Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House for longer than a moment or two, but I was unable to speak in the Second Reading debate and I would just like to have on record that I wholeheartedly approve of this Bill and would like to give it my support. I welcome it as a very important step in the direction of law reform and continuing improvement in our legal system in South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will use whatever powers he has under clause 5 of this Bill very sparingly so that the commission can act in a completely untrammelled fashion, in no way inhibited by suggestions from the Minister or indirectly even from the Department of Justice. I think the more freedom this commission has to act, the better for our legal reform. Then I just want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would indicate whether it is his intention to appoint a fulltime chairman who is to be a judge and may be appointed for a minimum of five years and reappointed for a further period; in other words, whether the judge who is to be appointed as chairman will be seconded to the commission and released from his duties on the Bench. I understand that one of the difficulties of the existing Law Revision Commission was the fact that there was not a full-time person on it and that it was very difficult for the members to get through the work-load. I feel that the new commission should not labour under this handicap; that there should be a full-time chairman, and that there should be a properly functioning full-time secretariat to help the commission in its very important duties.

Finally, I want to say that since the commission is going to be covering an immensely wide field ranging from the reform of, shall we say, breach of promise law to the reform of law relating to murder, I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister would consider appointing a standing committee to deal purely with criminal law refrom, which is an immense field in itself. I am delighted about the fact that the commission is going to be covering this wide field, because I myself would like to make some suggestions eventually, particularly in regard to the reform of laws which prevent access to the courts of law. With these few words, I wish to support the Bill.

As far as the secretariat is concerned, they will definitely be full-time people. As far as the chairman is concerned, it is difficult to say at this stage exactly what line we will follow. But primarily it will be his duty to serve as chairman of the commission and, if he has sufficient time left, then he can attend to other matters.

What about a standing committee?

Provision is made for the appointment of further members, and where a man has special knowledge of a particular subject, the idea is to appoint him rather than to have a special standing committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I was dealing, when the House adjoined yesterday, with the position of immigrants who had come to this country and who had passed through the necessary screening process and who, having gone through that process, had been approved and granted South African citizenship. I was making the point that we were not dealing here with persons who had acquired their second citizenship, i.e. South African citizenship, by chance or by any devious means. They had gone through the official process and had been fully approved. The hon. the Minister then intervened to say that people change. Sir, of course people change and that is the very point we make. Ministers are also people, most of them, and they change as well and, indeed, the history of this country and of this House is not devoid of instances where assurances have been given as to a state of affairs and a course of action which have subsequently not been honoured. Indeed, one need only deal with the assurances given by the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House to the Coloured people in respect of their representation in this House, a matter of the most profound importance, but when it came to the push that assurance was worth nothing at all. Now, I do not suggest that the hon. the Minister of the Interior necessarily has the same point of view as his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence. I would not wish that on him but it is possible that others might occupy his portfolio, and of course the position may change and the assurances we had today from the hon. the Minister may not be followed. All it amounts to here is a re-statement of the point made by the hon. member for South Coast, that we are dealing with the Bill and not with ministerial assurances.

The hon. the Minister dealt with another matter which I am afraid I do not follow. The hon. the Minister said that he could deal with South African citizens and foreigners in terms of the drug legislation. He has powers to deal with those two categories. Now, the category of persons we are dealing with in this amendment, are persons who have South African citizenship but they also have a citizenship from elsewhere. If he can deal with South African citizens under the drug legislation, why can he not deal with South Africans who also have a second citizenship? They are none the less South Africans. If the hon. the Minister can deal with South Africans who do not have another citizenship in terms of the drug legislation, why cannot he deal with this category of persons as well? This simply does not make sense and I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister says in reply to that.

Two other points remain, one in regard to the position of the Bantu. We have been hearing a great deal during the last few years about the fact that the Bantu people of South Africa now possess dual citizenship. They have a citizenship, for example, of the Transkei and they have a South African citizenship in terms of the legislation which is on the Statute Book in respect of the Whites. Do they fall in the category of dual citizenship or don’t they? The hon. the Minister smiles.

You are splitting hairs. I will reply to you.

I would have thought that this was one of the cardinal points of Government policy.

He has not even thought of it yet.

Now, what is the position? Is it that the second citizenship which the Bantu people have is not worth the paper it is written on? Is this just a bluff?

Can they go overseas with a Transkeian passport? Of course not.

I do not think they can. But let us take it a little further. Will they shortly reach the stage where they have an independent citizenship upon which they can travel overseas?

That depends on their development.

Quite! The hon. the Minister said they could ask for independence tomorrow if they wished. If they were to ask for it tomorrow, does that mean that when they have their independence, and their citizenship, the Minister can deal with the 8 million Bantu in the White areas under the provisions of this clause?

That would be the result.

Yes. That means that roughly half the population of this country will be subject to the provisions of this clause. That is the outcome of his policy.

Finally, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the report in Die Burger of 2nd February, which has been referred to by a number of hon. members opposite, correctly reflects what the hon. gentleman said.

On broad lines, but I said that not every word of it was exactly correct. I did not cover the whole theme.

But the hon. gentleman is quoted in inverted commas. He is quoted in inverted commas as having said the following—

Did the hon. the Minister say that? If he did say that, then his attitude in the House today is quite different. It covers a much wider field.

I said so yesterday [Interjections.]

It is most regrettable, but if the hon. the Minister was correctly reported in Die Burger, and he says he broadly was, then that is distinctly misleading.

No.

I will pass the hon. gentleman the cutting and I hope he will explain the words I have just read out, which are quoted as a direct quote of what the hon. Minister said. I do not know how he can aver that that is not misleading in the light of what the hon. gentleman has said here yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the end of the debate on this measure introduced by the new Minister of the Interior and I am sure the message has got through to him that we do not like the measure at all. We do not like giving him the powers he is asking for in terms of this measure, and particularly are we not prepared to accept his assurances. I want to repeat the words of the hon. member for Houghton, that nothing personal is intended when we say that we are not prepared to accept his undertakings. It is not personal against the incumbent of the post, but against the post as a whole and as against the Cabinet as a whole. Why are we not prepared to accept his undertaking? It is because—and this was so aptly illustrated by the hon. member for Green Point—the record of this particular portfolio is such that we cannot accept it.

But I want to return for a moment to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech yesterday and point to another reason why we are loath to accept undertakings of this nature. The hon. Minister said yesterday—

“Foreigners who later acquired South African citizenship”. But the Minister already has in the Act as it stands today the power to deal with those people, and he knows it. Then why does he require these powers, if these are the people he wants to deal with—“’n groot aantal van die persone wat hulle skuldig maak—

So far so good. We accept this because this is quite clear and correct. But it highlights the very point which has been made by this side of the House, that if the Minister will write this into the Bill we will support him. If he is going to take action only against people who have been convicted in our courts of law, we will support him, and I want to make the attitude of the Opposition quite clear now. We are not here to defend miscreants and wrongdoers. That is the last thing we wish to do and more especially are we not here to defend people who are acting against the interests of South Africa. In every instance where this is proved we will support the hon. the Minister and the Government. We, the official Opposition, will give them all the support they require, but let it first be proved that they are guilty of such an offence or wrongdoing. If the hon. the Minister will write that or a similar provision into this legislation, he will have no trouble from us whatsoever; he will have our whole-hearted support. As far as these people who are guilty of anti-South African or un-South African actions are concerned—get rid of them, throw them out of the country! He will have the full support of the official Opposition. However, what worries us is that they must first be proved guilty. What happens if the Minister’s information is incorrect? What recourse has a person if the Minister’s information is incorrect? I ask this question in all seriousness. I do not want to call into doubt the decision of the Minister. However, I must point out that there have been instances where the information on which decisions have been based has been incorrect. What does an aggrieved person do under those circumstances? He finds himself unable to appeal to anybody, because the Minister is absolute—he has the complete and total power to make whatever decision he may wish to make. This is the case even if the information is incorrect regarding the dual citizenship. An official may believe that a person does hold dual citizenship …

You are off the track now.

Yes, there is recourse on mala fides; I admit that. No, not on mala fides, but on incorrect information. Let us leave that.

You are in reverse gear and off the track.

I have a feeling that the hon. the Minister has not given us all the reasons why he requires these powers. As usual with legislation that is introduced by this Government, there is some undisclosed reason for this measure too. What is it? It has been suggested that he could use these powers against church workers, against his political opponents, against students. I had another look at the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech of yesterday and I came across this paragraph where he deals with the amendment to subsection (1) of section 19bis and says—

As the Act stands at the moment, a minor cannot be punished in terms of section 19bis, but all of a sudden we find that although a minor may still not be punished under the existing provisions of section 19bis, he falls under the provisions of the new subsection (b) which is introduced by the Minister. Why?

Because they may be drug pedlars.

Because they may also be student demonstrators?

You are suspicious.

Of course I am suspicious. That is what I am here for. Of course I am suspicious. The hon. the Minister puts the words in my mouth. He is quite correct. That is what we are here for. This is the point: Is the Minister going to use this against the members of Nusas? Is he going to use this against students who do not agree with him politically? [Interjections.] No, no! The hon. the Minister and his Government have had trouble with students before and they have admitted in this House that they have been unable to take action against these students, particularly against those who have come from overseas. Here we come to the clue about those who have citizenship through their parents. The Minister goes on—

There is no mention of drugs now. I might mention, incidentally, that this is the only reference to any other misdeed apart from drug peddling. I wonder if the hon. the Minister had set out to try to pull the curtain over the truth; I wonder whether in his reply to the Second Reading debate, having heard our misgivings and pleas for the rule of law—because this is what he is doing again; he is abrogating the rule of law in this country—he will not be honest and give us the real reason behind the demand for these powers, and reconsider his position to see if it is not going to be possible for him to introduce an amendment to cover, for example, mischief-makers, wrongdoers and drug pedlars, people guilty of un-South African activity.

How do we define people guilty of un-South African activity?

But you have all the laws. Mr. Speaker, must I now in this year of 1973, after 25 years of Nationalist Party rule, try to remind the Government of the tremendous powers they have taken in this Chamber? They have the power to prove whatever they have to prove against any person in this country. I do not have to remind the Government of that. They have the power to do that; use those powers; prove them guilty; get rid of them and you will have the support of the Opposition. But, Sir, without that safeguard in the legislation I am afraid we must continue to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in replying to this debate because there was a great deal of interesting discussion. Both sides of the House were responsible for putting forward many interesting points of view. In the first place, therefore, I wish to express my pleasure at the fact that in regard to a matter which still aroused red-hot feelings in this House in 1949, the question of citizenship, we have now progressed to the stage where we could discuss it in a calm manner, as calm as it was under the circumstances. We have made a great deal of progress since 1949; we have made a great deal of progress along the road of loyalty and allegiance, something of which I am most appreciative. Therefore I wish to say thank you for the spirit in which this debate has been conducted, in spite of the misgivings of the Opposition and the very strong suspicions prevailing in their minds.

Before explaining the matter any further, I just want to react to the last two speakers who spoke this morning. First I come to the hon. member for Zululand, in regard to the question of South African citizenship along with the citizenship of another country, and his standpoint that in certain circumstances one cannot get rid of the citizenship of the other country and that this is the case from sheer necessity. I know it is normally not good etiquette to talk and argue about the citizenship laws of other countries; it is an unwritten rule that in this sphere we respect one another as different countries. For that reason I shall not go into this matter in detail. However, I have in the meantime been in touch with the representatives of certain countries here and have officially obtained certain information. I am now going to take the example of a person with U.S.A. citizenship. Should such a person also acquire South African citizenship, he would automatically lose his American citizenship if, for instance, he were to vote in an election in South Africa. He would lose it as easily as that. The moment he loses it no steps may be taken against him, for then he would only have one citizenship. Then we come to the case of Great Britain. The hon. member for Port Natal said he was a British citizen by birth and could not get rid of it in any way. I understand that since 1948 rules have been in existence in terms of which a person such as the hon. member for Port Natal can get rid of his British citizenship if he wishes to do so. The moment he does this, it leaves him in an absolutely unassailable position under this legislation, for then he would only have South African citizenship. And that is what I expect of him, and that is what any right-minded South African would expect. This is the information I obtained officially.

The hon. member may go into it and come back to it at the Committee Stage, if he so wishes. The information I have is that since 1948 it has been possible for a British citizen to get rid of his citizenship. For people who really have the best of intentions but nevertheless suspect that we can still take a firm line with them, this is the perfect way to overcome the whole problem. Renounce the other citizenship and then we shall have no problems. I would be pleased if the hon. member would ascertain what the position is and raise the matter again at the Committee Stage, if he wants to do so. His South African citizenship would then serve as a guarantee that steps cannot be taken against him. These are the facts as they are at the moment.

The hon. member raised the matter of the Transkei citizens, which supposedly implied dual citizenship. I immediately asked him whether a Transkei citizen could at the moment go abroad on a Transkei passport. The answer is of course “No”, because the Transkei citizen is for international purposes still a South African citizen and can only travel abroad on a South African passport. The Transkei citizenship as such is therefore, as far as we are concerned, citizenship linking him to that homeland. But until that homeland has become independent, he will be making use of the citizenship of South Africa and the passport of South Africa for travelling purposes. Under this legislation, therefore, I cannot take any steps against him in any way, and I shall not consider doing so either—for that simple reason. By implication the hon. member wanted to know what the position would be if they eventually became independent. Then the position of the Transkei will be exactly as it is at present in the case of Lesotho, Botswana or any other state. Then it will mean that they have foreign citizenship, and if they have dual citizenship, South Africa will have to consider whether they may have dual citizenship.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What is stated on the passport of a Xhosa, if he should be travelling abroad at the moment? Is it only “South African citizenship”?

Only South African citizenship. He is a South African citizen and that is all that is recognized internationally.

What, then, is the value of the second citizenship we granted them?

It has a great deal of value, but I do not wish to go into that point now as I shall not be permitted to do so. A great deal of value attaches to the present citizenship of the homelands, for it specifically grants him the status of a citizen of that state, a state in embryo, in the making, which is a totally different situation. It links him to a state with his own rights, where his own domestic laws are very much in force. It grants him the right to vote in that homeland, which is a very valuable right he has as a result of that. No, the hon. member should not belittle that citizenship. But in the international world that citizenship is not recognized, and the whole argument therefore falls away.

Is the Transkeian citizenship not recognized internationally?

Yes, the Transkeian citizenship is not recognized internationally. Of course not. However, it is recognized by all the laws of our country. Then we come to the other argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who immediately backed out because he realized he was on a wrong track, namely that the officials’ information that a person has dual citizenship could be wrong, and that in this manner steps could then be taken against a person who in actual fact did not have it, as he said, and that such a person would then have no citizenship. Can one believe that in this civilized age in which we are living any person can argue like that, while one is dealing with the administrations of modern countries? The fact of the matter is that before the Minister can deprive any person of his South African citizenship and deport him to the country in which he also has citizenship, whatever other country that may be, the Minister must first have that country’s permission that they will receive him. That is the present international rule. A mistake like that will therefore come to light immediately. If the Minister wants to deport him to England, the British must first consent to receiving him. If they say he is not their citizen, any mistake that may creep in will be exposed immediately. That misgiving is therefore totally unfounded. However, this is the existing practice, and here I want to add that when a person holds the citizenship of another country, that country accepts him as its citizen and takes him back. Up to now there have been no refusals amongst civilized states in this regard. We may therefore leave that matter at that as well. At a later stage I shall round off the debate in general, but I only wanted to reply first to these two members in this way.

Now, what exactly is happening here as far as this legislation is concerned? What powers are we taking and what powers do we have? I want to start by saying what powers we have under the existing legislation at present, i.e. under the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act. This Act was passed in 1913 and subsequently amended on various occasions, namely in 1969, in 1972, in 1956—it has been amended quite a number of times. Under that Act the Minister has the power at present—and now I am quoting from section 43(1) of Act No. 59 of 1972, the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act—so that hon. members may see what powers already exist—

I.e., persons who were not born in South Africa; this does include those who were born overseas and acquired South African citizenship by naturalization. Section 43(1) goes on to say—

This is the court for which the hon. members have asked—

Let us take a look at Schedule 1 now, just to give hon. members an idea of the kind of offence included here. In Schedule 1 there is a whole list of offences which hon. members can go and study later on. This list includes—

These are the provisions of Schedule I. Furthermore, the provision concerning a person who has committed an offence “by the sale or supply of or dealing in, or being in possession of any habit-forming drug in contravention of any law” was inserted as far back as 1931. A person committing an offence by the sale of illicit diamonds, uncut precious stones, etc., is also mentioned. Two things must happen to such a person: Firstly, he must be found guilty in a court and sentenced to imprisonment, and, secondly, he must by reason of the circumstances of such offence be deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic. In such a case the Minister already has at his disposal, without any amendment of his powers, the power to send such a person out of the country.

He has full discretion.

Yes, with full discretion, just like that. That is the present position. In other words, this is what the Minister can do at the moment with aliens who have no South African citizenship. I can do this with people who originally came from countries abroad and acquired South African citizenship at a later stage. However, I cannot do this with South African-born citizens who have dual citizenship. This is the obvious implication of this clause.

Now we come to the further powers which the Minister of the Interior has under section 45 of the same Act. This specific amendment to the Act was agreed to in 1956. I want to concede at once that, according to my information, the Opposition voted against it at that stage. Under section 45 we have the right—

Just look at the wide coverage here—any other law. Truly, this is as wide as can be—

These are the same words we are using now—

This was inserted there—

Under this Act the Minister therefore has the power to order by warrant the removal from the Republic of any person who is not a South African citizen, without any conviction—the free discretion of the Minister—except if he has South African citizenship. This is the power the Minister has at the moment. As stated there, this is the present position. The Minister has tremendously wide powers giving him everything he may need in this regard. These powers have been in the Act since 1956. Now, this is the question that arises at once: How have Ministers on the National Party side—all of us have been Ministers on the National Party side—been using or abusing these powers over the past years? This is where the hon. members’ distrust has originated. How have we been using or abusing these tremendously wide-covering powers which are, in addition, not subject to a decision by a court? I want to say at once that prior to last year no statistics were kept in this regard. Last year it was specifically decided to keep statistics of these cases. I may tell hon. members that, for the year 1972, eight persons were removed from the Republic under this particular section. This was the case, in spite of everything that had happened; in spite of all the unrest, etc., that had prevailed. With these absolute powers in the hands of the Minister, and without any testing in the courts, eight persons were removed, and I can give hon. members this assurance: not one of them was removed for political reasons.

All criminals?

Yes, criminals.

All convicted criminals?

No, not convicted. The hon. member must not twist words.

But you had information?

Yes, I have information available. Now, this is how these powers have ostensibly been abused according to the Opposition. What, then, is the problem? Why does the Minister want more powers? The problem is that the moment a person has South African citizenship or acquires it at a later stage, or was originally a South African citizen by birth and, perhaps, subsequently went abroad for a period of 20 years, after which he returned to South Africa while he still had South African citizenship but had acquired totally different and foreign ideas over there and had in the meantime become completely disloyal, the Minister may not take any steps against such a person with South African citizenship, whatever the circumstances may be, no matter in what way he may be acting against the public interests. If he has South African citizenship the Minister cannot get rid of him. That is absolutely impossible. I do not wish to go too far, but let me mention a few examples. Suppose we were to have here a position where the department, or whoever, has to deal with a person who is eventually pointed out as the head of an international gang of smugglers dealing in drugs. Suppose that that person has dual citizenship: South African citizenship, but also the citizenship of another country, and it does not matter what country it is—in a moment I shall come back to the question of what countries—then the Minister would not be in a position to deport or do anything to that person, who is a South African citizen but who had left the country and came back again. The Minister can take him to court, he may be sentenced to imprisonment, but the Minister cannot get rid of him in any way. The Minister cannot get rid of him while public opinion outside may demand that we get rid of people of that type because we do not want that type of person here. The Minister is powerless to do that and will simply have to say, “I am sorry, I have no powers to do so, for the Act does not grant me the right to do so.” This is the present position. This is what the Minister is objecting to now, and now the Minister wants powers that will enable him to do so.

Is it not possible to take that person to court?

One can take him to court and after that the court can have him imprisoned for 20 years, in terms of the legislation, but the Minister cannot deport him or get rid of him.

Write that into this Bill.

What?

That he has to appear in court first.

I have now taken a specific example. Let me take another example now. Let us suppose that somebody kidnapped the hon. member for Port Natal. Let us suppose that the person who did so is such a type of person that the public interest demands deportation. Suppose he demands a ransom or something like that. In such a case the Minister wants to have the power to deport such a person in the interests of South Africa. We do not want to have in this country a person who kidnaps such a decent hon. member. Therefore the Minister must have the power to deport him, but the Minister does not have that power if he has South African citizenship. This Bill makes it impossible for a person to abuse his South African citizenship to protect himself against steps being taken against him under the circumstances. Public opinion will simply want to know from the Government why the Minister does not have those powers; he ought to have them. This is the kind of problem with which we are saddled. Now it is very clear that the moment he has South African citizenship, the Minister cannot take any steps.

Now I want to say a few words about dual citizenship as such. I want to state what countries, and so forth, are involved in the matter. Yesterday I said by way of interjection that it did not matter what countries, for I do not have any action against any specific country or any specific part of the world. That country may be our best friend in the outside world for all I care. It cannot accept responsibility for what is being done by all its citizens throughout the world. That is impossible. In other words, the point at issue here is the person and the acts committed by him, what he is doing here, how he is acting here. The point at issue here is not what country it is that is involved in this matter. As I have already said, by his own actions he can give up his citizenship of the foreign country. I should like the hon. members to ascertain for themselves that this is the case. Since 1948, so I have been told, such a person can also give up his British citizenship. That is the solution, and to all those who have doubts I simply want to say that the means for being absolutely free from the powers of this legislation, the power of the deprivation of South African citizenship and possible deportation, are in the hands of the person himself, in that he can simply renounce his foreign citizenship and can exclusively accept South African citizenship. Then this legislation will not be applicable to him at all.

Now I want to concede at once that there are certain cases—the hon. member for Houghton specifically referred to them yesterday—where people have dual citizenship for totally different reasons, for reasons that are essential in our present world situation. For instance, sometimes people have to make use of another passport in order to enter countries which they may normally, as a result of international situations, not enter on our passport. Those people are doing so at the moment with our consent and knowledge. We know it and we accept it, but this is not the type of person I have in mind here. These are not people who are engaged in all sorts of unholy activities here, and nothing will be done to those people. What can in fact happen is that when such a person abuses that foreign passport of his, we shall definitely be able to take steps against him by withdrawing that South African citizenship; that is a power the Minister already has. But that is not the idea. Nor is it my intention to do anything about it. That will continue, as the hon. member for Houghton said. I feel no need to do anything about it. On the contrary, they are doing it with our knowledge and collaboration, often.

Then we come to the second principle that is involved here, namely the question of its not being possible to test this in court. I have told hon. members that this is not a new principle. I refer once again to this Act from which I quoted, namely the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, Act No. 59 of 1972. Now listen to the wide powers for which provision is made in section 45(2)—

Exactly the same powers the Minister is taking in this legislation, are already contained in the Act. I want to state at once that at the Second Reading of that Act the Opposition did not vote against it. At the Committee Stage they did vote against this specific provision, but at the Second Reading, where this serious principle was under discussion, the Opposition did not vote against it in 1969. I looked it up. Once again I want to defend myself immediately on the argument that, in spite of those tremendously wide powers which were granted to the Minister in 1969, which cannot be tested in the courts and for which no reasons need be given, etc., we only implemented them in eight cases during the whole of 1972, under all the difficult circumstances in which we found ourselves that year. This, seen against that background, does not create any problems for me, and I think the confidence ought to be there that these powers will be handled with great responsibility.

I want to go further. Before dealing with the final point, I want to refer to the report in Die Burger from which hon. members are quoting all the time. Let me make it very clear that, as a result of a previous experience in regard to the whole question of drugs, I wanted to emphasize in Die Burger that this Act was applicable to the drug pedlar and not to the consumer. The intention that was imputed to me all along, was that I wanted to implement these cruel laws against the consumer as well. It was misinterpreted throughout. The whole object of my standpoint in Die Burger was to say that my concern here was only with the pedlar and not with the consumer, but by that I did not mean that I excluded all other offences. I referred to the drug situation and I said that my sole concern was with the pedlar and not with the consumer. That is how I put it, and that is how I meant it. I did not mean that I was only concerned with the pedlar and only with drugs and not with other things. Besides, in my Second Reading speech yesterday I very clearly stated, and I quote—

This is what I said yesterday, and it indicates clearly that I did not speak about drugs only. But I want to say at once that it was the implementation of the Drugs Act that gave rise to this Bill. Now hon. members are saying that I must define it in more detail. They say I must say precisely what I have in mind, and then they will support me. But how can one foresee all the facets and name them one after the other? I am prepared to make provision for anything, if hon. members ask me to do so, on condition that cases not covered by it, can still be covered by a blanket clause.

With the public interest as the test.

Yes, the public interest, for that is the decisive yardstick. I shall mention all the cases the hon. member wants to be mentioned, but I cannot give up the blanket clause in terms of which “the public interest” is the norm, for there is always the possibility that a case may crop up for which no specific provision has been made in the Act. The guarantee the Opposition has, is that a Minister cannot take any steps without answering for his actions. In terms of section 39 of the South African Citizenship Act the Minister shall once in every three months cause all deprivations of citizenship to be published in the Gazette and tabled in Parliament. The full name of the person concerned, the other country of which he is also a citizen, the date on which he was deprived of his South African citizenship and the section in terms of which he was deprived of his citizenship must be published. In other words, every three months the names of everybody against whom steps are being taken in terms of this Act, will be published in the Gazette; the list of names will be tabled here every year, and if hon. members want to do their homework, they will be able to see here against whom steps were taken. They will have all the details, and hon. members will then have the opportunity of calling the Minister to account on his Vote or in another debate. That is what happens in a orderly democratic system. Sir, what misgivings can there be if one appoints Parliament itself as the watchdog over the interests of these people? Do hon. members of the Opposition think for a moment that a Minister would do things arbitrarily, knowing that he cannot justify or defend them when the matter is raised in Parliament? After all, a Minister is a responsible person.

Your reasons may be political ones.

No, how many times have I not said that steps will not be taken for political reasons.

Sir, I want to conclude. It is unnecessary to discuss this measure any further. I want to conclude by saying that I know—and I have no doubts about it—that this Bill confers tremendously wide powers on the Minister. I realize that these powers are sweeping ones. I realize, on the other hand, that the Opposition is suspicious because it does not have any confidence in the Government. I understand that perfectly. I also want to say at once that I accept they are going to vote against this measure. That is normal practice in politics; I understand that hon. members must do this in order to protect themselves with a view to the future. But, Sir, the public of South Africa, public opinion, expects of the Government that it should have the necessary powers to be able to take steps against any person, whoever he may be, who does not serve the public interest of South Africa. Irrespective of whatever resistance may be offered, irrespective of any criticism that may come from the other side, I say that the Government has a duty in this matter. The basic, primary duty of any government is to take the necessary powers in order to govern. We have, as I have said, the safety valve I mentioned here, and in addition to that the Minister can be called to account here in Parliament. I am sorry, Sir, that under the circumstances I cannot accept any amendments at this stage.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—77: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, W. D;. Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A.; P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter, P. C. Roux, H. J, van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S.; J. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to explain the Bill more fully. Governments of Native peoples in South-West Africa have requested that provision be made for them to advance on the road of political development to a status of self-governing areas. The provisions of the Bill before you have also been made available to them, its implications have been discussed with them, and they have been given opportunities for discussion and comment. They endorse the principles contained in this Bill and desire that this Bill should be proceeded with.

The initial steps for the establishment of sound systems of government for the Native nations were taken in the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968 (Act No. 54 of 1968), in which provision was made, inter alia, for the recognition of their traditional tribal authorities. With the recognition granted to these traditional systems of government, the foundations were laid for higher bodies, i.e. for legislative councils.

Since the promulgation of the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968, and the establishment of legislative councils, these traditional systems of government, the legislative councils and their executive councils, have been engaged in a continual process of training in the intricacies of State government. This took place in several of the regions. As a result of the progress that was made it was possible to extend, in terms of section 9 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (Act No. 23 of 1972), the matters in respect of which the legislative councils have legislative power.

With this Bill the Government is reaffirming its undertaking to give the various population groups systematic practical experience on a regional basis in the field of self-government, so as to enable them eventually to exercise their right of self-determination in a proper manner.

The stage has now been reached where there is a general need on the part of the Native nations that have legislative councils available to them to obtain enabling legislation in terms of which their specific regions may be declared self-governing areas. The introduction of this Bill is aimed at providing for the enabling legislation. After mature consideration, on the ground of experience, and in consultation with the Native governments concerned, who in turn consulted their people in the customary way, the procedures as contained in this Bill were decided upon, since these would best promote the further constitutional development of the regions concerned, with due allowance for the specific nature of each.

This legislation, of course, is not automatically applicable to the population groups of the various regions. What it is creating is the necessary machinery for the development of self-government on a regional basis. Therefore, when a government or region is of the opinion that it is capable of exercising further powers of self-government, it will be able to request that the legislation concerned be made applicable to it, and the State President may then apply it in accordance with that request, by way of proclamation. The choice here rests with the regional authority concerned.

This Bill has been drafted in such a way that it can be applied to the regions of the various Native nations in respect of those matters that apply to all areas, such as, inter alia, finance and legislative powers, while matters applicable to a particular region only, will, after consultation with those concerned, be determined by the State President by Proclamation in the Government Gazette.

This method meets with approval because it is the method in terms of which action can be taken individually according to varying circumstances and with due allowance for stages of development of the nations and regions and differences between them, as and when the need requires such action.

I reiterate the assurance that has often been given that it is the firm intention of the Government to assist the Native nations in South-West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi to obtain experience in self-government before exercising their right of determination since this is a universal phenomenon for nations all over the world. Furthermore, the Bill gives effect to this assurance in a practical way by making further provision by law for the development of such self-governing Native nations.

For the convenience of hon. members, I now wish to elucidate briefly some of the most important matters dealt with in the Bill.

As regards the composition of the Act, it is now divided into chapters and the provisions it contains are arranged in such a way that provision is made for constitutional development in two phases. The matters concerning legislative councils in the first phase are mainly grouped together in Chapter I, while matters concerning the regions in the second phase, that is to say, when they have self-governing status, are mainly contained in Chapter II.

Since the passing of the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968, certain changes have taken place in the territories for the various Native nations. There have been certain additions to and amendments of the said areas and hon. members will recall that Parliament has attended to these during previous sessions. Consequently it is now necessary for the definition of the regions of the various Native nations to be adapted to the present situation and for such regions to be set apart for the exclusive use of and occupation by Natives, as is done in clause 2.

Clause 3 inserts sections 5A and 5B in the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968. Hereafter the said Act is referred to as the principal Act.

In section 5A matters reserved from legislation by legislative councils are listed, while section 5B provides that members of a legislative council shall not be liable to legal proceedings by virtue of their actions in such a council.

Clause 4 inserts sections 6A and 6B in the principal Act and regulates the appointment and dismissal of persons in the service of the Government concerned, and it also provides that duties, powers, authorities and functions of paramount chiefs, chiefs and headmen shall remain in force as on the date of the commencement of the principal Act.

Clause 5 inserts sections 10A up to and including 10J in the principal Act.

Sections 10A and 10B provide that existing courts shall continue; that the Minister of Justice concerned may establish or disestablish inferior courts and may appoint officers for such courts in respect of persons who are members of the nation concerned. It is also provided that existing inferior courts may be transferred by the State President to the Government concerned, and the jurisdiction of such courts is defined.

In terms of section 10C existing laws which immediately prior to the constitution of the first executive council for the area were in force for that area continue in force until such time as they are amended by the competent authority.

In sections 10F and 10G it is provided that all the rights, powers, authorities, duties and obligations which immediately prior to the establishment of a legislative council for the region were vested in a Minister, person or body in the Republic or the territory of South-West Africa, with reference to matters in respect of which the legislative council has competence, as well as the administrative control, powers and authorities of the State President in the above-mentioned categories, shall be vested in the executive council or corresponding person or body in the area.

In terms of section 10I Afrikaans, English, and one other language used by members of the nation concerned, shall be declared official languages of the area concerned, and it is also provided that an additional language used by the said members may be used for such official purposes as the executive council may determine.

Clause 6 inserts sections 17A up to and including 17R in the principal Act.

Section 17A provides that the State President may, after consultation by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with a legislative council, declare that the area referred to in section 2 of the principal Act shall be a self-governing area, and this will then bring about the following changes.

In section 17B provision is made for each self-governing area to have a flag of its own, which shall be flown at specified places side by side with the National Flag of the Republic. Section 17C authorizes the State President to declare a literary work recommended by the legislative council for this purpose to be the National Anthem.

Section 17D deals with matters concerning the executive government of the region, which shall vest in a Cabinet consisting of a chief minister and other ministers and constituted from members of the legislative council, and it also provides that the Chief Minister shall, as he deems fit, allocate the responsibility for the control and administration of the different departments to the various ministers.

Section 17E deals with the legislative powers of legislative councils and provides, inter alia, that a legislative council may make laws concerning matters within their power, and may also provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any Act of this Parliament in so far as it relates to any such matter, and where they are thus empowered, they may also make such laws applicable to members of the nation concerned outside their particular area but within the territory of South-West Africa. Furthermore, it also provides that no law made by another legislature and passed after the commencement of this Act, including an Act of this Parliament, shall apply in the area concerned in respect of a matter which falls within the legislative power of the legislative council concerned.

In terms of section 17F, laws passed by a legislative council will have to be presented to the State President for his assent, and it also provides that the State President may refer such law back to the legislative council for further consideration in the light of such further information and advice as may be given.

Section 17I provides that the State President may establish a High Court for a self-governing area. In terms of section 17P the accounts of a self-governing area are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General.

In clause 8 a further list of matters is added to the matters in respect of which a legislative council has legislative power.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that resulting from all the explanations given, there will be understanding and support in this House for the Bill, the more so in view of the special circumstances for which this Bill is necessary.

Mr.

Speaker, this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, seeks to amend the Act of 1968, which we opposed at the time because we viewed it as a unilateral attempt to change the international status of South-West Africa and because of the powers by proclamation which were given under the Act. The hon. the Minister in setting out his objectives, has indicated today that this amendment is meant to give these people experience in self-government on a regional basis prior to self-determination. That was, of course, not the objective of the original Act. It is not the objective of this Bill as set out in the explanatory memorandum. Since 1968 I think a number of matters have become clearer. The first is that I think it is recognized that the international status of South-West Africa cannot be unilaterally changed. I think that, secondly, it has been recognized by this Government that the future of South-West Africa is something which must be decided, essentially, by the people of South-West Africa by virtue of their right to self-determination. I think that, thirdly, there seems to have been some agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and the representative of the Secretary of the United Nations that experience in self-government was necessary prior to the exercise of self-determination. The hon. the Prime Minister made it clear in those discussions that he felt that that experience should be on a regional basis. It was clear, however, from the report on the discussions that there was some disagreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and the representative of the Secretary of the United Nations on the basis for self-determination, that is whether it should be on a regional basis or on a basis of the integrity of the whole area. It is clear, also, from their conversation as reported that there was an attempt to put pressure on the Government to reverse the so-called homelands policy. I think it is in the light of these developments that we have to view this amending legislation. One is still faced with the preamble to the original Bill, which reads:

One finds an echo of that in the explanatory memorandum which is, of course, not part of the Bill. Paragraph No. 8 of the introduction to the explanatory memorandum reads as follows:

That statement in the explanatory memorandum does seem to me to be capable of being construed as being in conflict with the present stage of the negotiations between the hon. the Prime Minister and the United Nations Organization. There is no indication either of a suggestion that there is a reversal of the homelands policy and it does not seem to recognize the emphasis on national unity and on territorial integrity which was spoken of by the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, nor does there seem to be a recognition of his, I will not say, insistence, but his intention, his request, that on the question of self-determination regard had to be taken of the territory as a whole.

Although there are certain aspects of this amending legislation that we do not like, we would like to be able to support this amending legislation. I think it is very important, before we do so, that there should be an assurance, preferably from the hon. the Prime Minister, that he feels that this legislation in no way is contrary to the spirit of, or will in no way affect, his negotiations with the United Nations.

I cannot see it at all.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he cannot see it. I can only tell him that this explanatory memorandum is capable of real exploitation by our enemies. If he cannot see it, I am very sorry indeed to hear that.

You can suck poison from the most beautiful flower.

You can, but often the most dangerous poison, and it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to see that that cannot be done on this occasion.

I am not going to destroy all flowers because it can be done.

I am not asking the hon. gentleman to destroy all flowers, but all I am asking him is to neutralize the poison in advance so that no danger can result to the negotiations.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

We can go on …

I am not talking about you; I am talking about the people in the outside world.

That is so, but I made a suggestion to the hon. the Prime Minister and I would be glad if he would react. I have said that we do not like certain aspects of this Bill. We do not like this business of the exercise of powers by proclamation, particularly in the fixing and changing of boundaries which, if Government policy is carried to final fulfilment, are going to be boundaries of international states. We warned, when the boundaries of the present homelands in the Republic were being sought to be established, what troubles could result from precisely such activities by proclamation. We felt Parliament should have its say. South-West Africa is in a different position, but we do not like these powers by proclamation and we want to discuss them further when it comes to the Committee Stage.

Our policy in regard to South-West Africa also includes development of self-government of various groups with the hope of a federal arrangement and some “oorkoepelende federale raad”—I can never get the English word for it.

An umbrella council.

No, that is not right. However, I mean an “oorkoe-pelende federale raad”, which we feel should be the forerunner to self-determination and should perhaps be given powers, some of which are still reserved to the Republican Government at the present time. Therefore these suggestions of the hon. the Minister are not contrary to our ideas, provided it is clearly understood that they are not a step in the direction of what was envisaged in the 1968 Act. If we could have the hon. the Prime Minister’s reaction, it may be possible for us to dispose of this Bill fairly rapidly.

Mr. Speaker, I think this House as well as South-West Africa welcomes the fact that the Opposition is not opposing this measure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated his Party’s policy very clearly, and actually one feels pleased that he did not go further in enunciating his Party’s policy in respect of South-West Africa. In fact, it is very interesting that the United Party have gone to a great deal of trouble to work out a federal policy for the Republic, but they have never considered how they are going to include South-West Africa in this policy. Here I have an outline of their federal policy published in the local Opposition newspaper of South-West Africa. It appears on the front page, but absolutely nothing about South-West Africa is mentioned in their federal policy. I should be very pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would perhaps tell the inhabitants of South-West Africa at some stage why they have accidentally or perhaps intentionally, excluded South-West Africa from this policy of federalism.

Where were you when I spoke in Windhoek?

I think this legislation is another milestone on the road to self-determination and independence for the various peoples of South-West Africa. Not only does it bear the unmistakable stamp of the absolute honesty and sincerity of the National Government in leading the Bantu peoples of South-West Africa to sovereignty, but I think—and this must be conceded—it also does honour to the highest ideals of human rights and human freedom imaginable.

Sir, there is one concept which we call “self-determination”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to it. There is another concept which one calls “independence”. They are really like horses harnessed to a cart. Both form an essential part of a larger concept of freedom. One can have countries with independence, but in fact they have no self-determination. For them, independence is an empty concept. There are many instances of this kind in Africa which can be mentioned. There is, for example, the instance of the Ibos of Nigeria. For years they sacrificed themselves for self-determination. Today Nigeria is an independent country, but what do the Ibos have? They have nothing; for them it is an empty concept. Therefore I say that in the case of these two concepts one should really have self-determination first and then independence, rather than having independence without self-determination for the individual peoples. This term “self-determination” is, of course, one which is totally misinterpreted. It is a term which is very carefully defined even in the Charter of the U.N. I wish to indicate today that the origin of this concept of “self-determination” in the Charter of the U.N., as it appears there today, is the very concept the National Party have of it, and no other concept. I refer to section 1(2) of the Charter of the U.N., in which the objectives of the U.N. are defined. I quote the following section in English—

It is very interesting to see what the origin of this section 1(2) was. Now we know that at Dumbarton Oaks, where the Charter of the U.N. was in fact drawn up, no such provision was included in the preamble to the Charter. In fact, at that stage this particular paragraph reads as follows—

That was all. Various countries then came along with proposals for amending the draft Charter of the U.N., and then four great powers, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia and China, jointly came along with a series of proposals. It is interesting that it was these very four great powers who came along with an amendment to this particular section and proposed the insertion of the words “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. These words were inserted at the instance of Russia, because in Russia there were various peoples, just as we have various peoples in South-West Africa today. We all know that the U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) consists of 16 different republics, of which two have such a degree of independence that they even have their own representation at the U.N., viz. the Ukraine and White Russia. Sir, this is very interesting; when this amendment came under discussion in the various committees, various people with knowledge of international law stood up and questioned it. They put the question: But how can one talk about the self-determination of peoples if it is intended that France has one people, Russia one people, South Africa one people and Nigeria one people? After all, it follows automatically, and therefore the term self-determination of “states” should rather be used. In fact, the Belgian delegate on that occasion, who was an expert in international law, Mr. Henry Rolin, made this interesting remark, and I now quote from the United Nations Conference on International Organization Documents, Vol. 6, page 1526, where he said the following in pursuance of the proposed amendment—

He used the plural—

In this way this interesting question was put forward at this conference: Is it necessary to include it? What is the meaning of “self-determination of peoples”, in the plural? He questioned it. The committee which considered and accepted these amendments, put it very briefly. I quote again from Volume 6, page 4122—

This is a recommendation to the conference to accept it. Then I just want to quote the following paragraph—

Sir, at this point I pass over a few paragraphs which do not really apply. Then he said the following—

The argument was that in Germany there was another population group; there were Jews, but because Hitler spoke of the German people in general and the “popular will”, those people were oppressed, and that was the cause of the Second World War.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Russian delegate commented on this particular amendment. It is very interesting and it is at this very point that I wish to show that their concept and the way in which the U.N. accepts this concept of peoples, is identical with that which we accept in respect of South-West Africa. Now we find the following statement in the same volume. United Nations Conference on International Organizations Documents, Vol. 8, page 4325, where the Russian representative. Mr. A. A. Arutiunian, made special mention of this and welcomed the fact that the conference had included this important concept and had accepted the amendment of the four great powers after due consideration. He said this—

He used it in the plural—

In English he used the word “peoples”, but it is interesting that if one consults the French version, this emerges much more clearly from what he said when he spoke of les divers peuples qui composent votre Union. In other words, he spoke of the various peoples constituting the Soviet Union of Russia and he went on to say that this was the reason for the inclusion of this concept of “self-determination”, as it emphasized the fundamental human right that each people within a certain country had the same right as any other people, i.e. self-determination. Therefore it is my submission that this concept of “self-determination”, which we again have here before us today and which was mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in fact proves that this part of the Charter of U.N. was included in order to make provision for the freedom of each of the individual peoples of this earth. Where we have various peoples within the boundaries of one state, in South-West Africa and in other parts of the world this is a term which applies to those individual peoples.

And now, when one talks of self-determination, what is the normal course taken by that situation? How must self-determination be applied? The first step is, of course, the establishment of the necessary state institutions by means of which that people can express its will of self-determination; in other words, a legislative assembly, or call it what you will, which is elected in accordance with the customs of that people, so that that body may express and apply the will for self-determination on behalf of that people. Therefore I say that this legislation, as we have it here before us today, is a passport to freedom and to independence for the various peoples of South-West Africa. Now, after all, it is essential that those state institutions be established for a people, by means of which it may express its will for self-determination. Surely it is understandable that when a people is not organized, one cannot cry out to them in the wilderness and ask them in what form they want to have their self-determination or what they want to have. First there must be the state institutions. There must first be a parliament or a legislative assembly, or call it what you will, so that the will of the people may be interpreted by that body. Therefore it is so essential that this legislation be passed.

If one eventually has self-determination, what are the possibilities for future development? Mr. Speaker, there is no end to future possibilities once a people has self-determination.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That this House expresses its concern at the plight of pensioners and urges the Government—

1. (a) to review the present rate of social pensions and the means test applicable to such pensions; and
2. (b) to consider the advisability of introducing a national contributory pension scheme.

When one considers the number of occasions that we have discussed this subject in the House, one can only be appalled at the present financial plight of our social pensioners in South Africa. When one considers that all social pensioners are included in this motion, one must take into account that I am speaking of something like 750 000 social pensioners of all race groups, including private pensioners, and if one takes into account Railway pensioners and civil service pensioners, the number grows enormously. These people have found to an increasing degree extreme difficulty in trying to meet the spiralling cost of living and inflation. When one considers the position of these people, particularly in view of the recent rapid increase in the cost of living, one can only say that many of them face the future, and the immediate future, in fear and trepidation.

Where is the Minister?

He is coming.

We have the Prime Minister here; we are all right.

If one looks at the consumer price index figures of the Department of Statistics for 1972, one sees that the highest increase in the cost of living was in the sphere of vegetables where there was an increase of 23,6%, and the price of meat rose by as much as 17,3%. This means that there are many of these people who are struggling to exist on small pensions, having to economize in the only way they can economize, and that is on a necessity of life such as food. We realize too that with the increases in the rail tariffs that were announced by the Minister of Transport and which have come into operation, the effects on the cost of living are still to be felt in many sectors. Consequently these people look at the future with fear and trepidation. Indeed many of them can only look to the Government for some alleviation from their financial plight. Some have relied on the generosity of welfare organizations and others with friends and relatives have received assistance; otherwise, by half way through the month many of these people would starve. I know that there are many welfare organizations which are caring for the aged today that are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the continual demand which is made on their resources for the necessities of life. Were it not for these welfare organizations many of these people would not be able even to exist. I believe that it is a great pity that these pensioners now find themselves today in a deteriorating position.

If one looks at the motion before the House, one finds that it endeavours to alleviate their plight to a certain extent. The first portion of the motion deals with a review of the present rate of pensions and a review of the means test. These steps are short-term steps in combating this problem. The longer-term solution, I believe, lies along the line of a national contributory pension scheme and I hope that this afternoon I shall be able to deal with that idea and with the principle to some greater extent. First of all, in looking at the financial plight of these people, I mentioned that I incorporated in the motion the plight of all pensioners of all race groups. I particularly mention this point because when one considers the plight of the White social pensioner who is living on R41 per month, one can only imagine the difficulties of the Coloured and the Indian pensioner on R20-50 per month and the Bantu pensioner on a maximum basic pension of R6-50 per month. When one considers the cost of the basic necessities of life, it would appear that the Government has it within its power to narrow that pension gap, particularly as far as social pensioners are concerned. No doubt many of the hon. members of this House are aware of the position. They are aware of the fact that a ratio has existed for many years in the payment of such social pensions. However, Sir, I believe we must move with the times.

We have seen labour unrest in recent weeks. We have had various pleas for the narrowing of the wage gap. This can be done by the private sector as well as by the Government. The private sector are, at least in some instances, endeavouring to provide fringe benefits for their non-White workers. Surely it would encourage a better relationship between employer and employee, and better race relations as well, if the Government were to take a bold enough step in reconsidering the question of the ratio in the payment of these pensions to Whites and non-Whites. In the private sector we have seen an increasing number of employers instituting pension schemes or extending existing pension schemes so as to cater for their non-White workers. Indeed, in the recent report that was tabled in this House by the Hotel Board, reference was made to the fact that a hotel pension fund had been established and that this fund would have its rules and regulations amended in order that employees earning less than R800 per annum would receive benefits and that it would be available to all employees, irrespective of rank or race. Surely anybody who is in employment deserves a degree of security of mind so that he need not have to face the future with worry and fear. It would go a long way towards eradicating that fear and worry if provision could be made for all these persons to receive a pension as a right when their working days are over. Therefore I do hope that the Government will see its way clear to taking steps to at least narrow the existing pension gap between White and non-White social pensioners.

As regards the question of the amounts being paid in pensions, a review of the existing rate of social pensions is of course of paramount importance, particularly to those persons who are fully dependent on their pensions. Today, the figures that were kindly submitted to the house by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in reply to a question indicated that, for instance, amongst the White social pensioners, out of a total of 156 272 social pensioners, 140 985, or 90% are receiving maximum pensions. So one can see that, as far as the financial position of these pensioners is concerned, 90% qualify for the maximum social pension. However, there are many who have found that their hard-earned savings over a period of 30 or 40 years have been sadly eroded by inflation, the increase in the cost of living and the decrease of the purchasing power and the value of their money. Consequently, these people are then deprived of an income which supplements their social pensions. Here one must take into account that many of these people do have other financial resources, but those resources of many of them are being rapidly depleted by inflation and the cost of living. Therefore these people, to a greater degree than perhaps in the past, are now finding themselves becoming fully dependent on the maximum basic social pension of R41 per month.

Sir, I believe that this position requires urgent revision. I hope that the hon. the Minister or his Deputy Minister will take this into account when they make their plea to the Minister of Finance. I believe that one way we can assist these people who are fully dependent on that pension is by making available to them a special allowance where they have assets or income under a certain figure. In terms of the present means test, a pensioner is allowed free assets of R9 800, or R42 a month or R504 per annum as free income. These are not particularly high figures, but of course they are a tremendous improvement on the position prior to 1st October, 1972. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister or his Deputy Minister should think along the lines of assisting these people who are fully dependent to a great extent on their social pensions by paying them a special allowance, which will be of some assistance to them. If it is not possible for this to be done, perhaps the hon. the Minister could give consideration to the issuing of food vouchers to assist these people to obtain food which, after all, is a basic necessity of life. In the long run this could save the country many millions in respect of people who would otherwise suffer from malnutrition, and would have to be hospitalized, which in turn would cost the State a considerable amount of money as many people are unable to make any contribution whatsoever to their hospital expenses.

Looking at the position of our present rate of pensions, it goes without saying that it is hoped that the Government will see its way clear to increase substantially the present rate of pensions. It is also to be hoped that the Government in its wisdom will grant such increases on 1st April of each year and not the 1st October. During the course of 1972 I mentioned the rapid increase in the price of food, as well as increases in rental, clothing, travelling expenses and medical expenses. Many of those people in 1972 obviously had the benefit of the increase that was granted last year of R3 per month, only from 1st October. So during the first six months of that financial year they did not receive anything extra at all to assist them to meet those increases in the cost of living; they only received the increase from 1st October and they were paid at the end of October. I am not, Sir, criticizing the Government harshly for what it is doing for the pensioner; I realize that they have to grant relief where they can in terms of the financial situation, but I do feel that although the pensioners are grateful for any increases that are forthcoming and any relaxation of the means test, it is also realized by all concerned that there is till an enormous amount of work to be done in providing for these people. I believe that the challenge of the 1970s is not being met with our present system of paying these pensioners. I think we must look at this whole challenge in a different light.

This motion deals with the question of the means test as well, but I do not intend going into a great deal of detail on this particular subject because obviously there will be further opportunities to do so when the Minister’s Vote comes under discussion or at other times when there is an opportunity of discussing the means test that is applicable to these persons. We must bear in mind that the means test was relaxed considerably for the White social pensioner in certain respects, but there was virtually no relaxation as far as the non-White social pensioners are concerned. They are still restricted to an extremely stringent means test. It is one which will create difficulties for many of those who were hoping that they would receive some assistance from the State to meet the shortfall in their everyday expenses. However, as far as the means test is concerned, the motion mentions a review of the means test and perhaps hon. members opposite are surprised that one is asking for a review of the means test after it was reviewed and relaxed as recently as the 1st October, 1972. However, as long as you have a means test you will have anomalies; you will have difficulties; you will have a great many problems to deal with. There will be no way of abolishing the means test until such time as a national contributory pension scheme is introduced or phased in. This would bring about a situation in which the means test could be abolished. Whilst the means test exists, I suggest that the matter be reviewed, in view of the number of anomalies which still exist and the new anomalies which have come into existence. Here I would like to mention the example of a person who has saved for his old age by buying a property or by investment, and who does not belong to any pension fund; he has merely accumulated certain assets. In terms of the new means test such a person can own assets to the value of R22 400 and still qualify for the maximum old-age pension. In recent times I have had such cases—and one in particular—which I want to take as a comparison. I certainly do not intend reading the many letters which I have received because I am sure hon. members on both sides of the House have received from numerous people who are pensioners or prospective pensioners or hopeful pensioners, similar letters concerning the means test and their financial position. However, let me give a comparison. A widow of 64 years of age, for instance, applying for a pension today and having R22 400 invested, which could perhaps be earning 8½%, would have an income of approximately R158 per month. For the purposes of the means test, that income is ignored as an income limitation taken on 4% per annum on the figure over and above the R9 800 which, as I mentioned, is applied. In view of the pension plus means limitation, that person would qualify for a maximum old-age pension of R41 per month and, at 64 years of age, an additional R11 per month due to the amount that is paid where applications have been delayed for more than a year. So, at 64 years of age, she would receive R41 plus R11, that is R52 per month. Then one has another widow, who is also 64 years of age, who is receiving a pension as a result of her late husband’s employment and membership of a pension fund. That late husband would have paid into the pension fund for 30 or 40 years. As he might not have reached a very high level of income at the time of his retirement, let us assume he was receiving a small pension. On his death the widow qualified for a small widow’s pension. That small widow’s pension amounting to R61 per month precludes that person from receiving any pension whatsoever in spite of the fact that her assets are nil. Over the years she has had to use assets to make ends meet. She is placed in the position where she is fully dependent on the R61 per month. Consequently she is placed at an enormous disadvantage. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this particular anomalous position that now exists. I know that there are levels of pensions for the civil pensioner and for the Railway pensioner which are set at R59 per month for a single person without dependents. I believe it is the Government’s wish not to allow those persons to qualify for a social pension. Consequently an additional provision has been made in the means test, limiting income from other pensionable sources to R696 per annum or R58 per month for a single person. However, I believe that this creates difficulties and a great deal of discontent amongst many of these people. On a previous occasion I took this matter up with the hon. the Minister’s department and was informed that it would cost many millions of rand since, according to the figures that were given me, some 29 000 new pensioners would then have to be provided with social pensions and although they would receive a reduced social pension of R23 per month, this would involve an expenditure of approximately R8 million. Well, I do not wish to argue this point apart from saying that there are certain assumptions made in that calculation. Obviously the assumptions made are that all these persons have assets below R9 800 for that amount of pension to be paid. So I believe that the figure is perhaps not an accurate figure, as one has to take into account that it is not income only that is assessed in terms of the means test, but also assets. So some of those persons would possibly not qualify for pensions. Certainly the needy ones, those who are receiving only R59 per month and have no assets whatsoever, would be able to receive an extra R23 per month. After all, that is not a princely sum at all.

The difficulties these people and others experience as a result of the means test, come to light continuously. Another example is that of a person who applied for a pension before the 1st October, 1966. He is not able to qualify for the additional amounts which are paid to persons who applied subsequent to the 1st October, 1966. Let us again take the example of a 64 year old widow. She qualifies for a maximum basic pension of R41 per month and can receive an extra R11 per month, making it R52 per month. On the other hand, an older pensioner who is now in her 70s or maybe her late 70s, who also delayed her application—perhaps she worked until she was over 65 or 66 years of age—finds that she was necessitated to apply for an old-age pension before the 1st October, 1966, and consequently has to receive R41 per month, which is R11 per month less than a person applying today, who can have assets up to R22 400. Consequently the older pensioners who have perhaps depleted all their resources, and whose assets now have almost become negligible, are in fact receiving R11 per month less than the persons who apply for pension at the present time. These are points which create difficulties and of course the short-term manner to deal with these difficulties is to amend the regulations from time to time to try to meet these difficulties.

I believe that as South Africa develops as an industrial country, so the problems compound themselves as far as social services are concerned, and it will become inevitable for the Government to reconsider its decision not to accept a national contributory pension scheme as a basis for the eventual abolition of the means test. I would like to deal with such a scheme. First of all I think one must take into account that our economy in South Africa has been based on free enterprise and consequently it is not my intention to propose that South Africa should now become a welfare State. However, I believe there is a vast difference between becoming a welfare State and providing an adequate form of social security for all your inhabitants. I believe it is the wish of most of the people in South Africa to see a situation develop where all are covered by a pension scheme. The Government in the past has said that as far as their policy is concerned they wish to encourage the establishment of private pension funds. Obviously we have no objection to the development of private pension funds as an extremely sound means for persons to provide pensions for themselves with the assistance of their employers. However, how long will it be before the Government would be able to say that all persons are covered by pension entitlement as the result of belonging to a private pension fund? At the present pace I think it would take generations before we could reach that situation where everybody will be covered by a pension fund. Indeed, if one looks at a very important report that was tabled in this House some years ago, one will see that there are a number of difficulties in trying to bring about a degree of standardization as far as pension funds are concerned, to bring about a position where transferability of pension funds is created and to bring about a situation where the preservation of pension rights can be provided for. As a result of a motion that was moved some years ago by the hon. member for Kimberley South, the hon. the Minister of Finance appointed a committee of inquiry into pension fund matters in 1964. This report made some very important recommendations and suggestions and it also highlighted certain failings, for instance that over a period of four years over R60 million was withdrawn from pension funds for other than death or pension benefits, in other words, as a result of premature resignations. This report was signed in 1966 and it has been in the hands of the Government for over seven years. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance whether these recommendations had received further consideration and whether legislation was contemplated. The reply was that the matter was still receiving consideration and was to be referred to the Association of Pension and Provident Funds. I believe that this is an indication of how long it will be before we will be able to say that all persons in South Africa are covered by pension benefits. So I hope that the Government will expedite the consideration of these recommendations if they wish to bring about such a situation. However, in providing a national contributory scheme, we must take into account the fact that this scheme would have to be actuarially sound and feasible, and I believe it would be desirable if the Government would do what was done in 1944, nearly 30 years ago, namely to appoint a Select Committee on Social Security. Unfortunately the position today is such that the report of 1944 is in many ways obsolete, and today South Africa is one of the few countries in the Western world which does not have a contributory scheme. The United States of America has a system of social security which, I might add, is continually under review. Obviously a system such as a contributory pension scheme does not provide all the answers; there will still be difficulties from time to time and it will require review, but it certainly will establish the overall principle of providing a degree of security in old-age or in time of disability for many of our people.

The suggested scheme which I would like to mention in the House this afternoon should, I believe, be based on contributions made by the employee, the employer and the State, the administration of such a scheme to be undertaken by the State. Of course, in today’s world of computerization, the administration of such a scheme would be far simpler in 1973 than it was considered to be in 1944. These administrative difficulties can therefore to an extent be overcome. The fund should provide entitlement and membership to all, and members should receive retirement benefits, widows’ and dependents’ benefits and disability benefits, including pensions for the blind. This, I believe, can be considered by a Select Committee which can carefully take into account many of the existing schemes. We are in a position to take the best from many of these existing schemes, and to utilize them to the best of South Africa’s advantage. It will not, therefore, be a case of commencing a scheme without the necessary experience and ability, without the experience of other countries in the Western world, who have managed to overcome a great number of these difficulties, and who have found, for instance, that a means test is undesirable. Indeed, if one reads the reports on the social security programme and recommendations for improvement, which were issued by the Advisory Council on Social Security in the United States, one can only be impressed by the fact that this scheme is now providing social security even for over 90% of their population. The others are those who are in government service where there are pension schemes. I believe it would be possible for us to create a situation where the national contributory pension scheme could have dovetailed with it the private pension schemes, because I do not believe it would be desirable for us to interfere in any way with the private pension schemes. We should rather endeavour to find ways and means a dovetailing the private schemes with a national contributory pension scheme. I feel that such a scheme, based on contributions, would bring about a degree of responsibility in the case of those making demands for greater benefits. In the United States, where contributions in the past were increased according to a sliding scale, the position has been reached where, with the increase in income for the fund, it has not been necessary to increase those contributions since 1968. Prior to that date, a sliding scale was used to fix the contributions.

In summing up, Sir, I would like to say that in providing a long-term solution to the challenging problem of caring for the aged, the Government should take into account the whole question of a national contributory pension scheme by appointing a Select Committee, as has been done in the past; that Select Committee to investigate the feasibility of such a scheme and, if it considers such a scheme feasible and is able to provide a scheme which would be actuarially sound, to recommend legislation. I am sure, Sir, that it would be received unanimously in this House and with acclaim throughout the country, as many people believe that they must make some provision for their old age. While you have the system of the means test, you have difficulty in discriminating against those people who do make such provision. I believe that there are four main points which are in favour of adopting the principle of a national contributory pension scheme; firstly, more funds would be available to pay more realistic rates of pension; secondly, the means test could be abolished; thirdly, it would have a beneficial effect on the economy of the country as a whole by providing for compulsory savings by all and, fourthly—and this is the most important point—the people of South Africa would be provided with a far greater degree of security in their old age than they have ever had in the past.

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, expressed concern at the plight of pensioners in his motion. He motivated his motion and requested that the means test be reviewed and that the advisability of introducing a national contributory pension scheme be considered. I want to begin at once by saying that we appreciate the hon. member taking great pity on and feeling deeply for the pensioners. I can give him the assurance that we support him wholeheartedly in this. All of us feel deeply concerned. We know that these people have to try in some way or other to fend for themselves, but this does not apply only to them; there are many poor and needy people who have all become the victims today of this position in which we find ourselves with the entire world economy. But I want to say to the hon. member that we feel sorry for all pensioners, whether it be old-age pensioners or blind pensioners or any other kind of pensioner; we know that these are men and women who played an important part in the development of our country. We appreciate their contributions, and if there is anything we can do to alleviate their distress, we should like to do so. The hon. member referred to various anomalies which in my opinion could be eliminated. He will agree with me that many such anomalies have already been eliminated over the years because the department is constantly investigating this type of thing to see what it can do. But when we make a plea on behalf of the pensioners and for the alleviation of their distress we must bear in mind that the Government is not concerned about only one facet of these people’s lives, namely their purses; the Government also gives consideration to all the other facets of their needs. It thinks of the needy person as an entity, as a person, who has a need for housing, for homes for the aged and similar things, and in that regard the Government is already doing a great deal. We should not think only in terms of the pension. Other members will discuss the means test and similar matters. In the short time I have at my disposal I should just like to return to this contributory pension scheme to which we have already devoted a great deal of debating time in this House, and which is being presented here as a possible solution. Sir, if it is a solution and if it is practicable then it must of course be introduced. But let us consider for just a moment what the position is. It is being said that we should institute an investigation. Now I want to say that we must bear in mind that there have been various commissions which have instituted very thorough investigations into this matter. In 1926 there was the Pienaar Commission which brought out its first report in 1926, and its second in 1928. In 1943-’44—the hon. member referred to this—there was the Van Eck Commission which brought out a report on this matter. Those reports all recommended that we should not proceed to this step. In 1958 the Government sent an observer to the thirteenth General Meeting of the International Association for Social Security in London with instructions to investigate the system, and not only there, but also to acquaint himself with what was being done in respect of this matter in a few of the other countries. That official, who was probably a very highly-trained man, returned, and taking into consideration all the information which had been acquired and all the relevant factors he recommended that the present policy of allocating social pensions and allowances on the basis of a means test should be continued. That was in 1958. In 1963 the Minister himself visited various countries to see what was being done in this respect. After his visit—and he was accompanied by people who were able to give him the best advice—it was his finding that we should adhere to our present policy of making provision in a manner such as this where we contribute ourselves and the Government also makes a contribution. If we now ask what the reasons for that are, what the findings of those investigations were, then the reply is that in no other country has an ideal pattern yet been found of which the people could say that it was working there. There were difficulties and snags everywhere, and it was generally found to be a very expensive scheme. I wonder whether we have any idea of the administrative costs such a comprehensive scheme would entail, for bear in mind that the hon. member advocated that that scheme should cover all our population groups in this country. It will become almost impossible for us, and as has already been said, it is actuarially almost impossible to calculate what the costs are going to be. But apart from that we do not like the idea, for as he said, we do not want to become a welfare state, and whichever way we argue the matter, it is one step closer to a welfare state when we begin to do this. Our philosophy is that every person should himself try as much as possible, to ensure that he is able to fend for himself in his old age, and we do not want to undermine that private initiative and that spirit of independence of our people.

He also pointed to the present economic conditions. Do you know that the countries which have this scheme have found that the person who made his contribution 16 years ago finds that his money can no longer give him what he wants today, and he then goes and asks the State for more. As he quite rightly said, it is the individual, the employer and the State that should all contribute. Economists have found that this scheme has an inflationistic tendency which constitutes a danger to us all. But what impressed me in particular, from all these reports, is that if we take our present-day pensioner, with what he is receiving today, and we compare it, or we send him overseas himself to go and compare his pension with the pensions which other people are receiving under that system, we find that our people are still better off today than those people who have a contributory pension scheme. Therefore nothing has been said in the motivation of this scheme which in any way upsets all the reports and thorough investigations that have been made over the years, or which tells us that it has lost its effectiveness and that it is time we did something else. But in order to adjust to all this it is consequently the standpoint of the Government to encourage as much as possible the establishment—and I think we should do this on a far greater scale—of private pension funds; people should be encouraged to become members of these and to make a contribution to those pension funds so that they can provide for themselves when the time comes and they have to retire one day. Sir, we have the fullest appreciation of this matter and we are discussing it here on a high level this morning. But we cannot simply rush into a thing when all the scientific findings up to now show us, and the experience of other countries as assessed by our own competent expert officials who went into everything tells us that it is better to stay as we are. Some time ago I had the privilege of discussing this matter with a director of family care in France and I said to him: But your people are probably very happy. His reply was: No, what we have had to sacrifice to get those facilities is such that it not only dampens our initiative but it is to an increasing extent becoming for our people a question of whether it is still worthwhile to work, for these systems cost so much that we have by now virtually destroyed all private initiative. For that reason I maintain that we should continue as we are. We should listen to what the hon. member said and we should see where there are anomalies, where we can effect improvements, where we can relax the means test even further and what we can do to supply the needs of the people more effectively. However, we must also remember that we cannot do this at the expense of higher values, values which we would like to preserve.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for Kimberley South that it does not help us in this House to admit a problem, for the admission of a problem is in itself not a solution. Consequently I think it has become necessary for the plight of our elderly people in South Africa to be brought before this hon. House. We must realize that there are 300 000 White pensioners, 92 000 Coloured pensioners with an average pension of approximately R17-50 per month, 18 000 Indian pensioners, with a roughly similar average monthly pension, and 370 000 Bantu pensioners with an average monthly pension of R4-67 per month. These people are in distress, and we must raise the matter of the plight of these people in this hon. House. Today I want to confine myself to the 300 000 White pensioners in South Africa, those people who are receiving the maximum pension. The other people find themselves in precisely the same situation. We have 300 000 Whites who in many respects look to this Government as being the Government that said in 1948: “We are the poor man’s Government; we will help you out of your distress. Vote for the National Party and we will look after your affairs.” [Interjections.] These elderly people are all people who served this country. They are all people who paid taxes to this country over a very, very long period, people who saved their money while they were working in the belief that one day, when they were old, they would pluck the fruits of their labour and would be able to live a reasonably comfortable life.

What happened prior to 1948?

What a rude awakening for thousands of people who grow old in this country! There are 107 000 old age pensioners, 900 blind pensioners, 17 000 war veteran pensioners, 20 000 receivers of disability grants, 13 000 receivers of family allowances, 42 000 public service and provincial council pensioners, 58 000 private pension fund pensioners—included in this number are the receivers of municipal council pensions—and 37 000 Railway pensioners. These people are today standing hat in hand and are making pleas to this Government. They are coming every day to members on this side of the House, and I am certain to hon. members on that side as well, to make pleas in regard to the situation in which they find themselves. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether there is one hon. member who can rise and say that things are going well with pensioners in South Africa. Let such an hon. member rise to his feet. There is a pressing need, and this need must be discussed by the House, and we must find a solution. We are the people who demand taxes from the general public, and we are the people who have a duty to the elderly people of South Africa. What has become of the promises of the Government over many years, that it would care for the elderly people and the poor? Absolutely nothing has come of the meagre savings which these elderly people put by over the years, of that hope of having a pension they could live on. Inflation, devaluation and increased costs of living have made the purchasing power of the rand in South Africa absolutely minimal.

This motion of the hon. member for Umbilo is a plea that the plight of the pensioner be brought before the Government. He has introduced a motion to the effect that we must find a solution, and it is possible for us to find one.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Before the House adjourned I was trying to present the plight of South Africa’s almost ¾ million pensioners in this House. The situation of these people—regardless of whom one speaks to—is one of hope, patience, frustration, poverty and hardship. The story they tell throughout is one of a lower standard of living, erosion of their savings, a search for cheap accommodation and of a life on the verge of the breadline. As the hon. member for Umbilo rightly remarked, if these people have to cut down on their expenditure they are able to do so only in respect of food and accommodation. We have only to talk to our elderly people about this. The hon. member for Boksburg asked me where there was such a case. I think the hon. member should make some contact with his pensioners in his constituency and speak to the elderly people. Let us watch the newspapers and read the letters from elderly people published in those newspapers. One simply cannot understand how these people are still able to subsist. I read a very interesting letter in one of these newspapers. This was a letter from a woman who summed up very well the situation of a pensioner. It reads—

Mr. Speaker, to my mind this sums up the situation in which any pensioner in South Africa finds himself. In this way one can read thousands of these letters in the newspapers. I just want to quote a few paragraphs from a few letters to this House. Here is a letter from an elderly woman who writes as follows—

So I can quote from one letter after another. Another pensioner writes as follows—

Another writes as follows—

Mr. Speaker, accommodation is a tremendous problem among these people. Any young man who applies to a building society today for a loan in order to acquire a house must comply with a regulation that he may not spend more than a quarter of his income on housing. Our elderly people are receiving a pension of R41 per month; a quarter of that is only R10-20. Now I ask hon. members to find a house, a room, a flat or any place in which to stay here in Cape Town for R10 per month. These elderly people all have the same story to tell.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not answering any questions; my time is very limited. As I said, these elderly people all tell the same story. For a furnished room they pay R22, and for unfurnished rooms from R15 to R20. Some of these people are compelled to stay in flats which cost them R38 to R40 per month. Consequently nothing remains of their pension. Then one also thinks of mine pensioners. Here is a woman who wrote to say that she was paying R38 per month for a flat. She writes—

This is the plight we want to submit to this House. Here I have a challenge from one person. The challenge is addressed to “any Nat M.P. or any United Party M.P.” If there is a member on that side of the House who wants to accept this challenge, I shall join him in accepting it. Let us consider for a moment under what conditions these elderly people are living. This person writes—

And then follows the challenge, and I think hon. members should take note of this. It reads—

It is a question of accommodation which is simply not available at cheap rates for our elderly people. That is a problem. Many of the elderly people are living in old buildings and are living in fear because these old buildings have to make way for modern buildings, which means that they will no longer be able to pay the cheap rental.

Someone thought that a prayer might possibly help. That prayer appeared under the heading “A Prayer” in a newspaper. It read as follows—

That is the plight of these people, and I think hon. members should see it in this light. In my constituency there are what they call Old-Age Cottages, built by the City Council of Johannesburg by means of a loan from the Department of Community Development. I paid those elderly people a visit. Married couples are living there in decent circumstances, but the income they have simply does not allow them to afford to stay there any longer.

You went looking for votes.

I went looking for votes! Of course I look for votes. Surely if that hon. member did not look for votes he would not be sitting here. I visited those people at their request. I will take that hon. member along with me to see them, and then he will hear what those elderly people have to say to him. There are elderly people who are living as married couples on between R82 to R92 per month. I sat down with those elderly people and worked out their budget with them. I said to them: “Let us see what your problem is and whether we cannot perhaps help.” I wanted to make a plea to the City Council of Johannesburg to the effect that the rental be reduced, but that was not possible. Now I want to submit a budget for these elderly people which I worked out with them. They are paying a rental of R19-85 for that little place of theirs; water and light account, R4 per month; groceries for two people cannot most certainly, be less than R15 per month; meat at present prices works out to R10 per month; milk at one pint per day is R3 per month; bread works out at approximately R3 per month; butter and eggs, R4; a radio licence, if it extends over a period of 12 months, costs 46 cents per month; if they buy one newspaper per day as well as one on Sunday it costs them R1-90; clothing is R5 per month. Their contribution to a church, which is something we would all like to do, is R1 per month. They allow themselves R5 per month as pocket money. Then, many of them are obliged to keep a servant. They do in fact receive an attendant’s allowance of R10, but this is not enough. However, we calculate that at a minimum of R10. Vegetables amount to R5; cigarettes R5; the chemist account R5, and then additional unexpected expenses, R5. This comes to a total of R102 per month. All these elderly people have a deficit of between R10 and R20 on their budget every month. I am referring now to elderly people who are living under circumstances where they pay a reasonable rental. What about the elderly people who do not receive the maximum pension? There are many grandfathers—I almost wanted to say grandmothers as well—in this House. They would like to buy their grandchildren a birthday or a Christmas present when the occasion presents itself, and they do not have the money. The luxury of a visit to the hairdresser, or to a cinema, or of occasionally purchasing a magazine these elderly people simply have to do without. Sir, what about an occasional holiday for these elderly people? Elderly people do fall ill and they are not always able to get to a hospital. That means that they have to call out private doctors. They then have to pay the chemist accounts out of their own pockets.

We all know that social pensions are an expenditure from Revenue Account. This is not a matter to argue about. We all know that social pensions are derived from the White taxpayers in South Africa. We must make provision for these people. We know that social pensions are an expense for the people of South Africa. But what has always been the excuse of the hon. the Minister? I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon, but I see that his Deputy is here on his behalf. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us whether he thinks this is a good reply from a Minister. Inter alia, the Minister said last year in Hansard (Vol. 39, col. 7759)—

Concerning this I want to say to the hon. House: Oh, how sentimental! This is like the factual statement I made at the outset: The admission of a problem is in itself surely no solution to it. We must do something about this matter. If this Government tells us that it does not have the money—the Minister tells us that he has to cut his coat according to the meagre cloth he has—if it cannot cut that coat a little more generously, we must look for another solution. If the taxpayer of South Africa cannot afford to make increased pensions possible, we must look for an alternative. The alternative lies in the motion introduced by this hon. member today. Sir, surely this is a solution. Because we do not have the answer, should we simply sit back now and see how our elderly people are suffering hardships and living under distressing conditions in this country? It will not help our elderly people in their straitened circumstances if we simply sit back and say we cannot afford more.

If it is the Government’s problem that it cannot impose heavier taxes on the Whites in South Africa to enable it to pay increased pensions, let me then make a suggestion to this hon. House. Let us introduce a State lottery in South Africa and use the profits accruing from it to pay our elderly people more. [Interjections.] Sir, one cannot reason with these hon. members about a State lottery, for they are in the grip of the Afrikaner Broederbond. The Broederbond says it is immoral.

Order! That has nothing to do with the motion. The hon. member must return to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the motion which this hon. member put to the House is that our elderly people find themselves in straitened circumstances. I maintain that if the Government cannot pay more, there are alternatives which may be applied. If hon. members on the opposite side tell us that it is immoral to introduce a State lottery, I want them to take another serious look at the motion of the hon. member for Umbilo, i.e. that we introduce a contributory pension scheme in this country to look after the interests of our elderly people. Sir, let us be quite honest with one another now. I should like to know something from hon. members on that side. If an hon. member walks out through this door today and I put R10 in his hand and he has no other income and no one to look after him, what is he going to do with that R41 per month? Surely our elderly people in this country have the right to grow old in a dignified way. Sir, what do they get from this Government? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they get absolutely nothing. The motion moved here by the hon. member does not ask for much. We are not saying that we should introduce a contributory pension scheme tomorrow. In paragraph (b) of the motion the hon. member asks the House “to consider the advisability of introducing a national contributory pension scheme”. But hon. members on the opposite side tell us, no, it does not work in England. Have they really investigated this matter in South Africa? Have they really gone so far as to constitute a committee of this House to go into the possibility of such a scheme in South Africa? No, they merely sit back and say “We do not want to become a welfare state in South Africa.” To my mind these are absolutely nonsensical excuses. I challenge the hon. members on that side of the House to support this motion this afternoon in the interests of everyone in South Africa who, as surely as we are sitting here, is also going to grow old and is going to look to the Government of the day to help them. This is the plight of the elderly people. Go outside this House and the elderly people come to you in their hundreds. Every day you receive letters in the post from people who complain to you: We cannot live, do something for us. For that reason I am asking the hon. House to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo, who drew up and presented this motion, is known to this House as someone who presents his case with restraint. But time and again he is unfortunately followed up by the hon. member for Turffontein. I want to ask the hon. member for Turffontein just to go back to last year’s Hansard and read the fatherly admonition which the hon. the Minister gave him about how one should behave oneself when one is speaking about the question of the care of the aged in this House.

The hon. member compels me to broach a matter here which I think one could simply have let pass. It concerns the wording of this motion. I take it the motion was drawn up in English. The hon. member used the word “plight” there, which is correctly translated as “benarde posisie”. The word “benard” in Afrikaans has a very strong flavour. It can even mean “haglik” or “ellendig”. The hon. member for Turffontein, in his presentation of the matter here, has now tried to use harsher, uglier and stronger words than the hon. member for Umbilo used. If it is true that the situation is so serious, I want to allege here today that those members are making a serious accusation against so many people working in the interests of our aged in this country. It is an accusation against the people who must implement the legislation in respect of the care of the aged, an accusation against the voluntary welfare organizations, the churches, the National Council for the Care of the Aged. An accusation against the 250 homes for White aged in our country, an accusation against our social workers, both male and female, social welfare officers of the State, etc. It is an accusation against all those people, because what are they doing, in effect? The U.P. telling the world that these bodies, together with the State, are trying to bluff the public, the situation supposedly being much worse than they realize. The year before last, when we discussed a motion here in which we expressed our appreciation for the progress that has been made in respect of the care of the aged since the days when those people ruled, the hon. member for Umbilo did not want to share in our appreciation. Can he then blame us if we say today: Now we know why he did not want to do so. Because there we spoke not only of the State, but also of what had been done in general, of the progress that had been made in respect of the care of the aged. And the hon. member came along and moved an amendment here. And he has confirmed here today what I suspected that day, i.e. he was hitting out much further, he was hitting out at those people who work hard in the interests of the care of our aged. If that is true, or if it is not true—let us put it that way—that the situation is not that bad, what is the Opposition trying to do today in the second place? They are trying to pipe everything to the tune of R41, as if R41 is the only income of all pensioners. The hon. member for Turffontein mentioned here a lot of confusing, merry-go-round figures. May I give a few correct figures for the accuracy of the record? I just want to say, firstly, that last year when we moved here the motion of appreciation for the progress that has been made, we were not afraid of discussing the circumstances of the aged in our country. He cannot accuse us of running away. I just want to mention a few figures. On 31st December last year there were in South Africa 11 750 old-age pensioners who received social pensions from the State. There were 16 394 veterans. This gives a total of 128 144 persons who received pensions. The amount that has been spent over the past year on people for that period of 12 months was R61,4 million, or an average of R5,l million per month. In addition they enjoyed all the services which the numerous welfare organizations, the department, institutions, etc., supplied, but we shall hear more about that at a later stage. Let us make a simple calculation. If these 128 000 people must get R 1 per month extra, this entails an additional amount of Rl,5 million. Then we can easily make the calculation: R10 per month extra costs R15 million; R20 per month extra costs R30 million. Would we not all rejoice if R30 million could flow into the pockets of our aged! However, the hon. member rightly said that one should, however, cut the coat according to the cloth. I personally hope that in the year to come the Government’s cloth will be much broader so that it can cut a much broader strip. With respect to what the hon. member for Turffontein said here today, I want to say in all seriousness, not only to him but also to the Press and everyone that joins in the talk about this: Do not create in the aged expectations that can never be realized. We should not create false expectations in our old people for the sake of a tiny bit of political advantage that could perhaps be gained from these arguments. However much more we were to give our aged in cash, we must remember one point, i.e. that there is one thing we cannot take away from the aged, and that is the fact that they are continuing to get older. As the aged get older, they no longer need cash, although they do need this as well. What they actually need are services. The Government, together with the organizations I have mentioned, focus attention on the furnishing of services in particular.

I would be able to elaborate on the whole question of the means test, because I think hon. members completely exaggerate this matter. The means test has been considerably relaxed in recent years. We can think of many respects in which the means test today differs from what it was in the United Party men’s time. To mention but a very simple aspect: The discrimination, between the rural and urban person, which existed previously, has been taken away. In conclusion, and I understand my time is already up: What I want to know from the hon. members is why, in the previous Government’s time, the United Party Government’s time, they did not implement the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission. Answer this question today and then it will bring itself to the argument of cutting the coat according to the cloth.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was really disappointed with the last speaker, who suggests that an accusation has been levelled against all those who have been concerned with the work for the aged. I want to tell him, if he would pay some attention, that I myself spend a considerable time in serving the aged; in fact, I am president of a home which is probably one of the largest in the country and which accommodates 280 old-age persons. I must say that the problem which faces us is this very fact which has been raised in regard to the aged and that is their accommodation. This is something that has been stressed very strongly by all the speakers from our side of the House. According to the figures I find that there are 402 persons in homes for the aged which are being provided by the State, and in State-aided homes for the aged, that is those run by private organizations with the assistance of the State, we have 8 795 living in sub-economic types of homes and 1 205 living in economic homes. The point that was made by the hon. member for Turffontein was a very real one. It is the question of accommodation. If aged people have to pay rental in days in which we are living now, then R41 per person or R82 per couple is something which can never measure up to their minimum costs of living together with rental for the home in which they are living. The case quoted of R19-50 for accommodation for an aged couple must be amongst the lowest in any part of the country. Today, as properties are being pulled down, it is impossible to get even bachelor flats in buildings that are being erected for under R50 to R60 per month. The situation has become impossible, and unless we meet the situation either by additional pensions for the aged or by the provision of homes for the aged in greater numbers with very much more accelerated development, we are not facing up to the situation at all. I fully agree—we all are sorry for the aged—that they are having really a miserable existence. That hon. member who talked about the interpretation of the word “plight” was absolutely correct. There is a lot of misery in their lives, and the point is that we have to find a means of overcoming that misery.

With regard to the contributory pension which has been dealt with on our side of the House, it is a common …

Cause …

No, it is not even a cause. I do not know if it is, although I wish it were. What I mean is that it is commonly known that insurance companies who have devised all manner of schemes in regard to pensions, annuities and other forms of security, have built up today, according to the figures I see in the report of the Registrar of Pensions as at 31st December, 1970, pension schemes with over 1 609 000 members, while the actual number of pension-drawers and pensioners number 58 000. Do hon. members know what their funds are today Their funds amount to R1 697 million, nearly R1½ billion. That is the amount of the privately administered pensions alone, while their income from the investments towards their general funds amounted to over R100 million per year. There is an indication as to what insurance has been able to achieve through the small payments of a considerable number of people over the years. They have built up the most colossal institutions in the country. In fact, insurance institutions are the largest of all financial institutions. Sir, as far as a national contributory pension scheme is concerned, the hon. the Minister himself—I am sorry that I have to say this in his absence, but it is a fact—has stated that one of the difficulties that the Government would experience in dealing with a scheme of this nature is the question of the administration of funds, the complication of additional funds which would have to be contributed by the State, complicated by State pension funds administered by the State, and that it would be a colossal task to administer such a scheme. The insurance companies, however, which are already covering nearly 1¾ million people, do not find that it is a colossal task to administer their pension schemes and, in fact, in the case of privately owned pension schemes in this country, their assets grew by R20 million from 1969 to 1970 and their profits amounted to over R8 million.

The same applies to the State pension scheme which from 1969 to 1970 increased its assets by over R13 million and also made a profit of some millions of rand. Sir, in the whole of this country we have over 5 million Bantu workers. We have nearly 2 million White, Coloured and Asiatic workers. If each of these workers made a contribution of 50 cents a week or R1 a month, then hundreds of millions of rand per annum would flow into the coffers of the contributory pension scheme to cover the future pension rights of these people. But what is needed to institute such a scheme is the courage, the desire and the urge to do something. Sir, this is a problem that we cannot run away from. It is not sufficient to accept that it is a problem; something must be done about it because pensioners are living under the most difficult conditions today. I do not want to go into the misery that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Umbilo, has mentioned. The papers have been full of it. Many of us have received numerous letters in this regard. There are thousands of people in this country who do not even understand how the formula of the pension scheme works. While I accent that the formula helps quite a number of people who have some assets, the people for whom we are pleading are those who rely entirely on their pension of R41 per month. If you have aged citizens living in a home for the aged, people such as those living in the home in which I am interested and who pay R4 a month for very fine accommodation and for all sorts of other facilities and amenities, then R41 per month may just possibly enable them to survive if they get help from their families. But, Sir, the State must not run away from its responsibility in this matter. I believe that such a contributory pension scheme is possible if a genuine, sincere effort is made by the financiers of this country, with the assistance of departmental officials, who are the last people in the world we would ever accuse of lack of sympathy. In fact, whatever value there is in the Government’s pension scheme is attributable largely to the sympathy and the assistance of the officials of the department, who are always ready and willing to give whatever help they can and who will adjust every anomaly that they possibly can within the ambit of the Act and of the Treasury regulations.

Sir, I do not think that we should regard the difficulties in instituting a national contributory pension scheme as insurmountable. What the Government side is really frightened of is the vast number of Bantu people in this country. This is a fear that runs through everything they do. They are always afraid instead of meeting the issue, and the more we run away from it because we are afraid, the more difficult it becomes.

The hon. member for Umbilo has referred to anomalies in the means test. I must admit that quite a number of steps were taken last year to eliminate these anomalies, but whatever adjustments you make you will always find that there will be a certain number of anomalies which you can never eliminate. But our main plea today is for those people who have nothing else in the world except that R41 a month. I have pleaded here before, and I have said so publicly, that we can take one giant step forward—it is a small one but also a giant one in the sense that we should increase the pensions by approximately 50% to bring them up to R60 a month. We should also revise the non-White pensions radically. We should take away a pittance of R5 a month and improve that to possibly R15 a month as a start. It may cost the country another R50 million to R60 million. I cannot tell you what the figures are but there should at least be some investigation in order to see whether something can be done to make it real.

Now, this is my final point. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the American system, which he did not see completely through to its end In the United States every person who enters employment of any nature whatsoever, at the end of his employment, whether it be a long period or a short period, finds himself credited in the books of the Treasury of the United States with certain social credits, and when that person leaves his employment, even if he only had five years of employment, he will receive social security pensions. I have met numbers of people, even in this country, who still receive social security pensions from the U.S.A., commensurate with the period of time that they were in employment. The cardinal factor there is employment. Beyond that we know that during the late President Johnson’s régime tremendous steps were, taken in order to improve pensions for the aged. It was one of the cardinal factors in the whole of the American domestic policy, in a country which has over 200 million people, where the pensioner does not form such a vital factor but is still probably equivalent to our number of at least 4% to 5% of the population. They made that one of the most important points of their domestic policy to ensure that the pensioner, those who could not be employed, those who for one reason or another were unemployable, will not suffer, and they placed him on a level which enabled him to live reasonably and decently. That is a factor which the Government should bear in mind, that some effort can be made and should be made. We should not only appoint a commission to examine the situation, but we should appoint a commission which will include insurance and other financial people so that they can examine it in the light of modern trends, of modern technological trends, in order to work out a scheme which, through engendering of capital by the community itself, will assist not only themselves but will assist the lesser earners of the community, those people who have not the ability to do as well as others, and will assist them in order to raise their standards of living and keep them happy and contented in the community in which they find themselves, where, they will continue to grow in numbers as the years go on.

The Government must remember one other factor and that is that the number of pensioners will continue to grow with the advance in medical science. It is a real issue in our country to which we must pay attention. We must face it. It is an issue which demands some form of investigation because of what the future holds in regard to the population explosion. The sooner we tackle it the better it will be, so that we will not be accused by the hon. member for Westdene of complaining about things which, he says, virtually means accusing those who are trying to help. Our objective is to help and to call upon the Government to play its part as the administrators of the country to provide the help that is required.

From our ranks on the Government side I can only tell the hon. member for Jeppe that if there has ever been a Government that has had this matter of our aged at heart, it is this Government. Our past deeds prove this, and the figures confirm it. I shall come back to that in a moment. I first just want to react to a few of the hon. member’s remarks.

He said that a person with R41, or two persons with R82, could not come out in the expensive cities. I must now tell the hon. member that there are also many convenient and lovely places in the platteland where our aged can be very happy. Secondly the hon. member, and also the hon. member for Turffontein, spoke of letters that they receive. Sir, I can prove the contrary. I receive letters of appreciation for the Government, in which the aged express their appreciation for the almost impossible things that are being done for them by the Government. It is not only a matter of R41. I can say, in addition, that my father, who is now 96 years old, was 72 years old when the Opposition was still in power. Do you know that in the course of 20 years they increased social pensions by R4? Then there were also increases in the cost of living, etc. They must, therefore, also think back a little. A grateful person is a happy person, but many people are ungrateful under all circumstances, and consequently unhappy.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member gave praise to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In that I am in heartfelt agreement with him. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions does its best to meet people halfway as far as it is humanly possible.

The Opposition made mention of anomalies, but they forget that every day they are advocating the decreasing of taxes. They do not want to have people pay taxes, but at the same time they advocate greater spending. I really find that an anomaly. They want to spend more and more, but they want taxes decreased. They do not want the people to pay so much tax. There are, surely, two parties one must take into consideration when one thinks along these lines. There are people who must be helped, and there are also the people one must look after, from whose pockets the money must come which is made available for others.

It amazes one that at this stage, just before the Budget, a motion is introduced in which mention is made of the plight of the aged. We all say that it is not easy for our aged to make the necessary provision with the allowance they receive. We are in heartfelt agreement on that. However, I find it strange to come forward with this matter at this stage.

We can test the National Government by its deeds. For a change we now want to look at the positive side, at the problems we are faced with Today there are 250 000 Whites in South Africa that are older than 65 years. About 7% of the total White population of South Africa are elderly people at present, i.e. about one out of every 14 people. At the beginning of this century only 2% of the White population were aged. Let us look at the views and the policy of the Government. It is the policy of the Government to take note of the various problems with respect to the aged. It is determined whether their incomes are sufficient to live on, whether their general physical health is satisfactory, whether they are reasonably accommodated, that they are not lonely and what their living conditions are. Those are the aspects that are decisive. Serious attempts are being made to help, and that is why regular research is conducted into these matters. My colleague, the hon. member for Westdene, pointed to the social pensions, the number of privileged and what they are paid out. I want to restrict myself more specifically to the fringe benefits that are provided. In other words, the aged do not only receive R41. One cannot simply treat everyone alike and say they only get R41. There are, for example, three State settlements, apart from the one at Jagersfontein, opened last year in November. The financial provision for settlements was R93 386 in 1967-’68. In the financial year 1971-’72 it was R444 774. Then there are important concessions, such as the relaxation of the means test, the increase of attendants’ allowances granted to 12 000 above the age of 85 years, and free medical services, which includes medicines. Let us look at housing. There are 208 old age homes that make provision for 11 335 persons with a sub-economic income and 1 389 persons with an economic income. As far as the subsidizing of homes for the aged is concerned, the actual expenditure for the financial year 1967-’68 was R642 209, and for the financial year 1971-’72 it was R2 413 518. Sir, this indicates to us to what extent the Government is interested in improving this situation. As far as the subsidizing of clubs for the aged is concerned, to keep them in community, R840 was spent in the financial year 1967-’68, and in the financial year 1971-’72 the amount was R6 859. Let us look at the per capita subsidy. For the year 1968 R3-50 was paid to the ordinary privileged, R10 per month to the infirm, and R17-50 to the very infirm. In 1972 it was R4 for the ordinary, R23-50—i.e. more than double the previous amount—to the infirm, and R38-50 to the very infirm. R43-50 is now being paid to the chronically infirm. As far as furniture subsidies are concerned, the figure in 1968 was 75% of the costs, to a maximum of R90 per person, and in 1971 75% of the cost to a maximum of R200 per person. Now we come to loans. As far as economic housing is concerned, loans are provided at 0,05% interest, and in some cases now 1%. The amount for 1968-’69 was R1 891 000 and in 1971-’72 R5 133 000, an increase of 171,24%. Thus I could continue mentioning these fringe benefits. If we work this out, the pension does not amount to R41, but to much more.

I want to say that if something can be done, this Government would, in fact, do it; because we must accept that we do not begrudge the very best to the aged, the citizens of yesterday, who helped build this country and were involved in its development. But we are restricted by the fact that our aged constitute a large percentage of the population, and that we have a great deal to provide, and little to spend.

Sir, I just want to wish the Minister and the department every success in this great work they are doing for the aged. I am sure we shall all do our share as well where we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side must not blame me when I say that their attitude in respect of the plight in which social pensioners as well as civil pensioners find themselves today is really an attitude that borders on carelessness. There is not one of them who can defend the maximum of R41 a month as being sufficient. The hon. member for Turffontein read a letter in which a pensioner said that he challenged any member to try to live on R41. I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker: I challenge any member on the other side to go to an urban constituency and to go and convince a pensioner there that their R41 is realistic and sufficient today. I think hon. members realize that it is unrealistic and insufficient, especially in the light of the correct cost of living. Because they are in trouble we find, as was said by the hon. member for Hercules, that our pensioners, our senior citizens, are sometimes treated to here-comes-the-bogey-man stories. In the process, I believe, they underestimate the intelligence of our senior citizens. It is said that ten, 20 and 30 years ago, let us say under United Party régime, the pension was also insufficient, but the amount of the pension is mentioned in isolation, and is never related to the current cost of living of those days. What consolation is it to a person who is living now, in 1973, and who sometimes has to buy mutton at up to R1 a pound, to know that his ancestor or his uncle or his aunt also suffered? We accept that. If we did not pay enough in those days, what justification is that for a Government in power today not to pay enough either? [Interjections.] Do you know what I see in that? I see in that a subtle threat to the aged, a tactic of rapping them across the knuckles and telling them: “But what are you complaining about? If your grandmother and your grandfather had a hard time, why have you become a sissy all of a sudden? If they lived on R10 and R12 30 years ago, why can’t you live on R10 and R12 now?” No, Sir, we must consider the problems of the pensioner. The central problem is the one of housing, especially when you are dealing with the central areas of our big cities. Buildings are being demolished at an extremely rapid pace in the name of urban renewal projects. I am not criticizing this. It is a good thing for our country to make progress, but what do we find in those areas? We find that your aged person is virtually only one step ahead of the demolishers of those buildings.

† I listened with great interest to the prayer which was read here by the hon. member for Turffontein. As someone who in fact knows the position of social pensioners in urban areas, I can bear witness to the misery they have to endure when approval is granted for their rent-controlled flat to be demolished. I have tried to find alternative accommodation for some of these people, but it is virtually impossible. In the meanwhile some of them have to live under appalling conditions, in fact squalid conditions. The tragedy is that when you eventually manage to get alternative accommodation for them, you find that this is once again in a building, an old building, ear-marked for demolition in a few years’ time. In other words, what they have to look forward to in the future is purely to go through the same process again.

I would like to devote some time also to the plight of civil pensioners. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that, as far as civil pensioners are concerned, he will find that their plight is equally bad. The tragedy is that the longer they live, after retirement, the more unrealistic the pension becomes. This Government must accept responsibility for that, because this Government has stubbornly refused to implement a system whereby regular, annual adjustments are made to the pensions of civil pensioners. The irregular ad hoc adjustments we must accept as completely valueless as they in fact always come too late to assist these pensioners in any way whatsoever. No, Mr. Speaker, the solution to the problems of pensioners in South Africa, whether they are social or civil pensioners, lies, I believe, in the suggestion made in the motion of the hon. member for Umbilo.

The alternative is the encouragement of private insurance or private pension schemes. If anyone believes that that is the solution to our problem, then that person shows a lack of understanding of human behaviour. You will never reach the stage where every single person in this country will belong to a private pension scheme. The reason for that is purely that people have differing degrees of responsibility. There are circumstances which, in fact, prevent people from belonging to private pension schemes, and I am talking of personal circumstances beyond their control. And what if they do belong to one of these private pension schemes? One finds a large number of inferior private pension schemes operating in South Africa; inferior, because they give the pensioner or would-be pensioner a false sense of security. There are other schemes with inherent weaknesses. One finds certain schemes that allow people to draw the full benefits of the scheme long before they should. In other words, those people become economically inactive long before they in fact should be so. I am the first person to accept that the Government cannot control that. What is happening in private enterprise, is something which is beyond its control. I am quite sure that hon. members on this side of the House will be the last to request the Government to interfere in this. It is because of this reason that we plead with the hon. the Minister and the hon. members here to introduce a national contributory system whereby every person, irrespective of his own sense of responsibility, will be in the position that his old age will be catered for. The hon. the Minister, who is not here today, has said repeatedly that there is not enough the Government can do for the old people, but I want to say that there is nothing better we can do than to start now and investigate the possibility of a national contributory pension scheme.

I would like to refer, briefly, to the hon. member for Westdene, who mentioned here the Van Eck report and asked why the United Party did not introduce a national contributory scheme as it was one of the commission’s recommendations. Let me remind the hon. member of General Smuts’s attitude at the time. He said that this would be a possibility once the country had a national income of R2 000 million per annum. In those days this was unfortunately not the situation in South Africa. In 1972, however, I believe that our national income was approximately R10 000 million per year. In other words, it could be done today and this is our plea to the hon. members and the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, while discussing a motion such as the one before the House today, it is very easy to become quite emotional, specifically about that sector of our people, our aged, and to use this as a political plaything, as the United Party men are doing today. We all have sympathy with our old people. The hon. member for Durban Central said that some of the members on this side of the House stated that R41 per month is enough. I now want to challenge him to mention one single member to me who did, in fact, say so. That is surely not the case. If we are discussing such a motion, we must be completely realistic. I want to ask the United Party to be realistic as well. Surely the United Party also had their chance to display their attitude towards the aged. Old age is not something that was created by the National Party; there were, after all, also aged when they ruled. Do hon. members know what they did in respect of the old people? They are the very people who failed lamentably in respect of the old people, because I do not believe there is one group of people as badly treated as specifically the aged during United Party rule. Last year we had the acknowledgment from the hon. member for Turffontein when he tried to echo the hon. member for Yeoville in a brief article he placed in The Star. It was last year when the old people were getting R38 per month. They then claimed that in 1948 that R38 was only worth R17-10. Do hon. members know what the position in 1948 was? They gave the old people R10 per month. In other words, they were taking the old people into the tune of R7-10. That was the position.

In respect of this national contributory pension scheme, which was spoken about today, hon. members know it was nothing but a half-baked proposal they came to light with. It was a proposal without any particulars. If one speaks about it off the cuff it does indeed sound very nice; indeed, coming forward with such a proposal has quite a popular ring. But, as I have said, it was a half-baked proposal without any particulars. Why did the United Party not take the trouble to consult an actuary so that they could come and tell us approximately what such a scheme would cost the State, instead of stamping round here, like the hon. member for Jeppe, and saying that everyone should now contribute 50 cents or R1? Then things also went too quickly for the hon. member and he could not even make a small calculation as to how many hundreds of thousands of rand this would then bring in monthly. Why did they not come along with a few more particulars to tell us approximately that the contribution would be so much for each participant and that he would eventually receive such and such a pension? Why did they not nearly get round to the particulars about the administration of such a scheme? In this country we have a problem, which actually makes it a great deal more difficult, since we are dealing with a multi-national population that makes the implementation of such a scheme much more expensive and much more difficult. Then the hon. member for Umbilo must just tell me whether he meant by that that all the non-Whites should also be included in such a scheme.

Yes.

Well fine then. I thought as much, because it fits in very nicely with their federal policy and also their slogan of “one land, one nation, one loyalty”. I now wonder whether it is going to fit in very nicely with their policy of “the rate for the job”, where salaries and wages are going to be the same for all races, where everyone’s contribution is going to be the same and where the pensions are also going to be the same eventually. I should very much like a reply to that. In respect of the Coloureds, I want to tell the hon. members opposite that at present we have 883 510 economically active Coloureds in South Africa.

But only 33% of those pay tax. Do hon. members now want the other 67%, who are already the low-paid, also to pour a contribution into this fund? What about all the Bantu? I want to tell hon. members that its administration would be simply impossible when it comes to the Bantu, in respect of whom there are so many casual workers who change jobs so frequently. But it is specifically the United Party men who constantly come to light with the “wage gap”. Do they now also want to ask for a contribution from the low-paid Bantu? And how are they going to implement this in practice? Would all the farm labourers, all the domestic servants and the homeland, under the so-called overlapping umbrella, as stated again today by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, be included in this? What does the hon. member for Turffontein say? Now he is shaking his head. The hon. member must just shake harder because I cannot hear.

Those hon. members have told us before of a similar scheme that is applicable in England. I then did a bit of investigating about England’s national contributory pension scheme. And do hon. members know what the position in 1961 was?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is short; were this not so, I would have liked to answer your question. In 1961, after the scheme had been going in England for 10 years, they paid R36 per month to a married couple in England. In contrast to this our married couples were then already getting R39 per month by way of a social pension from our Government. Then the English saw that it was not working out. They then came to the fore with another scheme, which they called the “Graduated Scheme”, according to which the employers and the employees had to contribute on an ascending scale in accordance with wage standards. It was then calculated that only 20 years afterwards, i.e. in 1981, could those people receive R2 per month more. England’s scheme has been going for 20 years. And do hon. members know what the present day position in England is? In respect of 20% of the population the State still has to furnish a contribution in the form of a social pension. In Holland, so I understand, the position is no better.

I shall now quote hon. members a report from The Star in connection with this. It reads—

That is the position in England, where the scheme has already been in use for 20 years.

One would like to give people an assured income in their old age. I think the solution to the problems lies in our encouraging our people to participate more in private pension schemes. A great deal has already been done by the Government to protect those pension funds by means of the 1965 Act. Tax concessions have also been made in that respect. The position has improved to such an extent since 1962 that the number of private schemes has about doubled. At the moment we have 2 218 000 people who already share in such schemes. Since we have had a doubling in the past ten years, I should like to ask whether the Government would not give attention to the transferability of benefits from one pension fund to another, in the light of the more than two million people already incorporated in those schemes. Since at present they do not have the right to do this, it creates problems. People change their jobs. The people who resign from their jobs are actually the ones that create the real problem. They do so just to get hold of that pension. A practical example of this, which was beyond the control of those people themselves, we had a year or so ago in Rustenburg when the platinum price dropped and when many of those mine-workers were simply discharged, with the cancellation of their pension fund, and when they could not transfer their pension benefits to another pension fund. Sir, there are certain benefits connected with a scheme such as the one the hon. member proposed here, but I believe that the introduction of such a scheme is no more than the undermining of the morale of a people, because it makes the people more and more dependent on the State. It not only undermines the sense of independence of a people, but also the sense of responsibility of the individual, because he himself does not then provide for his old age.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened both attentively and appreciatively to this debate. Firstly, I want to thank all the speakers who took part in this debate for the contributions they made, and to those who did not make a contribution I also want to say thank you. There were a few members who did not make a very strong contribution to the debate, but who actually started an election campaign here. We forgive them for that and we shall simply have to try to find something constructive in their speeches and then reply to it. Sir, I want to state here unambiguously that the aged are very near to the hearts of all of us, and this goes for this side of the House and, I accept, for that the side of the House as well. Problems are indeed being experienced in regard to the aged. It is a phenomenon in our modern world that there are more elderly people today. Because of the health services, the social circumstances, etc., we find that the numbers of the aged are continually increasing, and it is a very good thing that we consider their lot in this House. This is a section of our population to whom we must give our serious attention. Sir, I want to tell you that I personally, and my Minister too, will always lend a sympathetic ear to any positive, constructive contribution in respect of dealing with our aged citizens. We shall always give our serious consideration to it and see whether it is practicable.

Sir, a few things were said on the Opposition side which I do want to deal with in brief. I want to refer first to the hon. member for Jeppes In a moment I shall come back to the hon. member for Umbilo, who made a much appreciated contribution here. I know the hon. member for Jeppes very well, and I know that with all his soup kitchens, etc., in his constituency he has the interests of the older people at heart. He said that in his opinion the basic pension had to be increased by R20 or 50%, if I heard him correctly. Sir, in the course of this debate we heard a great deal about this R41 per month. This amount was huckstered about and propaganda was made out of it. Hon. members said that no person could live on that amount, and I quite agree with that. I am not callous; I do not imagine that any person can make ends meet on R41 per month. But, Sir, let us see what the position is. In our Estimates this year provision as being made for approximately R78½ million for war veterans’ and social pensions. The hon. member for Jeppes has now asked us to give the pensioners an additional R20 per month. The hon. member himself admitted that he had not taken the trouble to find out what it would cost the tax-payer to put his proposal into practice. Sir, we took the trouble to find out what it would cost to give the pensioners such an additional amount. Do not forget. Sir, that we are already making provision on our Estimates for R78½ million. To give the pensioner an additional R20 per month would cost R60 119 560. Sir, if one were to give this additional amount, what would one then have done? One would have raised the pension to R61, and what then would happen next year, when we meet here again? The hon. member for Turffontein would once again come along here with a stack of letters from his constituency and ask us who on earth could manage on R61 per month in this country, and he would be right again, for who on earth can live on R61 per month? It is no use simply making an ill-considered proposal in this House. It is no use making proposals here which are not practical. It is no use coming here with a stack of letters and telling us what a hard time these people are having; we realize that, but we are looking for practical, sound proposals, and we are not getting them from the Opposition.

What about insurance?

Sir, the hon. member said that the aged were to be provided with more housing. Once again I am in full agreement with him. Fortunately the hon. member for Hercules has told us what the State is doing in this regard. In addition to that I could also tell the hon. member that we have eight State homes for the aged with only 587 inmates, and 217 State-aided homes for the aged with 13 669 inmates.

A drop.

The hon. member says it is a drop; he is quite correct. I challenge the hon. member for Turffontein to send his people to Hanover, where 30 houses are empty. He told us that he had gone looking for votes and that it was in that way that he had come across those people who needed housing. Let him send those people to Hanover. Let him find an organization which will buy these houses in Hanover, and let him then send these people out of Turffontein so that they cannot vote for him, to a place where they can lead a pleasant, quiet life on this small pension they are receiving. Sir, all over our country there are empty houses in the rural areas. Let us understand one another clearly; when we talk about the aged, about senior citizens, everything depends on how we approach this whole question of social pensions. The standpoint taken up by this side of the House is that social pensions are a supplementary income. We are living in a democracy, in a free economy, in a country where the family unit forms the basis of the State. In other words, South Africa is not a welfare state. Those who are advocating a national contributory pension scheme are people who want to convert the whole State into a welfare state such as the socialist states in Europe, where these schemes are not a success anyway, but in a moment I shall come back to this matter in my reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. The point I want to make, Sir, is that we must approach this whole matter from this point of view: When a person is growing old there are a few things he must do; while he is growing old, he must make provision for his old age; he must adopt the attitude that he has to save as much money as possible so that he may look forward to a restful old age and so that he need not be dependent on anybody, the State included, not even for a penny. That is the ideal state of affairs. Sir, one finds that some of our aged have that same approach. They want to be self-supporting and independent. They try to save, but when they reach the retirement age, they find that they do not have enough money, but that they still fall within the means test, and that is where the supplementary aid of the social pension comes in as a means of supporting them so that they may fend for themselves. Sir, then there is another possibility, too, and I want to tell you that I certainly have as much contact with our more elderly citizens as the hon. member for Turffontein could hope to have. I have visited many aged people who have told me. “Sir, physically I am still in good health; I do not like to be dependent on anybody; I would like to find myself a light job.” Sir, why have hon. members of the Opposition not proposed that we should try to place these people in light employment? I am not in favour of a person who has already completed a long innings, having to toil himself almost to death from morning till night, but many of our aged are still keen to take up some light job or other. They could do a light job for R504 per year and still get their full old-age pension of R41 per month, which would then provide them with a reasonable living wage. Sir, let us rather ask the Public Services and the employers to keep a constant check on how much of their work they can set aside solely for those people who have retired and are still keen to do something after their retirement; if we could do that, we would be doing something practical.

But there is another aspect. We should not forget that in a country such as ours, a Christian democracy, where family ties form an important aspect of our lives, in fact the mainstay of our lives, support works both upwards and downwards. People who are wealthy enough and whose children cannot fend for themselves—in our kind of democracy the older people help the younger ones to stand on their own legs. But once those people are standing on their own legs, we should not forget that our older people are growing older, and then we must make an appeal to the children not to neglect to bear the primary responsibility for their own aged. Having done all those things, we should not forget that we do not like State interference in our social services. We should like to place the social services in the hands of those people whose social conscience has been pricked, in the hands of those people who are in earnest about the lot of the aged. We should like them to start organizing and getting together and to ask what they are to do. Then I give the assurance that the State will help them. The old-age homes that are being erected, are not erected by the State. The State does not want to erect them. The State should like every community to sense its own social needs, to comply with the pressures of its own social needs and to start its own organization; once these things have been done, the State should like to come in merely as a supporting organization to exercise control. That would be the ideal state of affairs. It is no use making political propaganda here in this House. It is very easy to make a bid for votes by saying that R41 is no good and that one cannot live on it. Then hon. members should rather ask for R300 per month; then they will get even more votes. But that is not the correct approach. One should come forward with properly founded plans within the framework of our philosophic background. That is what is needed.

Let us take a look at this national contributory scheme about which we have heard so much. In the first place, the hon. member for Umbilo himself said that a national contributory scheme would not be the solution. He said this himself, and in that regard I agree with him. He himself knows—and this the hon. member for Kimberley South told him—that we have had one commission of inquiry after the other. But now we find the hon. member for Turffontein saying here with a pious face: But appoint a select committee to inquire into such a national contributory scheme. The hon. member for Kimberley South pointed out to him six commissions, all of which had found that this thing would not work. The hon. member for Umbilo advocates something, but he says himself that it will not be the solution. Then he made a second statement. The hon. member for Umbilo quite conceded that this could not replace the social and civil pensions. In other words, what would one be solving then? What would one have solved if one had introduced a national contributory scheme? One would have solved absolutely nothing. There are more than 5 000 private pensions. Those 5 000 private pensions would still be there. The national contributory scheme would not replace them, and all the anomalies mentioned would still attach to those private schemes.

But have you read this report?

Yes, I have read it. But what is the position? We now want to include all people—the Bantu, the Coloureds, everybody—in such a national contributory scheme. Do you know what the administrative costs alone of such a scheme would amount to? It would mean that there would be approximately 10 million economically active people. The department has informed me that under those circumstances it costs a rand in administration per person. The administrative costs alone would therefore be between R8 and R10 million. Now, what would one solve? One would still be saddled with the status quo. Would one get rid of the social pensions by those means? No, for there would be numerous people who would not be economically active. Am I correct? One would then still be saddled with a social pension, and then the hon. member for Turffontein would once again complain here about the R41, which is the amount of the social pension. Absolutely nothing would therefore have been solved. All the hon. members have actually been advocating now, is that another pension scheme be introduced. The entire status quo would remain exactly the same. The social pensions would still be there, for there will be people who are not economically active and who cannot therefore be members of a national pension scheme. One has to pay for everything one wants; one cannot simply take out insurance. The whole business must remain solvent; it may not become insolvent. The amount of money that can be paid out, depends on the amount of money coming in. The hon. members are not solving a thing.

Let us take a further look at this scheme. To be realistic, we must after all devise a scheme in terms of which a person’s pension will be equivalent to two-thirds of his final salary. Such a person must contribute to the national contributory scheme from his eighteenth year up to his sixty-fifth year. He must therefore pay in for 47 years. It must, what is more, yield a sufficient income in order that the expenses may be covered. Suppose we introduced such a system now. Then there would immediately be a group who would retire within five years. If a calculation were made, it would be found that those persons would, after contributing for five years, if this were calculated pro rata on the basis of the 47 years during which they ought to make contributions, only receive R40-77 per month in pension. That is less than the social pension they receive at the moment. Do you know what their contributions would have to be over against that? We have calculated them. Their contributions would have to be R65-24 per month.

What percentage?

Now, is it possible to introduce such a contributory scheme? If we accept that the economically active group in South Africa consists of 1,5 million people—I am referring to Whites now—and a member wants to receive a pension of R4 600 per year—i.e. approximately two-thirds of a salary of R6 900—he would have to pay R65-24 per month for 47 years. I want to know from the hon. member where he would find people who would be willing to pay that, where he would find employers who would pay half of that? Then we would also find people who would say that the State should make a contribution too. Where would the State be headed then? It would become nothing but a welfare organization. What is more, one would not even be eliminating the social pension system; we would have to continue with our R78 million and our R41 per month.

If you have a contributory pension scheme obviously you will not have a social pension scheme.

But one would not be able to abolish the social pension system, for that has to do with people who are not members of the other scheme at all. There must be people like that, and those people would also have to be helped to make ends meet. Furthermore, it is a fact that we have a heterogeneous population, not a homogeneous one such as England has. The English system and the continental systems are bankrupt. Those systems have to be changed every now and then, and the hon. member for Umbilo knows it.

What about the American system?

America has a quite different system. They do not have a state-aided system; it is a private business. I want to agree with the hon. member that the private pension schemes, of which there are 6 435 at the moment, should rather be extended. We should rather see to it that our private pension schemes pay decent pensions to the people. Then it would be possible to combat social pensions.

That is just the point; something must be done.

The hon. member says we must do something. This is like the man who sees a flash of lightning and says one must take cover somewhere.

A scheme must be worked out; I do not say that money has to be taken from the Treasury.

But, surely, I am stating what has to be done. The social pension must be retained as a means of support. The private pension funds must be developed. There are 6435 of them already. One cannot integrate them with a national contributory scheme; that is out of the question; that simply cannot be done. What was the finding? This idea has been investigated by commissions of inquiry on numerous occasions. In 1958 we sent a person to the International Social Security Association in London. His finding was (translation)—

Then, Sir, if we were to have a national contributory scheme, what about the political factor? We now have the unsavoury position where we are making a political issue of the aged here. It is an unsavoury business that in regard to a serious matter concerning our senior citizens, we have to find that persons are making political speeches here and nagging about their lot and their grief without really making a contribution or launching a positive, constructive thought. If we were to have such a national contributory scheme, Sir, could you imagine the amount of bidding there would then be on the part of the Opposition! What would happen then?

You are making a political issue of it now!

The hon. member was not here. He does not know what happened here. That hon. member is simply talking through his neck. No, Sir, the solution actually lies in the private schemes.

We have also been asked here to abolish the means test. Sir, what is a means test? If they ask us now to abolish the means test, we should ask ourselves what the object of the means test is. The object of the means test, as I see it, is to keep out those persons whose incomes are such that they have no need of the supporting organization of the State. Now one’s problem is that one has to try to determine what income is sufficient in order to keep out those who are earning more. That is where the problem lies. One has to find a fair dividing line. What do we have today as far as that is concerned? We have a means test which, in the first place, totally ignores the actual assets of persons. The basis on which this is done is that of an estimated income, Which is very fair, namely 4% of the amount by which the assets exceed R9 800. One cannot have a fairer means test, for in these times 4% is almost ridiculous. Now, if one has assets to the value of R22 400, R9 800 of that amount is immediately left out of account completely, and the balance is calculated at the very reasonable interest rate of 4% to arrive at a calculated income of R504. On the basis of that estimated income—not the actual income—of R504, the applicant qualifies for the full pension of R492. Let us take a look at the figures, if you will permit me, Sir. Now, if we take a look at the actual income he can have, namely 8% on his full investment of R22 400, it means that he is getting an actual income of R1 792 per year. In addition to that he gets a pension of R492, i.e. a total of R2 284 per year, which comes to R190 per month. Sir, this is fair. If his wife is still alive and living with him, she also gets an additional R41, which brings their joint income to R230. Furthermore, what is our means test at the moment? Our means test goes so far that a person must have accumulated R34 400 in assets before he becomes completely ineligible for our pension scheme. At R34 400 he still receives a social pension of R12. Is that not fair? Hon. members are asking that the means test should fall away, but it is nevertheless a fair one.

However, let us take a very practical example, one I had in my constituency. This is a very practical example which I myself came across. Most people do save approximately R9 800.

That is a lot of money.

Yes, it is a lot of money, but the mark for the means test is higher. The income on R9 800 is not taken into account at all. Suppose a person is working and earns R42 per month, i.e. and R504 per year. He has his income of 8 % on R9 800, which nets him R784. In addition he also gets a pension of R492. That brings him up to R1780 or R149 per month. This is what that person can earn now with a small income of R42 per month. Then we know that when a man’s wife is working too, they can earn R1 008 before their pension starts getting smaller. In other words, if those people are earning R1 008, they are still getting a full pension of R82 per month, which will bring their total to R130 per month. I know the hon. member spoke about people who had nothing.

Those are the fortunate people.

They are not fortunate people, but people who made some provision. I have told hon. members that this whole idea of a social pension can only be approached in one practical manner, namely as a supplementary means of support or an amount of money which is given to him. The task we have—and I have a great deal of sympathy with the aged, believe me—is to provide for housing for them. The social conscience must be pricked. Houses are empty in the rural areas. Take the people there and organize them there. I guarantee that the State on its part will grant assistance. It is in the interests of all of us that this matter be undertaken as soon as possible and that our aged be assisted.

In conclusion I just want to say that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are in earnest about the aged of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands has said “Oh”. It is our people who are poor; it is our people who came out of the Anglo-Boer War with nothing, without a thing to wear. It is our people who want social pensions today. I want to give hon. members the assurance that if they should be prepared to refrain from saying that the taxes are too high, etc., we shall give them as much as possible. After all, hon. members opposite are always saying that the taxes are too high and that they want them to be lowered. They want pensions and salaries to be raised, but not taxation. It is very easy to be in the Opposition. I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that as far as I am concerned, I want to give him exactly the same answer as was given by the hon. the Minister last year in a similar debate, namely that we are in earnest. The hon. member has challenged us to say this, and I now give him exactly the same answer. Our hearts are open to the aged.

That is no use.

If care has to be taken of the aged, it will be this side of the House that will do so. We are organizing that at the moment, but we are not getting a proper contribution from the Opposition side.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) expresses its appreciation to the Government for the systematic development of the water resources of our country;
2. (b) requests the Government, in view of the shortage of water in low-rainfall areas, to consider the advisability of (i) extending the scope of existing schemes and resources by constructing pumping schemes and pipelines where at all economically justifiable and (ii) subsidizing such schemes on a 50% basis.

Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that water is such an important natural resource of any developing country, and because South Africa’s water reserves are so limited, and this subject is therefore of fundamental importance to us, we welcome the opportunity of discussing this motion here today. We are not coming here to complain or to intimate that the Government and its Department of Water Affairs is not doing its duty in respect of water conservation and water development. On the contrary; it is fitting that we testify with appreciation that the Government and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, the Secretary to the Department of Water Affairs and the Department itself have over the years worked with great zeal on the development of our water resources. I am convinced that even the hon. Opposition agrees with this statement.

I want to begin by quoting a few figures which will illustrate this statement of mine. I want to quote a few comparative figures from the Í961-’62 and 1971-’72 estimate statements. It would interest hon. members to know that during this decade, 1961 to 1971, the Revenue Account for the Department of Water Affairs rose from R6 233 000 to R17 million. What is even more important is that the amounts on Loan Account, which in 1961 amounted to R14 258 000, amounted to R101 500 000 in 1971. Between 1961 and 1971 there was therefore an increase from R 14,25 million to R101,5 million. Within the space of one decade capital expenditure in respect of the development of our water resources therefore showed a sevenfold increase. This shows us that the Government is constantly aware of the importance of and the necessity for the development of our water resources, so as to be able to keep pace with the requirements of our growing industries, the needs of our growing cities, which are attendant on this, and also the requirements of agriculture which is being asked to meet the needs of our expanding industries and our growing urban population.

For that reason I want to proceed to elucidate further this statement in my motion which expresses our appreciation with an indication of the most important schemes on which the Government is engaged at various points throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. If we consider the development of the Berg River, which is closest to us here, we see that the department is at present working on the Theewaterkloof scheme at an estimated cost of R15 million. The wall of the Voëlvlei dam, which supplies water to Cape Town as well, has been raised at a cost of R2½ million and at various points in the Berg River, as a benefit resulting from the Voëlvlei dam, amounts of approximately R6¼ million have been spent on pipelines in the region of Saldanha, and R4 108 000 in the Swartland region. If we consider the Breë River we will see that at Quagga’s Kloof a scheme has been laid out at a cost of R3½ million and that a start has now been made on the Greater Brandvlei dam which will cost R26 million. Slightly more than a year ago the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs announced the extent of the Boland water plan as being one which would eventually cost approximately R400 million.

I have just referred to a few of the points which in fact indicate the commencement of that project. If we consider the Olifants River, we know that the wall of the Clanwilliam dam has been raised during the past few years. During this time approximately R5 million was spent on that scheme, i.e. on raising the dam wall and on the canal system. Since I am discussing the Olifants River I could also mention that in the Olifants River in the Little Karoo, canals are under construction or have already been completed which cost R4 million, and in the Olifants River in the Transvaal and at the Loskop scheme, an amount of R6 million has been spent. In addition I just want to remind hon. members of the Orange River Development Project with which a great deal of progress has already been made. We hear that the Orange-Fish tunnel has already been completed over a long distance, and that the water from the Hendrik Verwoerd dam will within the foreseeable future be available in the Eastern Province as well. The cost involved in that scheme, as indicated in our estimate statements is R385 million. We can accept that when it has been completed one day, with all the developments arising out of it, it will have cost more.

In the Vaal River the following schemes are at present under construction, in the planning stage, have been semi-completed, or have almost been completed. There is the Vaal-Gamogara scheme at an amount of R25 million, the Bloemhof dam costing R16 million, the Douglas weir costing R1½| million and the Heilbron scheme for industries costing R1 400 000. We can go further and consider the Pongola Poort scheme of R36 million, and in the Komati River the Kaffirskraal dam of R9 million. In the Umgeni there is the Albert Falls scheme of R10 million, as well as an amount of R10 million for regional water supply in this area. With the development of the Tugela River there is the Spioenkop dam costing R11 million, the Sterkfontein scheme costing R9 million and the Tugela-Vaal pipeline costing R19 million. If we consider the scheme in the Great Letaba at Tzaneen we see that it will cost R21 million. Then, R37 million is required for the development and the expansion in the Usutu River.

With this I have mentioned only a few of the largest and most important schemes on which the department is working at an overall cost of R700 million. This was spent on schemes which have more or less been completed during the past decade, or are at the moment semi-complete, or are in an early stage of development. These works span the length and breadth of the Republic and offer us a remarkable geographic perspective and a true picture of the extent, as well as proof of the farsightedness, the work and the zeal displayed by the Department of Water Affaire. I am saying this in support of the point of appreciation which we are expressing in this motion.

We can testify that the department, not only in its external actions, but also in respect of its internal organization with its administrative and professional sections, is well equipped to carry out its extensive task effectively. Its subdivisions for planning, design, water utilization, hydrology, construction and mechanical services are all aimed at controlling and guiding every facet of water conservation and water utilization. One of the major problems which the department and the hon. the Minister had to cope with was how to obtain the necessary engineers for the extensive service. This has been a fundamental problem during the past few years of manpower shortage, and one which could not be solved overnight. Here too, the Minister and his department took the bull by the horns by seeking the co-operation of our universities, not only one or two universities, but almost all our universities. A number of chairs were established in conjunction with university authorities, new avenues of research have been opened and a large number of student engineers recruited, who are being given positive assistance to continue their studies at the universities with a view to accomplishing this important task. I can give hon. members the assurance that the hon. the Minister and his department really went out of their way, and made contact with high schools throughout the length and breadth of the country as well as with universities in order to obtain the greatest possible co-operation. As a result of that we may be certain that since this task is a growing one, we will in future have the necessary engineers available for these highly professional services.

When I mention this as an indication of the earnestness and thoroughness with which the Minister and his department have approached their task, I do so to express and emphasize our appreciation, I think the task is of such great magnitude and such importance that we very definitely need the co-operation of the Opposition as well in regard to this matter. I know that we have this, particularly when I think of the hon. member for South Coast, because these are matters in which he is really interested.

But, Mr. Speaker, our motion does not end here. Although many people in our cities and towns, as well as farmers on irrigation schemes have benefited from and will benefit from these works, there are many others in our low-rainfall areas who are looking forward eagerly to something being done to alleviate their water problems as well, not water problems in the shape of floods, but water problems as a result of drought and a lack of water. I do not think I could elucidate this point any better than by quoting an extract from a letter I received during the past week from a section of my own constituency. I take it that other hon. members also receive similar requests from time to time which are equally urgent. I received this letter from the Farmers’ Association of Bitterfontein, and area which has since 1958 been going through an unparalleled period of drought as a result of which subterranean waters have virtually disappeared and what is still available has dwindled considerably. This person writes as follows on behalf of the Farmers’ Association (translation)—

This is from the scheme along the Olifants River at Koekenaap, one of the furthermost points of the canal system, to Bitterfontein, the terminus of the railway line to Namaqualand.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the people of Bitterfontein are today paying R45 for approximately 2 200 gallons of water. Hon. members will possibly say that there ought to be another ray of hope since they can obtain water from the Railways, water which has been conveyed to Bitterfontein by train.

Ninety cents, Sir, for approximately a petrol drum of water; this gives you an idea of the quantity. This person writes—

This person goes on to mention that in this area, Nuwerus/Bitterfontein, there are approximately 1000 Whites and 1 500 Coloureds. I can only speak of the cases of which I have personal knowledge, and for that reason I have mentioned an example from my own constituency. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas where the situation is equally serious and equally desperate. These people are living approximately 30 to 40 miles from the nearest point of the Olifants River irrigation scheme—this is a canal system—a scheme which is very fortunate in that it has a very regular supply of water. Sir, after many fruitless drilling attempts and great disappointments as well as heavy expenses on drilling operations, these people are looking forward to the Department of Water Affairs and to the State accommodating them in some way or another. We have almost the same position along the west coast in the Clanwilliam district, where Graafwater is only 18 miles from the Clanwilliam dam. There you have the position that farmers are continually boring for water. A farmer tells me that in one year he spent an amount of R8 000 on boreholes, and that he did not find any water on his farm. As a result of the drought the situation is such that that farmer simply cannot continue to bore for water; in some way or other a different solution must be found. Even for the town of Graafwater, where there is a high school, water is being trucked in.

Sir, if we consider the Saldanha-Sishen project which was announced this week and which was received by us with great appreciation and enthusiasm, I want to draw your attention to the fact that that railway line runs through an almost waterless area from a point near Lutzville along the Olifants River down to the Orange River. I only hope the contractors who have tendered took into account the fact that they will have to convey water for construction work over a distance of many miles. I have even wondered whether we should not in this case consider whether the railway line should not ultimately be only a railway line from Saldanha to Sishen, but that it should also be a water line, for if we could combine a railway line with a water line between the Orange and the Olifants Rivers, then it will not only be a railway line or a water line, it will indeed be a lifeline in an area which is undergoing great hardships as a result of the drought conditions and a lack of good water.

Sir, if we consider the Orange Development project I want to say that what is being envisaged and accomplished with the Orange River Development Project is in fact what we foresee in this motion, namely that when we have a strong and reliable water resource such as a dam available, the effectiveness of that scheme and of that water should be extended as far as possible, taking into consideration the special circumstances of our country, its extensive low rainfall areas and the needs of people in those areas. As far as I can envisage the water of the Orange will eventually go down as far as Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape; it will go north into the Free State as far as Bloemfontein or Kimberley, if that is necessary. At the moment farmers from the Lower Orange area are already with great gratitude plucking the fruits of the Hendrik Verwoerd dam which guarantees an assured flow from that river. We see in the estimate of last year that a start has been made with a Springbok water project, something which the Namaqualanders have dreamt about for many years, namely that water from the Orange will be laid on to that area, Springbok, with its surrounding copper mines and large towns such as Namabeep, Okiep and others which are developing. One cannot construct an approximately R6 to R7 million pipeline if one does not have an assured flow of water in that river. But because the Hendrik Verwoerd dam is there today, and because we have an assured flow from that river, it is now possible to make provision for these people, for which we are very grateful. But there are still many people in the neighbouring areas of the Kalahari, the Karoo and Bushman Land who are urgently inquiring whether the water line cannot be extended to reach them. It has been calculated that a 160 kilometre pipeline in the direction of the Kalahari will be able to provide an assured cattle watering service to a few million morgen which could carry 100 000 head of cattle and a few hundred thousand karakul sheep, with a monetary value of R3 million or more per annum. When we see how meat prices are rising in the cities and on the world markets and if we bear in mind the growing population of South Africa, we realize that we will always have to think further and accept greater challenges, and will have to do things which we have up to now regarded as being impossible. Fortunately, where this was not economically justifiable in the past, we can assume that we will in future be increasingly able to do these things on an economic basis.

In conclusion I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the Government that since such circumstances exist and there is such a great need for water for household use and for watering cattle, and people are simply being forced to establish boards, irrigation boards or water boards, on their own initiative in order to acquire water, the Government should give serious consideration to accommodating these people by subsidising such schemes on a 50% basis. We know that a high subsidy is already being paid at the moment. It is costing the taxpayer and the State millions, but where one has these low rainfall areas one usually has a sparsely distributed population, and consequently it is very difficult for these people to afford it. For that reason we want to ask the hon. the Minister, particularly in view of these circumstances, to give serious consideration to helping these people.

I want to conclude by saying that we should always remain aware of the fact that as far as South Africa and its future is concerned, water is a decisive factor. If we want to prevent the increasing depopulation of the rural areas, we must ensure that the simple necessities of life are there. In those areas water plays such an important role, even from the point of view of the economic viability of a farming unit, that this matter deserves very serious consideration. Therefore, if we look forward to a greater future for the Republic, and if we want to decentralize, we will inevitably have to distribute our water supplies as far as possible. If we then reach the point where we have to ask where we are going to get the water from, I am convinced that the day will come when we will bring even the water from the Okavango and the Zambesi to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to get one or two matters incidental to this motion and to what the hon. member who has just sat down has said, cleared out of the way before I come to the motion itself. The hon. member referred to the thanks to the Government and to the officials, to the shortage of officials and so forth. Yes, we would go along entirely with the thanks to the officials, but the point about the motion is that it does not start with the last four or five years during which we have had the present hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. This goes back a long way before that. We have to look at the overall picture. The officials are doing their best. They are very short-handed. I know myself some of the steps the hon. the Minister has taken to try to get additional staff from schools and so forth. I tried to help. He made a personal appeal to me and I tried to help. I have no doubt that in common with so many other aspects of our public life, the service of the Department of Water Affairs is in trouble like so many of the others. I realize that that is so and that many of the people concerned in the department are carrying a very heavy burden indeed.

I now want to come to the motion. It is not my habit to start at the end of a man’s speech, but I should like to start where the hon. member left off and say to him that if he is looking to the Zambezi and the Okavango for water to help us out of our difficulties down here, I hope he will forget that one and get down to a more practical appraisal of the situation that we have here in South Africa. Let me say in so far as the motion is concerned, that I propose to move an amendment after the preliminary first two lines as printed and the deletion of (b). I shall, if I may, read it within a few minutes and bring it to the Table.

This motion, as I see it, has failed to take into account the principles that have been laid down by this side of the House now for seven years. I can give him a copy of them; I do not want him to have the trouble of going through Hansard year after year because year after year, for seven years, I have stood here and enunciated the principles we on this side of the House have adopted. I think last year the hon. the Minister was probably restrained by some political consideration, but like the ranks of Tuscany he could scarce forebear to cheer when I once more on that occasion enunciated the principles on which we stood in regard to water affairs. The Minister gave it grudging acceptance. Had the hon. member who moved this motion had a look at those principles, he would have realized that all he had to do in this motion was simply to narrate them and ask the Government to give effect to them. That would have been the end of the matter. We would have supported him.

I think it is a great pity when motions dealing with water affairs come before Parliament and there is a difference of opinion, because basically I do not think there is really a difference of opinion. There should not be a difference of opinion and there should not be political differences. The hon. the Minister knows my attitude in regard to this matter. Politics should not enter into water affairs if we can possibly keep them out and, if they intrude, let us let them intrude no further than is necessary.

When we come to the motion in so far as it goes, and to the speech of the hon. member who moved it, I want to say that he was dealing with the question of water supply and the extension of our water supply, the better use of our water, and so forth. We are dealing now with something which is starting to be almost like gold. That is the stage we are reaching in South Africa. It is almost like gold. It is not only one of our natural resources that comes from the ground. The difference is that gold will eventually be worked out, but if we are careful and husband our water resources it is what is now called a renewable resource, a source that will continue. It is, however, only renewable up to a certain point, because basically we still get it from rainfall. Notwithstanding that we put on the Statute Book last year two Bills dealing with what is being called weather modification, which the ordinary man in the street calls rain-making, I doubt very much whether in the overall picture of the Republic we are going to add from this source very much to the total rainfall on the surface of our country. That is what matters. We may be able to influence rainfall over selected areas here and there, but in the overall I doubt very much if we are going to add to the total precipitation. We are dealing with something that is very precious to us. It is from that angle that we on this side of the House look at the matter and I hope the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side will look at it from that angle too.

In the motion, what did the hon. member ask for? He pins on to the shortage of water in paragraph (b) a request to the Government which reads:

Sir, the hon. member does not see new schemes. He sees only existing schemes. This is the gravamen of his motion. He mentions existing schemes, upon which are to be erected pumping stations and pipelines to take the water away. Mr. Speaker, I think I heard someone at one stage say “mains”. No, I do not think so, not under this motion if “mains” means by gravity. This is pumping schemes, because clearly what is contemplated is areas where gravity will not serve; otherwise it would be part of the normal reticulation of the pipelines, where the water goes by gravity from an existing scheme. The hon. member goes on to say that these pumping schemes are to be provided—

He then goes on and says that the Government must be asked to subsidize such schemes on a 50% basis. Now, that is a contradiction in terms to me. If a scheme has to be subsidized to the extent of 50%, it is not an economic scheme. In the case of the construction of dams, I think I am right in saying that there is a 33% subsidy to the people who build the dam. But the people who are going to have a pumping station and pipelines from that dam after it has been constructed are going to get a 50% subsidy. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that my mind was filled with misgivings when I read this motion. This looks to me like a special plea, and the motion is tailored to the requirements of a particular area. I do not know where it is, but of that I am quite certain. The hon. member’s speech leads me to believe that he identified that area at the commencement of his speech. This motion has been tailored to deal with a particular case in a particular area where there is to be a particular, privileged group of people. But in its general application it applies to the Republic as a whole. Anybody anywhere, any man who could benefit by getting a pumping station and pipelines, a reticulation system, from an existing dam, under this motion would be entitled, if it was accepted, to ask for a 50% subsidy. That is not what our programme provides for. I want to come back to it again and say to the hon. the Minister that he will remember that our very first principle is that we shall provide security in the water supply to all existing communities, rural and urban. That is our first basic premise on which we stand, to give security. A further one is that, before we go afield for an adventure to the Zambezi for example, we should see to it that all our own water resources are adequately and fully developed. Let us develop what we have. Let us take our own resources and use them to the best advantage. When we can say that we have adequately preserved and conserved our water resources, then will be the time for us to go and spend hundreds of millions of rands on adventures somewhere away beyond our borders, I say that I do not like this resolution because I believe that it has been specifically tailored to suit special conditions in a special area.

Our next principle, of course, is the provision of a grid system. I think only a year or 18 months ago we had very highly placed officials in the world of water conservation coming along with the idea of a grid system of water supply in South Africa. We were very pleased. We did not rush in and write to the papers, saying “that is our plan: we have had it already in Parliament for the last five years” But we were very pleased to see it and we hope that it will succeed. So far as the grid system is concerned, we should utilize all the water resources that we have, large and small. But we start with the large ones. In so far as the general application is concerned, subject to what the engineers may have to say—I emphasize “subject to what the engineers may have to say”—I believe that with our limited financial resources we should go for big dams on big rivers. That is what we believe on this side of the House. We do not believe that we should fritter away large sums of money in the aggregate by putting small dams on small rivers. The days of the small dams on small rivers may come, because of our desire to reserve all our water resources, but at the moment we should be building big dams on big rivers and conserving what we have in that manner. It then ties in with the grid system, although small dams may be necessary to make the grid system efficient and capable of fulfilling its proper function.

The hon. member who moved the motion gave a list of some of the major works which are under construction and being dealt with at the present time or which have recently been completed here in South Africa. He quoted the tens of millions of rands that are involved in it. My heart sank, because I have sat on the Select Committee dealing with irrigation matters for a quarter of a century. Year after year we write off, or recommend for writing off, hundreds of thousands of rands, millions of rands. The amount of money that we are putting into some of these dams makes my heart sink, because I know the time will come when the basis on which the economics of that scheme has been based will change—changing values, changing costs, brack and all sorts of difficulties which result in the people concerned, the farmers concerned, coming to Parliament and saying: “We cannot pay. Take it back. It is no good to us. Will you please write it off?” And so the committee recommends that it should be written off. In the amendment which I wish to move presently, I come to that particular point, because we on this side of the House believe that the whole question of water supply in its initial stages should come back to Parliament through the Select Committee. This is one of the matters; there are a few other instances where we believe that matters have been taken out of the hands of Parliament. We feel that that is a bad trend; it is going the wrong way. These matters should be brought back to Parliament. We ought not to be in the position in regard to dams where we have spent millions of rands that Parliament cannot deal with it. It ought to be possible for anybody who wishes to criticize the Minister, or anybody else involved in it, to come along and to voice that criticism here in Parliament. We should all be involved in it. It should be a matter where we on this side of the House are equally involved with the Minister when approval is given to some of these schemes. Particularly if there is any question of using water from existing schemes, are they in the form the hon. member wants here or in any other form? These schemes are detailed and set out in a White Paper, in a very abbreviated form I might say, but nothing else is possible under the circumstances. They are set out, they are approved by Parliament, millions of rands worth, and now the department is saddled with the job of calling for tenders and doing it that way or doing it themselves, departmentally. The point is that those schemes under those circumstances have their White Papers. In the White Paper it is set out who is going to benefit—the irrigable land to be surveyed, the crops to be grown there, and how many people on the scheduled list of land, and so forth, are given in the White Paper. We are not prepared to say that another group of people should be added to those who will benefit from the water in that dam when they never appeared in the White Paper. They never appeared as possible beneficiaries, but they come now, goodness knows how many years later, and say it is a very big dam, it is like the Hendrik Verwoerd dam; there is plenty of water. We are not going to run short of water in the Hendrik Verwoerd dam, and if some of us put in pumping schemes and pump water out that is not going to hurt anybody. Let me repeat: we are dealing with something now which is almost like gold. Even the Hendrik Verwoerd dam we cannot afford to deal with as though it has an inexhaustible supply. When I said we should have big dams on big rivers, they must be treated just as if they were small dams on small rivers. We cannot afford to take any risks and be prodigal with the water just because we have a lot of it in a big dam such as the Hendrik Verwoerd dam or any other dam. South Africa cannot afford to be prodigal with its water. This is one of the basic objections we have to this scheme, namely that on the face of it this scheme, as it is before us, can allow people to be prodigal with the water.

Mr. Speaker, I now move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that our intentions are clear. Our intention is that whatever may be proposed from time to time in connection with all these schemes, it will have the approval of the Minister to the extent that he will be prepared to refer it to a Select Committee, and that it shall involve all water storage and reticulation schemes with a recommendation to the Committee that it indicate the priority to be accorded to these schemes and make recommendations as to the subsidy to be paid in respect of these schemes. There may be cases where the subsidy should be higher than the 33⅓% for some reason or other, or, indeed, lower. The priorities to be accorded the schemes is one of the big things. We have only to look now at the Sishen-Saldanha Bay scheme. Just think of the amount of water that is going to be wanted there for the industrial and residential areas which are to be developed. Where are they going to get the water from? Water is one of the key features in that development. They are going to need labour too, but they have not decided yet where they are going to get their labour from. I have heard talk that the Coloured people will be used as a labour force. There are not any. Whatever labour they get, they are going to need water. They are going to need water for all their industrial and residential areas. Here is the issue; we cannot afford to be prodigal with our water. The transference of water from the Hendrik Verwoerd dam over hundreds of miles may be necessary hereafter. Other rivers may be used, and they may be used to their utmost, to their fullest capacity. What is going to happen as time goes on and we see development of the character that we are envisaging in the Sishen-Saldanha Bay scheme? That kind of development is only at its beginning, at its commencement. We are in our cradle days in South Africa; we are not an old, well-developed country. Of the assets we enjoy, one of the finest and most important is our water, because it is a renewable asset. As development goes on and we have other schemes that will make the Sishen-Saldanha Bay scheme look small, we should have the water available for the development of those schemes. We should not commit all the water supplies we have now in the year 1973. I think it is absolute folly to commit our supplies to such an extent that in the next 10 or 15 years we are going to find ourselves running short of water in vital areas for vital purposes. Therefore I have moved the amendment which I have just read out.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa is a dry country, a country with a very low rainfall, which, unfortunately, varies from a fairly high rainfall in the east to a very low rainfall in the west. The hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for South Coast, is fortunate to come from that part of the country, Natal, where we have a high rainfall. He spoke this afternoon like a typical Natalian. I can understand why he talks in that way. We know him. There were days when he wanted to take Natal and march; he simply wanted to cut it off from the rest of us. We who have grown up in the barren parts of South Africa and represent constituencies situated in those parts, such as the hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. members from South-West Africa, for Namaqualand and so on, we have another attitude towards water. Now I wish to say that water is not less precious to those people than to the hon. member for South Coast; on the contrary, up to the present time those people have learnt what a shortage of water means to a person and, unlike the hon. member for South Coast, they have not just heard about it. The hon. member for South Coast gave a large number of …

Useful hints.

… hints, and I do not want to say that they were bad ones. That is definitely not the case.

†The first that he has given us, was to give security to all communities concerned. I want to say to the hon. member for South Coast that that is exactly what the hon. member for Piketberg is asking in this motion. He is asking for security, also for his community. The hon. member seems to forget that there are other communities outside Natal.

I have heard that there are.

The second point he mentioned was that there should be seen to it that all our own resources are adequately developed before we venture elsewhere. I agree and so does the hon. member for Piketberg. The third hint he gave us was that there should be provision for a grid system as far as possible. I agree.

Then vote for my amendment.

The fourth hint he gave us was to build dams on big rivers. We are doing that. Now I want to ask the hon. member a question. You have to solve a problem but you have only mentioned the problem. Now I ask the hon. member for South Coast this cardinal question, how is he carrying out his four principles?

*I say South Africa is a dry country, and it is a known fact according to various estimates—I do not want to tell hon. members according to which estimates—that the possibility exists that by the end of this century we will have a water shortage in this country. I should have liked to judge this Government and the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs in terms of a previous Government, and I should have liked to draw a comparison between them, but that was so long ago, that I do not think anyone will attach any value to it any more. I, in any case, do not attach any value to it. It would not be a nice thing to do to compare this hon. Minister with previous Ministers. Therefore I can only state the task which we must carry out before the end of this century and to what degree the Minister is succeeding in doing so. I repeat that we, on the basis of all calculations, will, under normal circumstances, have a shortage of water at the end of this century. Therefore we must obtain water from somewhere else. Water must be found from somewhere else—we must make some plan. How are we going to meet that shortage and what are the possibilities of supplementing those shortages. The first possibility is the more effective development and utilization of the natural resources of existing water supplies, surface waters as well as subterranean waters. As far as surface waters are concerned, this means that we must store all the water which we have for storage in this country. The hon. member for Piketberg mentioned a long list of dams. I want to challenge any hon. member in this House to tell me that this hon. Minister and his department are not doing their share as regards the great task facing South Africa.

The second way in which the shortage may be supplemented, is by means of the effective utilization of water. If there is one person in this country who has exerted himself to make the general public water conscious and who has exerted himself for the more effective utilization of water by every citizen in the country, then he is the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and, of course, his department as well.

Hear, hear!

There are many ways in which the water saved by these means may be utilized. I shall deal with them presently.

Another way of finding more water is the re-use of water. In this House the question of the re-use of water was to all intents and purposes a totally unfamiliar matter until this hon. Minister of Water Affairs turned it into a relevant matter and made it his definite goal. With the assistance of the C.S.I.R. and his department, he turned this into a matter of urgent necessity so that good progress has been made in many cities of South Africa in the field of the re-use of water. Again I put the question to hon. members whether the motion is correct? Do we, or do we not, owe the hon. the Minister and his department a debt of gratitude?

Then there is the question of new sources which we must find, a matter which involves intensive research. Let us see to what extent the hon. Minister and his department have met the surface requirements, viz. water for the various industrial regions. We cannot cover the whole of South Africa now. I should have liked to do so, and I would have done it with pride. However, time does not permit. Let us look at the industrial regions. There is the industrial region of the Witwatersrand/ Vereeniging/Pretoria complex. Do these people have sufficient water? Under the guidance of this Minister and his department, has sufficient water been supplied to these people for the fantastic industrial expansion which is taking place at the present time? Are people overlooking the fact that the Minister is engaged in a grand scheme for that area, viz. the Spioenkop-Tugela scheme with a pump-line over the Drakensberg to the Sterkfontein dam, from where the water is to flow down to the Vaal River? Would you call that a grid system, Mr. Mitchell or would you not?

Then there is the other industrial complex, namely Durban/Pietermaritzburg. Do those people have a shortage of water? Definitely not. I have never yet heard them complain about a shortage of water. What I have in fact heard is that they are having problems with the recreation houses which they are building at Midmar dam at an enormous cost. But I have not yet heard about a shortage of water.

Then there is a third industrial area in South Africa, and that is Port Elizabeth and the surrounding areas. There too an ambitious scheme is in progress—part of the Orange River project. There the Government is in the process of building a water tunnel which will probably be the longest in the world, to supply water to that area. Has the Government done its duty or has it not done its duty?

Then we come to the fourth industrial area, that of the Western Cape. The hon. member for Piketberg has already referred to the Voëlvlei dam, the canals of the Twenty-four Rivers. Theewaterskloof in the Berg River and all those schemes to supply the Cape with water. An ambitious scheme has now been announced at Saldanha. There, too, for the industrial expansion which is going to come about there in the future, the Minister and his department have planned schemes which will eventually be carried out. This is where we come to the further point that water must be supplemented from other sources, inter alia, means of the desalination of water, which will eventually come. A power-station has already been planned by Escom which is to generate power from atomic energy. As a result of research which is being done and which looks promising, that plant will be able to supply desalinated sea-water in adequate quantities for this new industrial area which may be established in the region of Saldanha; for that, too, provision has already been made in the planning stage. Sir, last year, as the hon. member for South Coast has already mentioned, a new Act was passed in this House, the Weather Modification Act, to make it possible for research to be done so as to ascertain whether it is possible to supplement our water supplies by means of the modification of the weather. Sir, in all those instances the hon. Minister and his department have not failed, but have achieved brilliant results. In terms of another Act which was passed here last year, a water research board has been established as well as a research fund from which may be financed all university research projects into the matter of supplying water which is so precious to us, which is far more precious to a man from South-West, from a Namaqualander or from the Free State than it is to a man from Natal. We in those areas have learnt what it means when the sheep bleat near our homes and there is no water to drink.

Sir, I gladly associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg. It is my pleasure and privilege to express on behalf of my constituency and on behalf of South Africa our gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and his department for their exceptional achievements in supplying water to South Africa up to the present time and for the schemes in which they are engaged for making provision for our special water requirements up to the year 2000 and thereafter.

I rise to support the motion or amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. I feel that it is absolutely essential for the priorities of our water resources and potential to be evaluated correctly and the best way of doing this is by means of a Select Committee on which one may meet and consult with the department to iron out these matters and to see what is in the best interests of the country. We on this side of the House should like to see the retention of the cost-benefit ratio, and we are not at all happy with this 50% subsidy suggested by the other side of the House. In our view it will only place an additional burden on the taxpayers of South Africa, and unless it were really urgently necessary, we should not like to support such a measure. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Fauresmith, criticized Natal for being so selfish about their water.

No, I did not do that.

I should just like to point out the fact that Natal was in fact willing to share its water and at this moment water is being pumped from the Tugela over the mountains into the Transvaal. I think, therefore, that that criticism was unjustified. The United Party has no problems regarding the sharing of the water. As a result of the water of the Tugela being pumped into the Transvaal the Spioenkop dam has become virtually unnecessary. While we are obliged to express our gratitude to the Government in this motion for the systematic development of the country’s water resources, our gratitude relates more to the desire and the objectives of the Government to do this than to the actual carrying into effect thereof. I think it is arrogance to think that the Government alone was responsible for the development and the building of the dams in South Africa. I think of the many hardworking officials, administrative and also active, of the engineers, the private companies and the labourers who all contributed towards the establishment of these schemes. Moreover, I think particularly of the poor taxpayers who had to be taxed to pay these increased costs which were often caused by the inefficiency of this Government. From past experience we know that the Government often was not even sure whether or not to approve certain of these schemes. We clearly recall from the past how the Orange River Scheme was at first very actively opposed by this Government. Mr. Tom Bowker raised the matter of this dam in this House on various occasions and it was criticized and it was said that the dam would be built to irrigate a few brackish areas in the Karoo and other places and that it would be highly ineffective. Subsequently the Government did in fact decide to go ahead with the dam but they placed the emphasis on irrigation, as far as I remember, and this also appears in the report on the proposed Orange River Development Scheme. The report confirms this, because it reads—

They go on to say that the generation of hydro-electric power is only a by-product of the Orange River Development Project and in the original report of 1962-’63 it is regarded as a subsidiary matter. Since that time priorities have been changed considerably and we see today that hydroelectric power is given a much more important place and has become a much more important aspect of the whole scheme. The two phases of the dam have been combined and they are being constructed at the same time and the reason for this is in fact the generation of hydro-electric power. We read in the White Paper that the most important departure from the original White Paper resulted from a decision to construct the walls of the two main storage units, the Hendrik Verwoerd dam and the P. K. le Roux dam, to the second stage height in the initial stages of construction for the sake of increasing the generating capacity. Here we see once again how this Government has changed its direction and policy; the uncertainty in connection with the schemes which were supposedly developed so effectively and systematically. We feel that the walls of that dam should have been constructed to their full height, because if we had constructed the wall of the Hendrik Verwoerd dam to its full height, the full generating potential of the dam could have been utilized immediately. That power could have been sold to industries which could have been established immediately in that area. I refer to the Kimberley area in which there are unemployed Coloureds at the present time. There is also unemployment in the Tswana areas close by. The proceeds from the sale of hydro-electric power could have covered the costs of a dam like this within a period of 15 or 20 years. In the meantime and until these further phases have eventually been constructed, costs will rise rapidly and it will also take a very long time before it will really be possible to use that water for irrigation. We see how the construction of the P. K. le Roux dam was delayed after that, also as a result of the uncertainty of the approach of this Government to water affairs. Its construction was delayed from 1964 till 1970 and once again we find proof of this in the White Papers. It was decided that the Department of Water Affairs should build the P. K. le Roux dam as a result of this delay which made the tender prices so much higher. Once again the taxpayer had to carry these additional costs. The costs rose unrealistically from something like R130 million in 1964 to R385 million in 1972, according to the latest figures available to me. It is an increase of more than three times as much. Added to all this was the fact that it was then decided that the Torquay Dam would be delayed until some indefinite date in the distant future.

I can tell the hon. member that it will never be built.

We hear now that it will never be built, but there were farmers in the region of the proposed Torquay dam who waited for years for a decision. They wanted to divide their farms into camps, and build up studs of dorper and karakul sheep. Their development was delayed for a number of years because of the uncertainty regarding the building of this dam. They could not add extensions to their premises or their houses, and they could not plan their farms properly. Now they must hear that this dam has been postponed for ever.

The changing of the names of many dams is symbolic to me of this indecision and chopping and changing. The Ruigtevallei dam became the Hendrik Verwoerd dam, the Vanderkloof dam became the P. K. le Roux dam and then there was the Pongola Poort dam which was at one stage the Josini dam and later became the J. G. Strydom dam. I wonder why some of these beautiful historical names which had their origin in the vernacular were simply discarded in favour of all these other artificial names dragged in by the scruff of the neck. Names with their origin in the vernacular are discarded.

Talking of the J. G. Strydom dam, I regard this dam as another example of the precipitate and unsystematic development which we have seen happening so often with the planning of this Government. It would seem today that that dam was built for arrogant show. In the first place the dam wall was built at a place where there is a rock passage which causes the left wing of the dam to be highly dangerous. At this moment they are in the process of boring hundreds of holes of up to 300 feet deep to anchor that left wing of the dam to the rock bottom with cables which will be concreted into those holes. Mr. Speaker, the great tragedy is that it will not be possible for that dam to be filled to capacity in the foreseeable future. The problem is that it cannot be filled before this work has been completed. I think that at present it is one-third full. Secondly, it is still not certain which land is to be irrigated. I think that a smaller dam—I am not the only one; there are many others who think the same—higher up, would have achieved the same. The beautiful, irrigable land which is now under water would then have been available for irrigation. It is now totally lost and in exchange we get a white, sandy ocean floor which lies the other side of the Lebombo Mountains and has a high salt content. The water itself is brackish and we expect that tremendous problems will arise from this in the future. It is still not certain whether it will in fact be possible to use the land on the other side of the Lebombo Mountains.

Order! The hon. member is digressing too far from the motion.

No, Mr. Speaker. I am discussing the first part of the motion, viz. the systematic development of the water resources of our country. I want to indicate that it has not occurred so systematically.

The hon. member is straying a little too far from the motion.

I am discussing the merits of those particular dams, Sir.

Yes, but it does not appear in the motion.

Then, Sir, there are also other areas such as those at the Douglas irrigation weir, where problems are being experienced at present. In the motion it is mentioned that existing schemes are to be extended by means of the construction of pumping schemes and pipelines, and that the potential is to be developed. Here we once more have similar planning which in my opinion is ineffective. As far as the Douglas irrigation weir area is concerned, a White Paper has already been laid upon the Table stating that this wall is to be raised. This will mean that the land of the various riparian owners will be submerged. Sir, I foresee that something of this kind will cause very many problems. If all these schemes had been duly submitted to a Select Committee, I am sure that much of this doubt would not have arisen. As I have already said, large areas of the land belonging to these farmers will be submerged. No indication whatsoever has been given of how they will be compensated or how much land will be submerged. Then they also sit with the problem that the raised water-table will cause their lands to become brackish. Flood walls and draining canals have been planned, but because of the uncertainty regarding this matter, finality has by no means been given as to who is to build those walls and canals. If a matter such as this had been submitted to a Select Committee, I am certain there would have been much less uncertainty than at present. Therefore I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast.

Mr. Speaker, this motion at present before the House, might also have given the members of the Opposition a wonderful opportunity this afternoon to be loyal towards South Africa and towards people who, speaking in human terms, are doing more than they are really capable of. But now it is of course typical of the United Party to lard their speeches with a negative spirit. If we had not known that the hon. member came from Benoni, I would really have said that he came from a strange and hostile country. The hon. member for South Coast, by way of repetition this afternoon said something which he talks about every year. As recently as last year the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs told the hon. member quite clearly what his aims were and what he was striving to achieve. The Minister said in Hansard, Vol. 39, col. 6332—and I read it for the benefit of the hon. member for South Coast, in reply to an interjection by this same hon. member:

That is quite plain language, a very clear statement of policy, and very clear planning, but it is typical that every year these people see how far they can get with their negative viewpoints. It is not necessary for us on this side and hon. gentlemen opposite to butter up the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and his department. From our hearts we say thank you, because we mean it. When we say “Thank you” with appreciation, it is not a question of flattery on the part of hon. members on this side of the House. The two previous speakers on this side of the House quoted wonderful figures. I want to say that any one of us who often travels through the country and sees what has been done and what this department is doing, appreciates that the Minister, with his department, is busy creating a new South Africa. Parts of the country which have died, they cause to flower again; this we have seen already, and we shall see many more similar cases in future. I think hon. members opposite, if they want to be honest, should say to the Minister: Thank you, we know you are doing your best and we know that you are in the process of giving South Africa a new life, a new injection of life. There are many examples in South Africa, but because I represent the Boland I want to furnish an example one finds in this part of the country. The Minister will bear me out on this. In a radius of 50 kilometres from one particular town in the Boland, no less than eight major schemes are in progress, schemes which will cost the department about R13 million every year. I do not know why the people opposite keep on raising petty objections. Why can they not for once in their lives rise and say: We acknowledge that here is a department and here is a Minister who know what they are doing, who are developing this country of ours into a beautiful country which will have sufficient water in all those parts where we should like to have it.

Our motion mentions systematic development and may I just mention one or two reasons why this systematic development is necessary. As a result of mankind’s constant struggle towards a higher standard of living and greater income owing to greater economic activity, because we all strive to eliminate unemployment and because the requirements of all the people are getting more and more all the time, it is essential that this department too should plan systematically to supply future needs. Next to the atmosphere, the air we breathe, water is what mankind needs most. Now, it is estimated or calculated that the population of our country will double or more than double itself within 30 years. To keep this large population of the future alive, not only twice as much water will have to be stored, but many, many times more. The people working in this department and their leader, this Minister, are aware of all these things; we do not have to tell them these things; they are experts. They are people who have various departments and and who calculate, investigate and examine these matters far in advance. It is not necessary for us to tell them. We know that agricultural requirements are going to increase in future. We know that South Africa, under this dynamic Government, will become an industrial country to an increasing extent. More and more water will be demanded. May I just mention an example of two minor items which will require a tremendous amount of water in the years ahead? Firstly, there is our motor industry. My information is that to roll one motor-car off the assembly line, 30 000 gallons of water are required. To refine one gallon of petrol, approximately 70 gallons of water are used. If we make a small calculation of what the requirements are going to be in this field alone, together with all the other aspects and facets of industry, our future water requirements are indeed tremendous. These people probably know this far better than you and I, Sir. That is why they have the various departments and heads. They have a department which undertakes research work, planning, and so forth. Where we say “thank you” in the first leg of the motion, we are not flattering anybody. We speak with appreciation of what is being done and has already been done.

The hon. member for Fauresmith …

Where is he? Has he been washed away?

We spoke about the low rainfall areas in South Africa. Then the hon. member for Benoni was facetious enough or negative enough to say that the hon. member for Fauresmith said that Natal is stingy with its water, but the hon. member never said so. I want to say that to my mind the hon. members from Natal do not appreciate what is going on in the western half of South Africa. While they have water in abundance, we are struggling in our dry regions to keep our trees and our stock alive. May I mention another example from my own area—and there are numerous examples of this nature in our country where intensive agriculture is being practiced: In an area such as the Hex River Valley, over 1 200 boreholes have been sunk by farmers in the past few years, quite often at their own expense. Boreholes of up to 1 200 and 1 500 ft. deep have been sunk there in search of water because how otherwise can they irrigate their vineyards?

At a small place such as Goudini-Raw-sonville 340 boreholes have been sunk for a handful of farms. Most of these boreholes have been sunk by those people at their own expense. The hon. member for Benoni and his friends on that side of the House do not know what a struggle it is to obtain water. I want to tell hon. members that here in the western part of South Africa farmers are spending millions of rand out of their own pockets and with State assistance, on the building of dams, on the building of canals, pipelines and so forth, on their farms. These are not people who simply run to the Government and say: Come on, give me some money, because I must do this, that and the other thing. No, Mr. Speaker, in the low rainfall areas of South Africa our farmers know what it is like to have a hard time of it. This is interesting; it is said that many farmers in the African states work an average of 500 to 800 hours per year. I think the farmer in South Africa, according to the figures, works a minimum of 2 000 to 2 400 hours per year. These are not people who sit on the stoep waiting for someone to come and help them; they make a plan. These dams and canals which have been built and boreholes which have been sunk with the assistance of the State—we are grateful for that—have also caused problems. The hon. the Minister and his officials visited the Hex River Valley recently. The Stellenbosch Research Institute for Food and Fruit Technology tells us that about 43% of the water now available in the Hex River Valley is not suitable for agricultural purposes. We know of the problems which will arise as a result of the boreholes being made deeper. However, we also know that the hon. the Minister, in his planning of the Boland, has already included these matters in his planning. This is why we went to see him and he came to see us, and we discussed the matter. He said: Look here, we are doing this, that and the other thing; we shall help you with this and we shall solve the problem in due course. For that we say “Thank vou”. In conclusion I want to say that the hon. member for Benoni referred in a scornful manner to the representations we made for a 50% subsidy. The farmer does not ask for it lightly. I want to add to what I have just said, namely that these farmers who are irrigation farmers and who have, through the years, spent millions of rand out of their own pockets, are carrying heavy financial burdens. I can mention several cases where farmers have to sink one borehole after the other to save their crop when the dry season sets in. The State provides assistance, but they are carrying heavy financial burdens. Now I am grateful to say that the department is giving attention to this Greater Boland area. These were the words of the hon. the Minister: “Nobody living in this region will be left out.” We know that the department is in the process of planning these canals in such a way that every person possible will obtain water from this greater scheme. A number of these schemes are in the offing in my own constituency and I want to thank the department and the Minister for this. There are many other similar constituencies. Our people are carrying heavy financial burdens. Seven years ago many farms in the Boland were experiencing a winter problem and that was to get their vineyards dry enough to cultivate them. This position has changed overnight and since 1964-’65 they have not even always had enough water to cultivate their vineyards. They sank boreholes, they searched for water and built dams in catchment areas. Now the Minister comes along and gives us this assistance. We say to him, “Thank you very much.” But we nevertheless want to ask him to consider this possibility of a 50% subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester, in conclusion, referred to the hon. member for Benoni and said that the hon. member for Benoni referred in a sneering manner to the required 50%-subsidy. I just want to put that right and say that I also listened to the hon. member for Benoni and to me it did not sound as if he referred to it in a sneering manner. He did not agree with it. However, it was not a scornful reproach. It is also unfair to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for South Coast in connection with the policy of this side of the House regarding water affairs as being negative, because this is not a negative approach. The hon. member himself quoted from Hansard where the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said that he was in agreement with our policy to a certain extent. If a policy is positive, it must be repeated again and again in this House so that everyone can hear it.

†Because I believe that water in this country is of such great importance, that second only to our language and race relations in this country, it is the most important thing there is, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Coast. Because I believe that many of the members have not really listened carefully to that amendment, I wish to read it again—

I believe that the plea of the hon. member for Piketberg, the plea of the hon. member for Fauresmith and that of the hon. member for Worcester is covered adequately in this amendment. It takes our Water Affairs out of politics. Nobody would be able to toy with this matter across the floor of this House because it would be an agreed decision. We could then go ahead together and plan our water affairs and assist the department in its planning on a basis that is above party politics and parochialism. Although the members of that Committee are not technicians or engineers, they know the conditions in the various parts of our country. As a group of people they can very often reach an unbiased decision. Each one of us has his pet case and his pet scheme. I have mine. The hon. member for Piketberg has probably got his and so do the hon. members for Fauresmith and Worcester. Each one of us can make out a very good case to the officials of the department and possibly even to the hon. the Minister. I am hoping that I shall succeed in twisting his arm on one particular little scheme. If I succeed in twisting the arm of either one of the senior officials or that of the Minister, the scheme is approved. It is then referred to the Select Committee and that hon. member who happens to be the Chairman of that Select Committee may find that there is a fault in the way in which I put my case before that Committee. We then talk matters out there and cannot throw it back at one another across the floor of the House as it would be an agreed matter. I believe that this is a very sound idea that the hon. member for South Coast has suggested in his amendment. I also believe that it covers very largely the field of the pleas of everyone here.

With regard to the 50% subsidy, I have certain reservations too. Various members on this side already touched upon it. It is strange that just an hour or two ago in the previous debate, it was this side of the House that was asking for more money for the old people. We were told that we were playing politics. I wonder what the answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister who replied to the revious debate would be to this request. The hon. member for Piketberg in his plea, at the beginning of his speech, read out certain costs and certain increases in costs. I have also been going through the latest reports of the various Government waterworks schemes and found that in every case our construction costs have increased. On top of that the Treasury rate of interest has increased to 8¾%. This makes the burden on the department very much heavier. Perhaps this is something, as has been suggested by the hon. member for South Coast, that can be considered on individual scheme bases. I, however, do not believe that the time is opportune at this stage to ask for an overall subsidy of 50% on pumps and piping. There will obviously be an objection from others.

We believe that the conservation of water is absolutely essential to this country. It has been stated by every single speaker on both sides of this House. It is not only in the arid and semi-arid regions where conservation can take place. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Fauresmith was slightly jealous of the waters in Natal. There are areas in this country that have more water than others. We have our watershed areas. This very largely is where the conservation must take place, in order not only to bring water to the semi-arid regions for agricultural and other purposes, but to feed our ever-growing industrial complexes. I think the hon. member for Piketberg mentioned the schemes on the Berg River. I should imagine these and others in the catchment areas of the west coast will have to be expanded extensively in the very near future if the Saldanha complex is to grow as is expected.

Then we have the giant Orange River scheme which is not yet completed and which cannot at this stage reach final planning because it is an ever-changing and ever-growing scheme. Here, too, I believe a Select Committee with more power than it has now, could be of great assistance to the Minister and the department in gathering information from the different areas and submitting those facts for discussion with a view to finalizing the final details of the scheme. It is a question of a broad basis and looking at things objectively. I believe firmly that it is time that we stopped playing party politics with water affairs and get down to planning together on the future requirements of water in South Africa so that our children and grandchildren will be assured of a sufficiency of the vital lifeblood that is necessary to continue living in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is customary, when replying to a motion such as this, that the Minister concerned should immediately reply to the gist of the motion as stated. Hon. members will forgive me if on this occasion, before dealing with the motion—and I think hon. members sitting here will be interested in listening to this—I first say something in regard to the last remark made by the previous speaker. I am not trying to be funny with the hon. member now, but I should like to inquire how long he has been in this House. Is it four or five years?

Four years.

The hon. member says he has been sitting here for four years. Now I want to ask the hon. member how many of the schemes launched and approved by this House during the four years he has been sitting here were politically inspired schemes. Can the hon. member mention one to me? Mention only one; I want to get this off my mind. I want to settle this between the hon. member and myself, for he and I are good personal friends.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister misunderstood me completely.

Order! The hon. member may put a question, but he may not speak again.

Very well, I accept the apology of the hon. member. I just want to say to the hon. member that my department and I consider every scheme in the interests of South Africa and the people who have to be served. Since I became Minister I have never had any ulterior political motives with any particular scheme. I have always had only the interests of South Africa in mind. Not one of these schemes was considered on any other basis but that. If the hon. member did not intend any dig at this side of the House or at me personally with his remark, I accept his good intentions. In that case I shall simply leave it at that. I just want to tell him, though, that this does not happen, and that he need not be afraid of it happening. I also want to tell him that the argument concerning the committee—I shall return to this subsequently—was not meant—as the hon. member put it—in order to remove it from the political arena. I do not think so. In this connection allow me to refer to the hon. member for South Coast. That hon. member has been chairman of the group on his side of the House since I became Minister. We got along very well together. As far as the hon. member and myself are concerned. I think that we have always, when it concerned these matters, tried to promote what was in the national interests across the floor of this House, from both sides. I want to say that I appreciate this. If the hon. member thinks that there was an ulterior motive in this regard, I think he is making a mistake. I do not think the hon. member for South Coast would agree with him for then the good relations would not have been there as far as the really good planning of the affairs of the department in regard to water are concerned. I must say that the hon. member and I do differ; he said that his party has a certain policy and I differ with him on that score, but this has nothing to do now with the dispute between him and me. I shall return to that in a moment.

But I want to get back to the motion. I want to say that I am very pleased that the hon. member for Piketberg came forward with this motion. I can also understand the hon. member coming forward with such a motion at this stage. It is dry in parts of the country and certain regions have for several years now been oppressed by the rigours of drought. In the northern part of the hon. member’s constituency, in the vicinity of Bitterfontein, conditions are extremely dry; at the moment it is a desert. I can therefore understand why the hon. member thought that it was in the public interest, of his constituency as well, to introduce a motion such as this. I do not think there was any ulterior motive on the part of the hon. member for Piketberg either. I did not understand him to mean that only the interests of the dry parts of South Africa should be served. It is simply a question of the hon. member’s seeing only certain things at this moment, and for that reason I appreciate his discussing the dry parts of South Africa. The dry parts of South Africa are those parts which suffer the most from the slightest drought. It is there where the people are least able to withstand the drought, and for that reason these are the regions where people are suffering the most. Let me then say that the purpose of proper water control in South Africa and the proper provision as well as the proper utilization of water by all its people is in the first place for the purpose of making provision for the necessities of life of people and animals. But in the second place it is for the purpose of making provision for the uninterrupted and proper growth of South Africa’s economy. In a country such as South Africa where we are dealing with a water problem—and if it is not there, it can so easily develop from time to time and from place to place—the economy of the country is made very vulnerable by the water situation, as we see happening at the moment. For that reason I think that we will agree that on the physical level water and its availability in South Africa is probably the greatest obstacle to the economic development of the country. It is therefore the duty of the Department of Water Affairs, as far as this is within its means, to ensure that people and animals will obtain sufficient water in time, and in the second place to ensure that the economy is not slowed down as a result of a lack of water. The Department of Water Affairs has this instruction and is devoting itself to complying with this instruction. Now I just want to mention a few figures to you to indicate that the Department of Water Affairs is going out of its way in its efforts to comply with that instruction in the greater interests of South Africa. I want to say that at present there are 4 987 Whites and 20 205 non-Whites working in the Department of Water Affairs. This workers’ corps consists of people from the Secretary for Water Affairs down, the engineers, the scientists serving in the Department of Water Affairs, the administrative officials, the control officers, distributed throughout the country, and the construction workers who are also distributed throughout the country and who comprise the bulk of the employees of the department. But, Sir, apart from this I also want to tell you that the number of people who are in the employ of the department today, have not multiplied and grown in accordance with the growth of the amount which is voted from year to year in the Budget for the department to spend. As far as the past five years are concerned, the total expenditure of the Department of Water Affairs increased from R61,l million to a figure which will probably be in the region of R150 and R160 million this year; in other words, an increase of roughly 150%. If we were to correlate with that the number of workers attached to the Department of Water Affairs we would find that the growth rate would be far lower; therefore it could not happen, and it cannot happen, that the Department of Water Affairs is at the present moment spending as it is spending and acting as it does today, where waterworks are being constructed and laid out by this department in 45 major and important places in South Africa if it were not for the very great dedication and the utmost competence on the part of the officials of the department, and of all workers. If this were not the case I would not have felt myself at liberty two years ago to rise to my feet in this House of Assembly and say that I had so much confidence in the workers of my department that I would undertake that unless something very strange were to happen in South Africa the P. K. le Roux Dam would be constructed for R45 million. This was denied by the private sector; this was disputed by the Institute of Civil Engineers in South Africa dealing with construction.

Last year an hon. member on the opposite side rose to his feet and asked me what the figures looked like and whether we were still working according to programme. It is now a year later and we are still working according to this programme, and now, after we have already completed a major portion of the work, I still adhere to my undertaking. Unless something very strange is going to happen we are going to complete the P. K. le Roux dam for R45 million or slightly less than that amount. Sir, it would not be possible for this to happen if it were not for the great dedication on the part of the staff. In addition I just want to say that I have given Parliament an undertaking to furnish comparative figures here every year to indicate what it is costing the department and what it would have cost according to the tender prices. I undertook to place the graphs side by side so that hon. members could draw a comparison. I shall mention the figures when my Vote comes up for discussion, as I also did last year. I therefore maintain, Sir, that as regards the execution of these works there is a great deal of loyalty.

But having said this I also want to add this, with reference to the observations made by the hon. member for Piketberg, that the problem which lies ahead for South Africa is that we have a definite date in mind on which we know that South Africa’s surface water, if we do nothing about it, will more or less have been used up, and where the demand curve and the availability curve will cross. To prevent this it is essential that we should, in the meantime, do everything in our power to plan in good time to try to put that day off indefinitely if we can and instead of a calculated and certain shortage, to establish a great water future for South Africa. That is the ideal the Department of Water Affairs has set itself.

Sir, to achieve this there are two important concepts around which the actions of the department centre. The one is availability and the other is cost. Around the two concepts of cost and availability revolves the entire water situation of South Africa. The department will do everything within its means to ensure that water is always available so that the economic development of the country is not slowed down. While I am standing here speaking to you there is not a single major economic growth point in South Africa, an urban complex or an important future mining development where the Department of Water Affairs is at this moment not laying on water at top speed so that development is not delayed. Sir, I could mention a few examples to you.

At the present moment, as you know as well as I, the Greater Poland is growing rapidly, and is also receiving its new growth incentive from the construction, for example, of the railway line to Saldanha. These are all matters which have to be borne in mind. There is the Greater Cape Flats, and hon. members know how rapid the growth there is. Hon. members know how the Boland towns are growing. Hon. members know what it looks like from here northwards for a distance of 100 miles. Hon. members know what it looks like along the coast of the Greater Boland in regard to the development of the fish and other related industries which are developing there. At this moment, as the hon. member for Worcester also said, we are working at eight different points, within the framework of the scheme for the Greater Boland of R400 million.

At the present moment we are having to work as rapidly in order to be ready within three years to bring the water from the Tugela River to the Vaal River, for by that time we will already be skating on thin ice as far as the entire great complex of the Witwatersrand is concerned, where 3½ million people are sitting waiting. This area is responsible for 54% of the total industrial production of South Africa.

At the same time we are providing Bloemfontein and its peri-urban development, as well as the south Free State towns, with water. We are having to work as rapidly on a scheme which will cost R18,5 million. I am referring now to the Bloemfontein/Caledon Scheme. At the same time we are working, as hon. members from Natal will know, on the Umgeni scheme to ensure that the one project follows on the other in the scheme. At present the total expenditure envisaged there is R29 million, as hon. members will also know. At Port Elizabeth the pressure is as great. Part of the water will come out of the greater Orange project, so that water may be brought to Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth is also waiting, for its development, on water being brought from the Hendrik Verwoerd dam to the Bay. The same applies to East London. The Buffalo River is indeed an overtaxed river, and apart from the development in the Buffalo River we are now working on innovations to link together the different local schemes and keep ahead until we are able to bring in water from a source other than the Buffalo River.

Apart from this, I want to point out that there are very few hon. members here who represent constituencies in which there is not a town, some community or other, a mine or a development of some kind which will not be in a difficult position unless water reaches them in time. For that reason it will be understood if I say that South Africa finds itself in the position that it is moving at an extremely rapid rate. There is a growth of 7½% in the demand for water for industrial and urban development. This percentage may increase to eight. In addition there is unforeseen mining development. In this connection I want to mention as example the mining development near Prieska. There, a new situation arose overnight. There is also the development of the Sishen/Saldanha project, which had in fact been foreseen, but now it means that there will be an influx of people at a certain rate, and that there will also be factory development at a certain rate. I am now mentioning examples of cases where changes took place overnight. The price of platinum changed overnight. What does that mean? It means that overnight we are confronted with the situation that a series of mines, dependent on water which is brought in from outside, suddenly begins to suggest a total production potential of R250 million. Hon. members probably read in the Press yesterday that it is anticipated that the price of platinum will rise even further. Here we therefore find tremendous development overnight. It means that the Department of Water Affairs is immediately confronted with the necessity of bringing water in from outside, and where is the nearest water situated? It has to be brought from one of the existing dams, or it has to be exchanged, or it has to come from the Witwatersrand. This is the kind of pressure which is being caused by South Africa’s rapid growth. This growth sometimes takes place in areas where there is no water, and then the Department of Water Affairs has to do whatever is necessary and ensure that it does not fall behind.

It is with great satisfaction that I am able to say that I am confident that our planning is good enough and that we, if we are able to eliminate the great backlog gradually—it cannot be eliminated in a day, but we hope to do so within the next five to ten years—will be able to say that nothing can happen which will cause us to find ourselves in difficulties again. What we want is that there should be the necessary certainty; that is what our entire spear-point of development is aimed at. We want to create a position where our major centres in South Africa in particular need have no fear that major problems will arise for them within the foreseeable future. That is what we are aiming at. That is what I mean when I say that advance planning and projections should be made in such a way that we are able to keep pace with South Africa’s greater development.

If we speak in these terms we must bear in mind that we are now beginning to rely heavily on all those scientific disciplines which can make a contribution to the better utilization of existing and new resources. Science must play an ever greater part in the life of the department and the country, and is in fact already doing so. Reference was made to the fact that we encouraged the universities to establish specialized chairs to be of assistance. That is true.

It is also true that we are now co-operating well with overseas countries. I went overseas last year and I can inform the House that I am very pleased, not only with the way in which I was received in various countries, but also with the way in which we were able to gain access to and form ties with various countries with whom we will in future be able to co-operate in specialized directions, which will be of great benefit to them and to us. I am thinking in this regard of Spain, France and Israel, for example.

When we discuss the availability of water—I shall come in a moment to the cost of water—we must bear in mind that the availability of water is dependent on the role which science is at present playing in South Africa’s life, and will also play in future. When we discuss this matter I should like to amplify the discussion by pointing out that the water resources of South Africa consist in the first place of surface water—that is to say, the streams of our flowing rivers—which can be measured, and are supplemented annually by our rainfall. In the second place, it consists of subterranean fresh water resources. But a major water resource in South Africa is the enormous quantities of brackish water resources which are simply not usable at the moment. Concentration of scientific efforts to make this usable for us, is of the utmost importance to us. The department and the Water Institute of the C.S.I.R. are working in this direction, and this is also the direction in which we are seeking co-operation and trying to find points of contact with countries abroad, for it is not only South Africa which is interested in this. The world is interested in this, for all over the world there are vast quantities of brackish water. To be able to utilize this resource means that it will have to be brought into the economy. The brackish water resources are also supplemented by rainwater percolating through the sub-strata which have a high salt content, and this then becomes brackish.

In addition to that of course there is also, as has already been pointed out and envisaged, the enormous resource of the ocean. It is not only South Africa that is working on this. We are interested in this, but so is the entire world. South Africa, as are other countries, is doing research. We know what is being done in other countries and we are trying to co-operate with other countries in this sphere. As far as this sphere is concerned, it is fortunately not the case that science is as it were a closed shop and that South Africa does not know in which directions other countries are thinking. I even foresee that we will within the foreseeable future be able to make a start with a pilot project in the Western Cape. I think I can say that we are now able to take the first step. We do not yet know what the next step will be after we have taken the first one, or where this road will lead us. Nevertheless we feel that we must take the first step.

I have now mentioned the resources which we will have to develop in future, but having discussed this now, I want to return to the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg and confine myself from now on to the development of our dry areas. I think we should first dispose of this part of the motion. It is in fact true that there is in South Africa what I could almost call the creeping threat of a development which is taking place over a large area of the arid parts of South Africa. I am referring to the western part of the subcontinent where growth is also taking place in the form of both agricultural and urban development. However, this is a part which does not have perennial resources, except for subterranean resources the availability and the supplementation rate of which have to be established before the abstraction rate can be calculated. This is virtually the only resource which the western areas have, for there are few rivers which have a permanent flow and provide water for the dry areas of South Africa. We know about the Vaal and Orange Rivers which converge and flow through that area, but there are large tracts where, apart from the Vaal River, there is no perennial resource available for the western part of South Africa.

Now the question for the Department of Water Affairs is: What do we do in such an area? Do we simply say that there is no water, the State cannot supply any water? Or what should the State’s attitude be? My attitude is, and this is the standpoint of the Government, that we, when we speak of the development of these areas, should in the first place ensure the development of local resources. There are usually many local resources available. But, Sir, to discover the local resources and to know everything there is to know about the local resources, is a major study and a protracted one. I want to refer you to a few very interesting examples of what happened in the past, to indicate what research and proper investigation can mean for South Africa.

Sir, you will remember the case of the Kuiseb, which flows through South-West Africa and into the ocean through the desert area at Swakopmund. Over the years Walvis Bay and Swakopmund developed there, but they did not know that below the desert an enormous quantity of water had been stored away. They did not know that the movement of water within the Kuiseb Delta is so great that it may be measured and could keep Walvis Bay and Swakopmund going and could probably supply water for development outside the two towns as well. But, Sir, this is a resource which was discovered after intensive study so that we are today able to go so far as to include it in the entire development in that area, which involves the entire uranium development in the vicinity of Rossing.

I could mention to you a second case which also concerns this desert area. I mention to you the case of the Koichab Pan near Lüderitzbucht. You know, Sir, that when the town was established in earlier days all the drinking water there had to be brought in by ship. The water which was desalinated in a very primitive way in a “water factory” there, was so expensive that it was not even possible to keep a flower alive in that place. For all practical purposes Lüderitzbucht was a waterless town. But 50 miles from there an enormous subterranean water basin was discovered, the delta of the old Koichab River. Today a considerable stream of water is flowing to the town and there is no longer any problem as far as its local requirements are concerned.

But, Sir, when we come to the areas beyond Piketberg we find as grave a problem. From Piketberg in a northwesterly line to the mouth of the Olifants River one passes through the Graafwater area where our people are having a very hard time of it. North of the Olifants River, towards Bitterfontein, the same problem is encountered. But, Sir, that is not all. If one travels eastwards towards Mossel Bay one finds an area just beyond Caledon where there is no subterranean water, and what there is, is so saline that it cannot be used. Under our eyes here there is an area which is having a very hard time of it, and the potential of which cannot be developed because there is no water to stimulate the development. This is our problem. Apart from that area there are many others. I am thinking for example of the area north of the Orange River, the Kalahari area. This is some of the best grazing land one can find. It is a sandy part of the world, but offers willing and good grazing of tremendous potential. The hon. member who referred to it is correct in saying that it could carry a great number of livestock. But, Sir, it has no water, and what there is, is brackish. So we will be able to enumerate one area after another. Near the Witwatersrand there is the Klipveld area, where there is no water. This is a large area near Potchefstroom and Klerksdorp, near the Witwatersrand, where there simply is no water. We have the same problem in Natal. There is a serious problem in Northern Zululand. The hon. member for South Coast will know of this. There is an area where even now there are very grave problems as far as subterranean water is concerned. It is situated a little inland from the coast. This is an area which one should investigate and where one should see what can be done. Apart from that there is the enormous bushveld of the Northern Transvaal. That entire area is being held back as a result of the lack of water. For that reason I think the first rule we should lay down and accept is the following: When it is in the interests of South Africa for the maintenance of local communities, and there is a lack of subterranean water or any other resource, the State must investigate the possibility of opening up a resource and laying on water or bringing it to such an area in some way or another in order to keep it going, provided such a development will be within the economic carrying capacity of such area.

Then it is for the State to consider what it wants to incorporate in the development of an area in terms of a subsidy. I have not told the hon. members now how the subsidization of schemes works. They are acquainted with this. But there is a question I want to ask myself. If we construct a dam with a view to the development of irrigation and do not recover the capital costs, or recover only a small portion thereof, and consider recovering only the maintenance costs and the administrative costs of such a scheme by way of taxation, will we not at one stage have to consider saying that if we are able to construct a dam and can tell the people to bear only the administrative costs, should we not then construct a pipeline for the people on the same basis, provided the administrative and maintenance costs, plus perhaps a portion of the capital costs, are borne? But, Sir, everything must be covered by the important principle of the cost-benefit ratio. We must apply the cost-benefit ratio, for after all, the costs are borne by the State itself in any case. Whether we recover the full costs from the irrigators or from the utilizers of livestock drinking water when it is a livestock drinking water scheme, or whether the State finances the scheme, the fact remains that it comes from the economic pocket of South Africa. For that reason the golden rule should always be that it must comply with the sound cost-benefit ratio which the economy of such an area prescribes.

Now I want to say to the hon. member for Piketberg that when we refer to pumping schemes and pipelines, there are of course a whole variety of such schemes and pipelines which are at present under construction, already in operation or are still to be built in South Africa. In the first place we supply water for power generation. As you know, a major pipeline is being laid for power generation today, and there is a second scheme which will shortly be laid out to bring the water from the Usutu so that we can generate power on the highveld of the Transvaal. There are the pipelines for mining development. The mining development in the Sishen area will draw its water from the Vaal River, from as far away as Blackrock and Hotazel which are situated very far from the Vaal River itself. This pipeline will have to supply the various towns and mining projects with water. In other words, it is a State water scheme which will provide the water to those areas. But here in the western part of the Cape, in which the hon. member for Piketberg is concerned, there are also State water provision schemes, for example the Swartland scheme and the Saldanha scheme. These are schemes which are being supplied by pipelines from the Voëlvlei dam. Such a scheme means a scheme which links various consumers, whether they are cities, towns or any communities together by means of one long and large pipeline. If the hon. member makes representations to me today and tells me that we should consider being of assistance, I think the hon. member has in mind in the first place pipeline schemes which are capable of keeping our livestock farmers going. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one matter clear to the hon. the Minister, because I think he misunderstood my colleague from Albany when this question of “politically inspired” was raised. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am quite certain in my own mind that my hon. colleague was merely reiterating what the hon. member for South Coast had said earlier that he felt that a Select Committee was the kind of place where matters appertaining to the great problem of water supplies in our country can be discussed without ever the influence of any political motivation.

I will in any case reply to this suggestion at a later stage.

I do not quite follow the Minister. The suggestion of a Select Committee?

Yes, and I will probably do so under my Vote.

We have had a long discussion on this particular motion of the hon. member for Piketberg. I just want to reiterate from this side of the House that we are fully aware of the problem, the great difficulty that confronts the hon. member and the people that live in that part of the country. I myself have particular sympathy, because I also live in a drought-stricken area. I realize the acuteness of the problem to which he has made reference in his motion. We on this side of the House, in replying to the motion, have merely moved an amendment which puts forward what we believe is a better way of dealing with this kind of situation. In our amendment we did not take out that part of the hon. member’s motion where the department and its officials are thanked for what they have done towards the better utilization of our water resources. We had an interesting afternoon. We listened to three members discussing this particular motion and as I listened to them I tried to decide which one of the three made the best speech in thanking the Minister. I think they all distinguished themselves. I tried to count, but after a while I lost count, of how many times they used the word “dankie”, but it was used about 25 times. In trying to make the final assessment as to who made the best speech in thanking the Minister I decided I could not come to a definite decision. I decided it was a tie.

What has that got to do with the motion?

I am replying to the hon. members, because thanking the Minister also had very little to do with the motion. I just want to raise one further matter before I sit down. The hon. the Minister discussed the question of “water-bronne” and “al die beskikbare bronne of watervoorrade”. One thing that disappointed me a little bit was the fact that he did not make much reference to what possibilities exist for further utilization of weather modification in South Africa.

I will discuss that under my Vote. It is very important.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister says so and I have no doubt that he will do so. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House are very interested, because this subject is enjoying more and more interest amongst people in this country where the supply of water is becoming more and more acute.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I now have to say that it seems as though speakers on the Opposition side did not understand the motion and that they do not know South Africa and its needs either. But I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister understood the tenor of the motion very clearly, and also considers not only us from Piketberg or Namaqualand, but also people in other low-rainfall areas, including the hon. member for Walmer, who lives in Graaff-Reinet. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was very sorry that he could not be here this afternoon, for he feels that the same needs exist in that part of the country. However, I am satisfied that the hon. the Minister has lent us a very sympathetic ear, and I want to thank hon. members, especially those on this side, very cordially for their participation. Having said this, I now want to withdraw this motion with the leave of the House.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.