year uses 1,000 gallons of water to drink with his whisky. What is remarkable, is that the 1,000 gallons of water which the Scotsman drinks with his whisky costs him nothing. The whisky which he has drunk over those 50 years, however, costs him R12,750. In other words 1,000 gallons of life-giving water does not cost him anything, but the whisky which to a great extent has a harmful effect on his body and which stupifies his mind, costs him R12.750. The Englishman who loves his tea, uses 5,400 gallons of water in the form of tea during his lifetime. The farmer who loves his coffee and who works hard on his land and perspires a lot uses 6,000 gallons of water in form of coffee during his lifetime. The farmer who can afford to sit on his stoep and does not perspire, uses 5,000 gallons of water. From this we realize how important our water is. Our Water resources are limited. We should not only talk about water conservation; we should practice what we preach.

Many ideas can be advanced about the methods which can be applied for the conservation of water. Because my time is limited I shall not be able to deal with more than three of them briefly. In the first instance, I think we shall have to pay close attention to the domestic use of water in future. I think we shall have to consider replacing threaded taps by self-locking pressure taps in most cases. It is alleged that one uses three or four times less water after these taps have been installed. In the second place, there are also our industries. I think in future our industries will have to use purified drain water and not pure water which has not been used before. It is alleged that a large industry on the Witwatersrand saves up to 8 million gallons of water per month after automatic pressure taps have been installed in their shower-rooms. In this third instance, I want to say that in future we shall possibly have to consider to make it possible for our farmers to use sprinkler irrigation and not flood irrigation.

It is a fact that a farmer requires 26,600 gallons of water in order to irrigate one acre of land to the equivalent of one inch of rain. In order to irrigate the same surface area to the extent of two inches of rain twice the amount of water is required, that is more than 50,000 gallons of water. The Vaalharts scheme uses 212 million gallons of water per day. If all the farmers of the Vaalharts scheme who use flood irrigation were to make use of sprinkler irrigation instead, it would mean that up to 100 million gallons of water per day would be saved, something which will be of inestimable value to our industries. Moreover, sprinkler irrigation promotes conservation of land. It is a fact that flood irrigation requires and destroys from 5 to 10 per cent of land in the form of furrows and mounds. That means that a farmer who irrigates 30 morgen of land loses two to three morgen of land in the form of mounds and irrigation furrows. Wear and tear and labour in the case of flood irrigation amount to twice as much than in the case of sprinkler irrigation.

I therefore want to suggest that farmers be encouraged to use sprinkler irrigation. I also want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider amending the subsidy system in future in favour of those farmers who have installed sprinkler irrigation systems. These farmers should be subsidized to a greater extent than those making use of ordinary flood irrigation. In the first instance, it would save more water, in the second instance it would save our land and in the third instance it would promote a saving of labour.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to record to-night that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana supported the plea which I have been making with the Ministry of Water Affairs for some years. Some years ago I drew the attention of the then Minister of Water Affairs to the principle of the Water Act which was passed in 1956. The 1956 Water Bill was referred to a Select Committee which consisted of members from both sides of this House. The Committee brought out a unanimous report. The then Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. Sauer, indicated that as far as he was concerned, there should be no profit on water. Subsequently, the Pinetown Regional Water Corporation found that it had been called upon to pay an excessive charge for water obtained from the Durban Municipality. I then made representations on their behalf to the Minister concerned. I saw the former Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. Fouché, and he agreed with my point of view. As the representative of the Pinetown Regional Water Corporation I saw him and he agreed with me that the fundamental principle, namely that there should be no profit on water, should be adhered to. I do not want to quarrel with the Durban Municipality as they have to look after their own interests. But the Durban Municipality had the power for many years to make a charge of 4 per cent to build up a fund which helps to alleviate the rates of the citizens of Durban and thereby reduces their cost of water at the expense of users in the outside areas. This case was put forward by me to the Minister of Water Affairs. He agreed with my point of view and I was supported by the adviser to the Administrator of the Province, Mr. Green. He also supported my point of view, namely that the matter should be inquired into. Subsequently, there was a change in the office of Minister. I then made representations to the present Minister with a view to getting his support. A little later on the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made representations to the Minister’s Department and he was asked to collaborate with me. The Amanzimtoti Regional Water Corporation is not in his constituency. But the Amanzimtoti Water Corporation by-passed their member of Parliament, the hon. member for Umlazi, and went directly to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I do not know what their reasons were for by-passing him. They, however, by-passed him and went to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who in turn was asked to collaborate with me. We then saw the Minister. The hon. the Minister then in a letter dated 21st October, 1968, wrote as follows—

I must remind the hon. the Minister that the Durban City Corporation is relying on the Union Statutes. Later in the letter the hon. the Minister writes—

Here we are up against the difficulty which we have experienced more than once in this House, namely that of passing the buck. We went to the former Minister of Water Affairs who agreed that the principle enunciated by me in the first instance was sound. Subsequently, when I wrote to the hon. the Minister’s successor, I had the support of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. But since then we have made no progress. Yet we find that the City of Durban, which is the second largest city in South Africa according to the latest figures supplied by the Department of Information, does not meter its water, as was indicated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Furthermore, that city has recently embarked on a sewerage disposal scheme whereby it passes out to the sea half processed sewerage water. On the other hand we find that the town of Windhoek is re-using sewerage water. We find, on the coast at Durban, two large refineries and in addition a pulp mill, which should be using sewage water. But they will have to rely on water from the normal Durban supplies. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he intends doing anything in regard to the Pinetown Regional Water Corporation, the North Coast Regional Water Corporation, which is also concerned with this matter, and the Amanzimtoti Regional Water Corporation. All these areas purchase a portion of their water from the Durban Municipality. The attitude of the Durban Municipality is: “If you do not like our terms, go and get your water elsewhere”. That is not in the spirit of the Water Act. I think the Minister has to grasp the nettle. It is no good referring this matter to the Administrator, because he does not have the necessary powers. Is it going to be the position for all time that Durban will be able to charge the suburbs what it likes for water, without anyone being able to interfere? If that is the case, we have misinterpreted the Water Act, and the assurances given us by the Minister, who first introduced the Act, are worthless. I am quite certain that Mr. Sauer, when he introduced that Water Act, intended to stand by the assurances he gave then. I am quite certain that the State President, when he was Minister of Water Affairs, was acting in the spirit of that Act when he accepted our point of view that there should be no profit on the sale of water. We have given this Minister adequate notice of what we want him to do. We have discussed this matter with him, by way of a deputation. We have also written to him. We find that the Minister, at the present moment, does not want to take any action. And yet the Pinetown Regional Water Corporation said this in their memorandum—

This simple amendment to the Water Act will be in conformity with the spirit of the Act, when that Act was introduced by the Minister concerned. I do not have the time to read all the recommendations of this corporation but the Minister has the memorandum. He has had it since last October. I submit that, in the interests of fair dealing with all parties concerned this matter should have the attention of the Minister at the earliest possible moment. I agree that the Durban Municipality has a case. I agree too that the Pinetown Regional Water Corporation, the Amanzimtoti Regional Water Corporation and the North Coast Corporation all have a case. The Minister must grasp the nettle. He must either accept or reject the principle that there must be no profit attaching to the disposal of water. It is significant that, as far as I am aware, the Durban Municipality some years ago withdrew the 4 per cent contribution to borough funds in respect of abattoirs. As far as I am aware, representations were made to the Durban Corporation that, as the abattoirs were dealing with food, it was undesirable that this 4 per cent contribution to borough funds should be levied. This is quite capable of being checked up. I submit that it is unfair that the regional areas, which obtain water from the Durban Municipality, should have to bear this charge, having regard to the fact that they may be bearing further charges, which cannot be calculated. We do not know what savings could be effected in the City of Durban, if Durban had metered its supplies, to what extent water is being wasted, and to what extent water is not being properly used. It is significant that, as far as the City of Durban is concerned, the two main Bantu townships which have been built as a result of the pressure being brought to bear by the Government, following the Cato Manor disaster, both have metered water. In Durban North I believe the water is metered, but the heart of the city itself has no metering of water whatsoever. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that water is properly controlled there and that there is no wastage of water. If there is any wastage of water, or if the water is not adequately controlled in the City of Durban it means that, to that extent, the water users in the surrounding areas, namely the regional water corporations, are bearing some of the burden themselves, in addition to the 4 per cent contribution to borough funds. The Minister had had the opportunity of dealing with this matter for some considerable time. His predecessors have also had the opportunity of grasping the nettle. I submit, in all fairness, that this Minister has an onerous task, but it is time he grasped the nettle in the interests of all parties concerned.

Mr. Chairman, it is typical of the Opposition, as soon as they are at loggerheads with their own town councils, to run to the Government and the Ministers concerned and to ask for assistance. Here we obviously have another case of this nature. But I want to assure the speaker who has just sat down, that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is in complete control of this situation.

He climbed on the hon. member for Pinetown’s back after seven years.

Yes, but what did he achieve during those seven years, until the hon. member for Umhlatuzana took over the matter? I just want to assure them that this matter is definitely being attended to, and that we do not need their help. They should rather bring their influence to bear where they do have influence. That would pay them better. I want to take this opportunity to-night to speak about two rivers. The first is a river that is just as temperamental as the members of the United Party. That is the Umfolozi River. Along the lower reaches of the river, where the White and Black Umfolozi Rivers meet, lie the very rich alluvial sugar lands of the Umfolozi Plain.

History has shown that tremendous floods occur in that river regularly every four or five years. These floods cause very great devastation. We had tremendous flood damage there in 1957, and again in 1963. The 1963 floods caused 1,800 acres of land to be covered with a layer of sand to an average depth of approximately 36 inches. In the subsequent C.S.I.R. survey this flood damage was referred to as a catastrophe. The normal flow of the Umfolozi River is 20,000 cusecs, but during the flood it was no less than 300,000 cusecs. Major losses were caused. Instead of harvesting 1.160.000 tons of sugar cane, the farmers could only harvest 745,000 tons that year. Enormous silting up occurred. Animals were washed away. Bantu were swept away by the current with their huts and all. Very old trees were uprooted. In short I want to put it to the hon. the Minister in this way: We are asking for an investigation into a scheme which would enable us to divert the excess water from the Umfolozi River to other low-lying depressions. We are asking for surveys to be undertaken as were undertaken in the case of the proven and successful schemes of the Mississippi, Euphrates and Nile Rivers. We are asking this because we take the view that we are dealing with established farming land here. On the other hand, we are always on the look-out for new agricultural land.

The second river I want to mention is the Umhlatuze River, which has its source in the mountains near Babanango. It is a large river, compared with other rivers in Natal. In times of drought the flow of this river is as little as 12 cusecs. In times of flood it increases to almost 30,000 cusecs. Since it is a fast-flowing river, the benefit of that strong flow is very soon lost. I respectfully want to inquire from the hon. the Minister this evening what progress is being made with the planning in connection with this very important dam in Zululand. I say it is an important dam, because it must serve a very large complex. This complex includes two of the largest towns in Zululand, namely Eshowe and Empangeni. It is a dam which will also have to supply water to the Bantu University and to Bantu Reserves Nos. 7B, 9 and 17. It must also supply water to three planned Bantu townships in three reserves. It must also supply water to Richard’s Bay. The problem there is very acute, because at present the water for the Richard’s Bay township is being supplied by the Parks Board I am emphasizing the “P” of Parks Board! The Parks Board is supplying the water at present. They are not very keen to supply that water any longer, because it entails expenditure for them and it is also inconvenient for them. We can appreciate this. The dam will also supply water to the industrial complex which is to be developed later at Richard’s Bay harbour. There are two sugar mills in that complex, as well as a paper factory and a canning factory. The two sugar mills alone are using approximately one million gallons of water per day.

While we are discussing this dam, I just want to mention that, in emphasizing the industrial needs and the domestic utilization of the water in the towns, we should not lose sight of the agricultural needs of that area. We have the Nkwaleni Valley, consisting of 29.600 acres of land, of which 1,600 acres are irrigable. Then we have the Ntambanana-Heatonville area, consisting of 60,000 acres of land, of which 37,000 are irrigable. Then there are 1.000 acres on the Mhlatuze Plain. Land suitable for sugar production is disappearing as a result of numerous townships being built. The agricultural production is in direct relation to the rainfall there. The rainfall in these areas is normally too low to ensure maximum sugar production. This dam is important to us, in spite of the fact that one of my hon. friends on the other side, the member for South Coast, thought it fit one day to say that this dam was not necessary. According to him the Umzingazi Lake can supply 24 million gallons per day to that complex. That is a fictitious figure which he sucked out of someone’s thumb. He subsequently corrected himself in this House in this regard. But his object was definitely to try to stop the Government from paying attention to this Umhlatuzi dam. We do not appreciate such efforts on the part of members on the other side of the House. As far as water affairs are concerned, I think the hon. member would do well if he rather confined his attention to the two matters which are so dear to his heart, namely the South Coast and the Parks Board!

We are aware of the fact that the geological survey report, the hydrological report and the soil survey report have been completed. We are not sure what progress has been made with the cost calculations and the survey of the water needs for the complex which will be served by this dam. I want to ask the Minister to give us more information on this matter, if possible. In the minute I have left I want to draw attention to another matter, since we on the Nationalist side are so often accused of not being interested in conservation. I want to plead that when this dam is built, the necessary attention will be given to its upper reaches, where it originates in the mountains near Babanango, particularly to the southern bank of this river, which is a Bantu area. The necessary conservation farming must be applied there. The bank of the river must also get the necessary reed and plant covering. [Interjections.] That hon. member does not know very much about these matters, so he should rather keep quiet. The banks must be covered with vegetation so that the water flowing into this dam will be as pure as possible, in order to avoid its silting up.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Zululand will forgive me if I do not follow him where he spoke of the well watered areas. These areas really need very little in the way of water. The water is there and always will be there unless this Minister stops it in some or other way.

I rather want to talk about the scientific aspect of hydrology. On 28th February this year, I asked a question in this House, namely whether a faculty of hydrology had been established at any South African university, if so, at which university, and if not, why not? The reply which I received from the hon. the Minister of National Education was that a faculty of hydrology has not been established at any South African university and the need thereof has as yet not been raised or proved”. Note these words, “the need thereof has as yet not been raised or proved”. The Straszacker Commission reported in 1965 and amongst others made the following recommendation:

“It is important that hydrology be recognized as a basic chair! However, five years later nothing has been done. The report continues—

This commission refers to hydrology as a basic chair to be established in every university in the country. However, five years later there has been so far as one knows, no scientific research other than departmental research into the question of hydrology. Evidently the Minister of National Education does not know that there is a chair of physical oceanography at the University of Cape Town. Apart from that apparently, this basic engineering concept is subject to no study whatsoever. No one could possibly accuse this department of not making an effort to conserve the water which is available in the country. They are making great efforts to do this, but are they doing very much else in this respect? Are they taking into account the question of floods? What are they doing about the question of the silt to which my hon. friend referred a few minutes ago when he spoke of the Henley Dam? Henley Dam is only one of them. This project of water conservation in South Africa is not receiving the research that it should receive. Chairs should be established in the universities so that not only will the problems of the conservation of water be worked out but if necessary also the problems of the production of water, water desalination, water brought down from the sky and reclamation of sewage water. All these matters should not be left to haphazard and guesswork.

They should receive basic fundamental research. The country cannot carry its population if it can allow itself to develop another Vaal Basin. What has happened in this Vaal Basin? The Government has allowed the population to grow beyond the resources of the water supply. So we find that water has to be stolen from one part of the country and pumped over the mountain to supply another part of the country. It would have been cheaper to allow the population to grow where the water is, without having to spend this enormous amount which is an unending burden. It will never cease; money will always be needed for the pumping of the water over the mountain. Are we quite sure that enough research has been done to say that this is a safe procedure? Are we sure that the effects of the water in another watershed will not be harmful? We know the balance of nature in the case, for example of insects. We know that the destruction of insects and of birds, by insecticides is changing the ecology of the country where this is being done. Can we afford to risk it with our water, with the changing from one catchment area to another? Will it be free from chances of disaster? Why do we not do some research in this regard? Why not do further research on the evaporation from the great dams? A few months ago I saw an experiment to prevent infection of pools with bilharzia at Randburg. I did not think much of it as a protection against bilharzia, but I did think a great deal of it for its value in the covering of water to prevent serious evaporation. We are told that in certain parts of the country the evaporation is higher than the rainfall. Research can be done on the manufacturing of rain. The Americans are far advanced in this and they claim that they will be supplying water from the sky within, ten years at the latest. They do not claim that they can obtain more water than the natural rainfall, but they can obtain the water at the time and the place where they need it. They can get water out of clouds in winter. They think that they may perhaps be able to bring down a foot of snow more than would naturally fall on the mountains. I do not think that they need research, nor do we need research to know that snow in the uplands is probably the most valuable way to obtain and store water. It is probably the most valuable water you can have. You do not have to dam it; it just stays there and it comes down at the time you need it. These matters are a few which require research. My hon. friend mentioned the loss of sewage water which the Durban Corporation is now depositing in the sea. We know that the C.S.I.R. which is, as far as I know, the only body doing research in this regard besides the University of Cape Town, has already a working model in Windhoek which is working satisfactorily. It is producing water in the near desert. We know that the Germans have produced a desalination process which produces water which is competitive with ordinary water. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring a few ideas to the notice of the hon. the Minister under the Water Affairs Vote. In the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill I touched upon a few matters in connection with Water Affairs. I mentioned, inter alia, the subsidization of sprinkler irrigation, the planning of dams, and also the Commission of Inquiry on the East-flowing Rivers. Every thinking South African is grateful for the progress that has been made with planning, water conservation, and the economic utilization of our available water. We are glad about the effective legislation and the work the hon. the Minister and his Department have done, are doing and will do in future. Nevertheless there are still a few bottlenecks I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister. I believe it is of national importance that these things should be said and placed on record. If we want to keep abreast of the requirements of our enormous development, especially with a view to water utilization, we must get more experts, engineers, technicians, and other competent officials. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the recruiting campaign he launched to try to get young students who can qualify in civil engineering so that we may use their services later at our water supply schemes. I hope the hon. the Minister will get enough officers in the foreseeable future to be able to do that work. The State is doing its share virtually to eliminate the manpower shortage. But what is happening now? The State grants bursaries to promising students, they qualify, and as soon as they have completed their studies and we think that they will now enter the service of the Department of Water Affairs, they are simply snatched away by the private sector. I feel that this is most unfair. I believe that the private sector should also do its share in the training of engineers. I believe that it is not right either for them to expect the State to compete with them, especially as regards salaries and other conditions of service. Those private bodies operate on a profit basis, and the State does not. The State operates on the taxpayers’ money or on loan funds. I feel that the large companies, industries, etc., should make a great contribution towards assisting young men to qualify. They should therefore get many more students from their own ranks to go and study. The time has also arrived for the private sector, which is making enormous profits, to make a larger contribution in regard to the training of our young students. In this connection I just want to quote what Professor De Vos said. I quote from a report in Die Vaderland of 26th March, 1969. This article appeared under the heading “Recruit engineers or help with their training”. It reads as follows (translation)—

Then he goes on to say—

I fully agree with Professor de Vos. We all believe that in this case the private sector should do much more for the training of young students. Mention is often made of the depopulation of the rural areas. We hear this from all sides, and symposiums are held on this problem, but in my opinion this problem we have to cope with can to a large extent be prevented by eliminating the risk factor in agriculture. This can only be done by making farming more stable, and in order to be able to do this we are obliged to apply irrigation farming where we can possibly do so. I believe that it is our duty to encourage irrigation farming as much as we can, and that the State should also do its share to promote irrigation farming. I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister in his planning of dam schemes to give priority to schemes that are vitally necessary to save existing farms from ruin and to keep those farmers on the land. I am also of the opinion that it is now the time to save what can still be saved. Once we have done that, we can start new schemes which have to be started from scratch.

Where farmers are leaving their farms as a result of water shortages, we must extend a helping hand. I want to mention a few cases. There are a few in my own constituency. The hon. the Minister is also acquainted with this specific case, i.e. Trichardtsdal. A year or two ago the Department of Water Affairs gave me the assurance that they would make a hydrologicl suravey of the Mkuji River and that they would let me know what their findings were so that we could see what more we could do to help those people. I feel it is my duty to plead on behalf of those people. They cannot carry on in this way, and they will have to leave their land one after another. They have no other land, and their lands are small. They cannot farm with stock there, and therefore concentrate on the production of bananas and winter vegetables, for which they need irrigation water. The same applies to the people along the Vyehoeksloop, a tributary of the Orighstad River. The Spekboom River has the same problem. I also want to plead with the hon. the Minister that when he makes water allocations in his planning in future, he should first think of agriculture before he makes allocations to industries and other undertakings, except of course in the case of water for primary purposes, i.e. for towns, etc. In this connection I should like to quote from the Sunday Times of 8th October, 1967, in which the following was stated—