By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to rectify a matter. Last Thursday, the 3rd, I referred to the hon. member for Simonstown as “the unsavoury Mr. Wiley”. It has been brought to my attention that it is unparliamentary to associate his unsavoury conduct with his person, as Mr. Wiley; consequently I should like to withdraw it.

Sir, I also want to refer to what happened on Friday, the 4th. I then referred to the hon. member for Simonstown as a “stooge” for someone because of his conduct in this House. The inference may possibly be made that I meant that he was being recompensed for doing so, and under the circumstances I just want to make it very clear that that was not my intention at all.

Apologize.

Order!

Sir, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was replying to the speeches made by the various members who had participated in the debate. I was on the point of replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. The hon. member advocated a water advisory board for the Boland. What the hon. member apparently had in mind was that with the development of the Greater Boland Water Plan, it was not necessary to appoint an advisory board to be of assistance to the department. Sir, I do not think that that is necessary. The fact of the matter is that all the bodies concerned, and the various organizations and boards, are already providing the department with advice, but if it should appear in a few years’ time that a need for such an advisory board does exist, I think that that would be the proper time to raise the matter. The hon. member also requested that priority be given to the Misverstand Dam. I want to tell the hon. member not to be so hasty. The Misverstand Dam will be built at an appropriate time in future. The hon. member had the development at Saldanha Bay in mind. Sir, what is in fact essential is that a pumping station should be built as quickly as possible to bring additional water to Saldanha Bay, and this is being planned. This pumping station will be built rapidly, at a cost of R15 million, and it will have a capacity of 10 million gallons per day. It will also be possible to increase the capacity of this pumping station to 30 million gallons per day.

I want to thank the hon. member for Waterberg for his very kind remarks. He referred to the Welgevonde Dam, and the problems of Naboomspruit. It is true that there is an existing dam in the vicinity of Naboomspruit, from which the town draws its water. There is no crisis. It is therefore not necessary to proceed over-hastily now. I wanted to inform the hon. member that the department is going into the possibility of effecting a different means of providing water, for if the wall of this specific dam had to be raised further, it would simply mean that a dam would have to be built in the upper reaches of the Sterk River, where water would then be drawn from another source which also requires the water. But I want to give him the assurance that there will be no problem in future and that he will make the necessary provision.

The hon. member for Waterberg then made a plea here on behalf of his voters to the effect that he was of the opinion that the announced big dam to be built in the Mogol River should be named after the late Adv. Strijdom. He suggested that it should be called the Hans Strijdom Dam. I want to say to the hon. member at once that the department had thought of naming the Pongolapoort Dam after the late Adv. Strijdom. The Pongolapoort Dam has not been completed yet. I want to agree with the hon. member. Since these representations come from his constituency; since it is a project with which the late Adv. Strijdom did in fact concern himself; since he had such special connections with that part of the country, and since it will be the biggest dam in the Northern Transvaal, I should very much like to recommend to the Cabinet that the Mogol Dam be named after the late Adv. Strijdom rather than that the dam in the Pongolapoort be named after him in future.

As far as the hon. member for Albany is concerned, I did in fact reply to him when I replied to the hon. member for Mooi River’s advocation of the need for the Select Committee to be given ampler opportunity to consider various projects of the department in advance. What I said on that score applies to the hon. member for Albany as well.

The hon. member also argued that the names of Mr. Tom Bowker, Mr. Gerhard Bekker and Mr. Era Venter should be linked to some project or other of the Orange River Scheme. Sir, it is always difficult to link persons from the private sector with projects of this kind because there are so many people who in their time had had something to do with such projects. I shall bear the suggestion in mind. Perhaps we could discuss this again in future, but I do not think at the moment that any of the larger projects should be named after persons in the private sector because speculation will subsequently arise as to what people had had anything to do with it, or what people had had the most to do with it.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay advocated that that part of the Southern Cape with which he is concerned should also in future have a water development scheme in that area. I want to say to the hon. member that I am very aware of the problems and the circumstances of Mossel Bay, Hartenbos and the various beach resorts there, that plans for drawing up a regional water development scheme are already in progress, that the bodies in question have already been notified, that this will happen and that I hope we will be ready with this within five years. The hon. member also referred to the development of the Gourits River. I want to inform the hon. member that it is quite true that various projects have been established in the tributaries of the Gourits River, but the hon. member need not be afraid. The department, as he himself knows, is in the meantime considering what plan may best be devised for the best utilization of the water from the Gourits River.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question appertaining to a matter I raised and on which the Minister gave me a very courteous reply? It was in connection with weather modification. The Minister indicated that a committee was in fact functioning and had been appointed by himself in conjunction with the hon. Minister of Transport to control weather modification in the country. My question is whether we can have the names of the persons who serve on this committee and, secondly, is the Minister prepared to indicate what their programme is for, say, the next year or two in respect of weather modification?

I will furnish the names of the members of the committee to the hon. member. As for the programme, the committee will have the task actually to evaluate the whole modification question in South Africa, to keep pace with developments and to advise the Minister. This is a technical committee. It comprises technicians from the Department of Water Affairs, the Weather Bureau and the CSIR. I consider this committee to be a competent committee to watch developments in South Africa and also to compare the results obtained here with the results obtained in the rest of the world.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem argued that as a result of the conditions in Senekal we should consider establishing a water development scheme, a pipeline scheme, to supply this and other towns with water. I could just inform the hon. member that this is not that easy. Water provision is a very expensive item, and if one has to lay on small quantities of water through expensive pipelines for remote areas, the unit costs will soar. For that reason the cost-advantage ratio is assessed in every case. It must be understood that there is no form of subsidy to make it cheaper; the costs simply have to be recovered by means of water tariffs. Therefore the premise is that in cases where the consumption is small, we will preferably try to develop local resources instead of integrating these with long pipelines which could be too expensive for the local communities. I also wanted to inform the hon. member that it is correct and essential that as far as these matters are concerned there should be co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, and this is in fact being done.

The hon. member for East London City raised two matters. The first was in regard to the restoration of sponges. I think the idea which the hon. member has is that retaining walls should be built so that silt will be accumulated and the area can be developed into a good sponge with a good absorption capacity. But the hon. member must realize that this kind of problem is extremely difficult one to solve by means of specific advice and planning. The fact is simply that we, as well as the Department of Agriculture are trying to maintain the ecology and to restore the natural sponges, and of course to apply the necessary measures which do exist in various departments, as in my own Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture, to restore and protect the natural conditions as far as possible. As far as mountain catchment areas are concerned, the hon. member will know that it is the principle and the policy to try to restore the natural conditions in the sponge areas as they were before we interfered with them. It is a lengthy process, and it is difficult to say to the hon. member: “Yes, his plan will work.” The point is that it differs from place to place, and one must therefore be guided by the specific circumstances. I agree with the general principle that one should restore the sponge areas. In fact, I think that not only the State but every farmer ought to know that this is a sensible thing to do.

The hon. member expressed concern in regard to the border area in the Eastern Cape, and said that the present water schemes supplying water to the East London/King William’s Town complex did not have an unlimited life. That is correct, and we know precisely how long their life is. The hon. member also expressed concern at the possibility that we may suffer setbacks when we have to establish another water scheme, perhaps with water from a catchment area in which a Bantu homeland also has an interest. I want to refer the hon. member to my reply yesterday when I said that a committee has already been appointed by the Cabinet to investigate the question of water division and the necessary agreements in cases of joint resource development. As far as this matter is concerned, there is at least one river in regard to which we are instituting investigations, and which could lend itself to a possible project. I am referring to the possible development of the Kabusi River. The department is working on this. Up to now it has been a question of programming. As hon. members know, we have a tremendous programme, all of which has to be kept up to date. Nevertheless the hon. member may rest assured that we will establish the next scheme in time, so that no shortage will develop.

As far as the hon. member for Marico is concerned, I want to say that his idea that attention should be given to improved irrigation methods, as well as his view that we should endeavour to achieve the maximum production per unit of land, is not to the point. I say that we should try to achieve the greatest production per water unit. As far as this is concerned, we must make use of technology, which has made great progress in the science of irrigation as well. It is today possible to eliminate losses by making use of improved techniques, as we are in fact doing in South Africa. On a previous occasion I mentioned the figure to tell the hon. member that if we make beneficial use of what we have available at the moment for agriculture, plus what can be added to that, which is not very much, by means of the proper use of water-conserving apparatus and by means of efficient utilization, we are of the opinion that it would be possible to increase fourfold the production available today under irrigation in South Africa, before we reach the end of our irrigation tether as far as agriculture is concerned.

The hon. member for East London North discussed the silt load of rivers, and asked what the department was doing to study and try to counteract this. In a country such as South Africa, as in many other countries, where the run-off is through arid areas, the silt content in the rivers is high, and this is a very serious problem. In this connection basic research is being done by hydrologists, both within and outside South Africa. The two departments are also studying this problem with a view to long-term solutions for the protection of our major projects. The object is to do whatever is necessary in time, and for that reason I want to say that we will probably in our time still have to take an important decision in order to protect the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the Orange River scheme in future. I cannot disclose now precisely what this is—it is of a rather technical nature—but I do want to say that very intensive consideration is being given to the problems which result from this.

The hon. member for Piketberg discussed drip irrigation, and research in that regard. I want to inform him that not only drip irrigation but the entire spectrum of new methods which include, inter alia, micro-irrigation and related methods, is developing rapidly. We cannot as yet see the end of the road, since the techniques and the quality and design of the apparatus are improving. All these things make it necessary for us to proceed with care. This is a direction in which rapid development is taking place, and before we know precisely what this development entails, and before we have standardized equipment, it would be rash to begin subsidizing it in advance. The Department of Water Affairs, as well as the University of Stellenbosch, are making an intensive study of these methods. Just as we were able some time ago to commence the subsidization of spray irrigation, I am certain that we will be able to begin subsidizing certain items of this apparatus as we become certain that we can do so with confidence. However, we cannot subsidize every new patent which comes on to the market; we have to be careful about doing this. We are on the way to achieving this, as the hon. member did in fact say.

The hon. member for Etosha discussed mineral salts in smaller dams. This is a very serious problem in certain parts of South Africa, particularly in the South-Western Districts. This problem exists in other countries as well. A great deal of research is being done in this sphere, and we are watching the progress being made in regard to this research. One experiences this problem when one builds dams on sub-strata with a high mineral content. What happens there is that there is an upward seepage of the minerals from the sub-strata to the surface. The lining of dams is important, and for that reason we are encouraging it. Linings afford protection to the water in the dams. I can inform the hon. member that we will in future have to protect the water against excessive salination, as we are for example having to protect areas of the Vaalharts settlement against flooding as a result of leakage from dams. The hon. member also referred to the problem which we may experience when we are dealing with water development in South-West Africa, and he referred to the problem of water distribution among White and non-White groups. I want to inform the hon. member that everywhere in the world where one has more than one nation or more than one country which is dependent on the same water resource, one will find this kind of problem. Because we are very aware of this, we are also aware that if any plans should be advanced, they should only be advanced after there has been proper consultation and proper planning. We realize that this involves a kind of shared development, which should constitute as little risk as possible of subsequent conflicts.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District referred to the quality of water of the Cape Peninsula. I may tell the hon. gentleman that there would be no need for bringing in fresh water supplies from anywhere should the purification system not be able to supply the necessary high standard of potable water. That is not a question of bad water, but it may be a question of the purification system. As for the price situation in the area which is supplied by the Pinetown Regional Water Supply Corporation, which will now be the Water Services Corporation of that part of Natal, I may tell the hon. gentleman that this is a very old problem, i.e. of trying to supply a small quantity of water through a very extensive and large supply system. The hon. member will know that we see a decline in the unit price of water as the water consumption increases. The hon. member and I can do nothing about it. It is a question of more people having to make use of the system so that the unit price can come down.

*The hon. member for Karas discussed the location of subterranean water in South-West Africa, and made a serious plea in that connection. I want to inform the hon. member that it is a very serious situation. What he mentioned here applies to virtually two-thirds of South Africa as a whole. Our subterranean water position is a poor one, and it is becoming poorer because more people are making use of such water. I want to tell the hon. member that one cannot act hastily in regard to this matter; it is a matter requiring protracted study, and the Department of Water Affairs is consequently engaged in doing this. We will probably be able to submit further plans soon to improve the situation. What it amounts to is that we will have to make a situation assessment of South Africa’s ground-water. By a situation assessment we mean that, just as we have a map for our mineral situation, we should have a map of our subterranean water situation. This is a very expensive and intensive study, involving various disciplines. It is going to take a very long time, but we have already commenced such a study and we are hoping to be able to assess the situation in time, in any case in respect of certain key areas of South Africa.

†The hon. member for Mooi River asked me a question about the augmentation of the Umgeni system. May I tell the hon. gentleman that we will follow up the Albert Falls development in the Umgeni with the next scheme by approximately 1976. In the meantime we are doing feasibility studies with regard to the follow-up after 1985. It could be that the Umkomaas system will be the first system to augment the Umgeni system, but I cannot say at this stage. It is a question of feasibility reports that will have to come forward before I can make any decision.

*The hon. member also asked a question in regard to the possibility of developing the hydro-electrical potential of the Tugela. I can inform the hon. member and the Committee that all of us in South Africa have always known that there could never be any major hydro-electrical development in South Africa because we had insufficient water for that purpose. However, if we use what we have beneficially there is a far greater potential than we may think. This matter has been gone into in conjunction with Escom during the past year. Without committing myself finally to a figure, I want to inform the Committee that, with the development of the Tugela, we will in all probability be able to generate more hydroelectrical power in future than we are able to do at any one of our major power stations in South Africa today. In fact, there is a possibility that we will be able to generate as much as we intend obtaining from the Cabora-Bassa project. This is a difficult matter; it is a matter striving to achieve an object. Anything we are able to achieve in future which would generate more electricity than a 1 000 or more megawatts would be of great assistance to South Africa. As I have indicated, we are looking into this matter in conjunction with Escom. It is not something which one can develop quickly, and it is going to cost a great deal of money. But it is one of the things we are keeping in mind for the future.

The hon. member for Stilfontein voiced a complaint and asked what he should do with his constituents, where the one sells a piece of land to another person and tells him that there is so much water available, and once that person has purchased the land, he finds that it is not the case. I have no advice to give the hon. member. I think we should simply tell people to be careful of what they are buying and not believe everything they are told. They must make certain that they see the title deeds before purchasing a piece of land.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet requested that my department, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, should take multi-purpose schemes in South Africa into consideration. That is correct. We can establish few additional purely irrigation schemes; in future we will have to establish multi-purpose schemes for the most part. What I read the other day is not correct, i.e. that someone reported me as having said that we were opposed to making further water available to agriculture, for that is of course nonsense. I said that we would in future have to develop the resources jointly, because this was in the interests of agriculture as well, so that agriculture’s share of the costs would be less. The hon. member also referred to the quota system in regard to water requirements. He said that one should determine quotas in terms of the requirements in respect of water consumption in an area. I think the hon. member is correct. We can no longer merely make a certain quantity of water available for a certain piece of land; we must consider what is being produced on it. We are already applying this principle. In the Western Province mention is being made of supplementary water; the additional quantity which is going to be necessary, with the present rainfall, to achieve a greater production of fruit or wine. To an increasing extent we are determining what we require, and we know exactly what we require without giving any extra or wasting any. That is the course future development is taking.

With that I have dealt with the hon. members who spoke. I want to thank them for their participation in the debate and for the way in which the debate was conducted. Apart from the hon. members whom I have now mentioned here, there was another hon. member who, as hon. members will know, rose to speak, but not because he was interested in water. I am referring to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Orange Grove rose to put a question to me not in regard to my department but in regard to a letter which I had allegedly written and which appeared in the newspapers, a letter to my voters. This happened to be a letter which was written by me, which I had duplicated and sent out by my office to voters in regard to a conference I had to attend, on the agenda of which there were, inter alia, points of discussion concerning the Department of Water Affairs, and in particular concerning the present consolidation plans involving the entire district.

A meeting of Nationalists.

Of course they were Nationalists. If I had received an invitation from another source I would have done the same.

Only Nationalists?

Yes, only Nationalists on that occasion. I just want to inform the hon. member that my private secretary normally uses his discretion in sending out letters. The implication of the hon. member’s question was that he wishes to imply that I cannot do this. The hon. member wanted to leave the impression that one cannot write to one’s political voters at all. [Interjection.] If that is not what the hon. member had in mind then I do not know why he asked that question.

That hon. member, in fact all the hon. members on both sides of the House, have for years been making use of letterheads and envelopes supplied to them free of charge, and does the hon. member now want to tell me that neither he, nor anyone on the opposite side of the House, has ever written a letter to one of their voters who was not a Nationalist on a letterhead of this House and in an envelope which he sent out without a stamp? I do not want to take the matter any further, but I just want to tell the hon. member that if there is an implication that I cannot do this, I reject it. I also want to tell him that in my office as in any other Minister’s office the necessary discretion is being exercised in the handling of matters of this kind.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the Minister, who is a member of the House of Assembly in his own right, not also entitled to make use of the same privileges in regard to stationery as those of which the hon. member for Orange Grove avails himself when he corresponds with his U.P. voters?

Yes, I am. The hon. member created the impression that although he had for years been able to avail himself of these facilities in regard to his voters, it was not a good thing if a Minister or a member of the National Party did the same in regard to his voters.

In any case, I reject the allegation of the hon. member.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24, Loan Vote F and S.W.A. Vote No. 13.—“Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order!

I would be glad for your protection, Sir. I had rather a stormy few minutes yesterday and I would therefore be glad to have your protection. The hon. the Minister is not very close to me, but I am prepared to speak up.

Order! I wish to point out that I usually protect members, but if the hon. member for South Coast wants me to take further steps I will do so. Hon. members on both sides must adhere to this appeal and must refrain from making interjections when an hon. member speaks. The hon. member may proceed.

The position in regard to this Vote, and I want to come right to the centre of the issue that is before us, is that it deals with an industry in South Africa in which the question of the profitability of all the sections which comprise that industry is of prime importance. Here is the kernel, the main issue, namely the profitability of all sections. I am accepting what I believe is common cause on both sides of the House, namely that the timber industry with its various branches is something which is of extreme value and importance to South Africa, to our overall economy, from whichever way you look at it. It is in itself desirable from the point of view of water conservation, soil conservation, the production of raw materials for industry, it is a way of life for those people who spend their whole lives in producing trees, for industry and commerce, etc. It is in itself a good thing and I lead off from that point.

We can only maintain this industry if everybody associated with it, the various sectors like the growers, the processors, the end users and those who may be using raw materials as industrialists, and so forth, makes a profit. If any one section of the industry fails to make a profit, it will go out of business. That is the kind of basic economic law we have in this country. Mr. Chairman, you will realize that when we, in dealing with the legislation passed through this House recently, by which the Timber Council was instituted, supported that legislation and expressed our satisfaction, it was because we meant it. We believe that this is now the keystone to the economy of the old timber industry in South Africa. Seeing that the Act is now functioning and the machinery is in operation, I would like to put to the hon. the Minister a few questions, to which I trust he will give us the same full answers which he has given us during the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote. I may say that we express our appreciation for the full answers he gave to the questions we put to him, bar one.

The first question is: Will the present legislation and the establishment of the Timber Council permit of a determination of the profit margin of all sectors of the timber industry, including the grower as a separate section? Secondly, is it the Minister’s intention and policy that all sectors of the timber industry shall remain in operation, that they shall continue as living sections of the industry, on the basis that each section is entitled to make a profit and is in fact making it? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that the maintenance of the stability of the timber industry and its sound and progressive extension—not merely its maintenance—can only be foreseen if the profit factor is maintained and protected for each section of the industry? I now want to elaborate on these questions. Heretofore, the position seems to have been that in respect of timber, where the end user was here in South Africa, he made his profit. He bought the timber from somebody or other down the line of production, who, in turn, made a profit. He, in turn, bought from somebody further down the line, and eventually they finished up with the grower. The grower had to take what was left. The profit was determined from the final sales end of the line of production. We want to ask the Minister whether it is possible for the Timber Council now to arrange that the costs of production of timber will first be established and the grower given a profit on that cost of production, which includes his time, labour, capital invested and the years he has to wait. After that calculation of cost plus profit, a purchase is made at that price, after which another profit should be added on the next rung of the economic ladder. That person or industry should also be able to make a profit. When it continues in this way, eventually you will have a product on the market which is carrying a profit margin for all those who have participated and given the labour and their time. Mr. Chairman, there is an exception and that is where we sell in world markets. We cannot determine the final price in the world market. That, I think, will have to be a matter for negotiation. If in fact the Timber Council is able to establish the costs which I have asked for, we will be able to see exactly what the costs of production are and what profit margins are obtaining at the present time in the industry. In other words, these are the basic economics of the industry and these are the questions I would like the hon. the Minister to reply to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast has now broached a matter that is important to us all, i.e. the profitability of any industry. I immediately want to agree with him, but today I want to refer to something more pleasant. I want to refer to the Year of our Green Heritage which is now being celebrated and which has hitherto made very fine progress. I want to congratulate the Minister and the department on what has hitherto been done, and I want to express the hope that this Year of our Green Heritage will still develop a very great impetus this year.

I want to say just a little about the history of this campaign, and at the same time I want to give thanks to the various bodies that have helped with it. The idea originated as far back as 1971 with the South African Sawmillers’ Association, specifically to focus the attention of the public on forestry and forestry development by way of a special campaign. In 1970 the National Veld Trust decided to launch a planting and beautifying campaign. As a consequence of this idea a meeting was subsequently held in Pretoria on 7th December, 1971, at which were represented the South African Timber Users’ Association, the South African Wattle Extract Manufacturers’ Association, the South African Timber Growers’ Association, the South African Wattle Growers’ Association, the Timber Trade Federation of South Africa, the Timber Agents’ Association, the Central Timber Co-operative, the National Veld Trust, the South African Agricultural Union, the South African Sawmillers’ Association, the South African Forestry Association, the South African Mining Timber Manufacturers’ Association, the National Parks Board, the Forest Owners’ Association, Bruynzeel Plywoods, the Tree Society, the Chamber of Mines, the South African Growers’ Association, the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services, Water Affairs, Forestry, Sport and Recreation, Tourism, Bantu Administration and Development, Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and the provincial administrations of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal. I have mentioned all of them because I think this should be placed on record. This meeting decided under the chairmanship of the Minister of Forestry to form a committee to launch the campaign. An amount of R450 000 was collected, from industry, with the co-operation of various municipalities, the Chamber of Mines, etc. I am mentioning this because no appeal was made to the State to contribute here. The amount came largely from private industry itself. The Department of Forestry is also doing its share by linking up some of its functions to this Year of our Green Heritage. I just want to mention a few examples. There is, for example, the opening up of the Jim Fouché picnic grounds, the setting aside and opening up of Wilderness areas, the opening up of footpaths in the mountain forests—we have now recently read of the one there through the Drakensberg Mountains, more than 120 kilometres in length—the printing and distribution of literature on forestry, specially prepared for the campaign, and contributions in the form of copy by various departmental officers towards the publication of a book entitled “Our Green Heritage”. Here I also want to mention the very interesting articles appearing in our magazines about our trees and the importance of the various varieties of trees. I also want to make special mention of private companies who are furnishing contributions. I have in mind, for example, one motor company which is financing the planting of a tree for every test drive that is undertaken. The company has already undertaken 960 test drives and that was enough to plant one acre of trees. I also want to mention the fact that the department is supplying small trees free of charge to schools and educational institutions. Thus far 16 619 small trees have already been allocated to 877 schools and ten educational institutions. These small trees are then planted on special occasions, and we should like to encourage institutions and schools to make use of these facilities. The success of this campaign, Sir, is attributable to the good co-operation between private industry and the public sectors and the generous support obtained from those sectors in the form of financing.

Mr. Chairman, I read such a lovely poem in the newsletter of the South African Timber Growers’ Association which depicts this whole campaign so well that I should like to quote it here today; it is written by Patience Strong—

Imagine towns with no old tree to spread a canopy of branches overhead—

Sir, I really think this is a very good reflection of the spirit of this Year of our Green Heritage. I just want to make this appeal to the public of our country for this Year of our Green Heritage not to last for one year only, but for it to be the beginning of a consciousness of the necessity for planting trees and a consciousness of what is lovely in our forests. I believe that forestry is faced with a great challenge, and with the support we are getting from the public we can deal with this challenge that awaits us in the future.

Sir, I just want to broach, too, a few matters affecting my constituency. Because the largest indigenous forest in the Southern Cape is situated in my constituency, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider purchasing for the State the remaining indigenous forests which are not yet in the possession of the State. The indigenous forest is a vanishing asset. We have the Wilderness Areas legislation, which has already brought us a step forward, but the position has changed. While our indigenous forests were once left completely alone to grow and develop of their own accord, we have now come to decide, after thorough consideration by the department, that there should be a proper administration for an indigenous forest, and I should therefore like to ask that the State consider buying out all indigenous forests, wherever possible, and then placing them under proper administration.

Sir, then there is another small request. At Nature’s Valley there is the Forest of the Giants, a very fine yellowwood forest, and I want to ask the Minister to consider declaring it a wilderness area.

Sir, then I should like to say something about the various routes in the Tsitsikamma. The national road, as you know, must go through it and there is now a great deal of agitation, in the Sunday newspapers as well, on the part of that committee which has now been constituted there. In that connection I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Department of Forestry has been approached by Transport; whether they could also express an opinion and whether surveys were perhaps carried out then by Forestry to determine which of the various routes would be least detrimental to that indigenous forest. Sir, I believe it is important for us to handle these matters very carefully and to choose a route which will do the least damage to our natural scenery. I have a great deal of sympathy with that committee, because I know that they are taking this matter very seriously, but unfortunately one has to have roads; therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether Forestry was properly consulted in this matter and whether they have expressed their opinions about it; one would then perhaps be able to know whether the best route has been chosen.

Yesterday I raised the question with the hon. the Minister of a circular sent out on his official letterhead as Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have your ruling. Is it permissible for a matter which was discussed on the previous Vote and which affects the Minister personally and has nothing to do with his Vote, to be raised again on this Vote?

May I address you on that point, Sir? I wish to discuss it because the letterhead at the top is the letterhead of the Ministry of Water Affairs and of Forestry. I could just as well have replied after the hon. the Minister had sat down after his final reply on the previous Vote. On account of the arrangement between the parties as to time I thought I could continue under Forestry.

The hon. member may proceed.

Yesterday I expressed my dissatisfaction and my dismay at the fact that a letter had been sent out under the official letterhead of the hon. the Minister to a number of Nationalist politicians in his own constituency.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, has the protection which the hon. member for South Coast requested for himself been suspended, and may we again proceed and make interjections now?

The hon. member may proceed.

In the speech made by the hon. the Minister there were very few points of reply to the accusations and the questions that I raised but there were certain important admissions. The first admission we had from him—and he must correct me if I am wrong—is that the letter was sent out by his department after a request by his secretary or by a member of his staff. That makes the matter even worse, I would say. The hon. the Minister then said that it was a normal matter for M.P.s to send out letters on official letterheads. Of course that is normal. We do sent out letters to our constituents on letterheads but, Sir, this is not a letter; this is a circular which could have gone, as I see it, to every Nationalist member in the Soutpansberg constituency. “Dit word gestuur aan u want u naam kom op die partylys voor”, members therefore on the party list. The hon. the Minister said he wanted to make sure that every member on his party list got a letter. Well, how many members of the Nationalist Party are there in Soutpansberg — 2 000, 3 000? This could have been a, circular with 2 000 or 3 000 copies. May I ask, following the logic of the hon. the Minister, whether other Ministers and members on that side or on this side of the House are allowed to use parliamentary stationery or departmental stationery and send out circulars in hundreds and in thousands, simply on the principle on which the hon. the Minister relies now? [Interjections.]

Order!

Seeing that the hon. the Leader of the House got up, I would indeed like to hear his views on this particular matter too. This is not a letter; it is a circular which was sent out in large numbers. Let us also remember this—the letterhead here is not a parliamentary one. It is not a question of parliamentary privilege. This is a departmental letterhead, “’n staatsdiensbriefhoof”, and there are definitely strict rules as to what use you may put Public Service stationery. Let us establish this first of all. This was a political letter to Nationalists and to Nationalists alone.

So what?

The hon. the Minister said: “You have heard about this conference from your own party committee”. He added: “This meeting is specially for Nationalists”. He went further: “It will be a conference to reply, amongst others, to questions of policy; tell your Nationalist neighbours about this”, the hon. the Minister requests in the circular. “Your name comes on a party list and that is why I am writing to you.” And it is signed “Fanie Botha”, there is no indication that it is an official letter in his capacity as Minister of Water Affairs. Here is an admission that this was a political circular, and just as not a single member on the Nationalist side or on this side of the House would use official stationery for sending out an invitation to a conference to hundreds or thousands of people, in the same way that hon. Minister nor any other hon. Minister of the Cabinet has the right to do so. The hon. the Minister has not replied to my questions. I asked him how many were sent out. He will have the opportunity to say so. Who paid for the paper? Did he pay anything for the use of this paper or for the use of the envelopes? Or did he just happily go ahead and use official stationery? Who typed it? Was it somebody paid by the State, by the taxpayer of South Africa? Who roneod it? Was it the party’s roneoing machine or the departmental one or one in his own office? Who paid for the paper? Was he entitled to use free postal facilities for a circular addressed to hundreds or thousands of persons? It should be borne in mind that on each envelope it is printed that the penalty for improper use is R100 for each transgression.

For each envelope.

Yes, for each envelope so used. I wish I had the hon. the Minister of Finance here, because I could indicate a handsome source of revenue to him in this particular instance. I am also entitled to know for how long this has been going on.

*For how long has this sort of thing been going on? At the top of this circular there is a number. What does it mean? It reads 2/1/3/40.

†Does that mean that there have been 40 such instances already? The hon. the Minister should let us know what these numbers signify.

*If we accept this action, the result of that will be as I have indicated, that each Minister will be able to send all the invitations to each closed meeting he is going to hold, free of charge at the expense of the State. Will the hon. the Minister of Transport do it with regard to his constituency? I should like to have an answer from him, for if this is indeed so, this will be a completely new policy that is being laid down. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to convene a closed congress or conference in Pretoria, he asks the Nationalist Party to submit all the party lists to him, for he wants to send out invitations on his department’s letterheads to all those thousands of people he would like to attend that congress or conference; he wants to discuss policy matters with them, and the congress or conference may only be attended by Nationalists.

†Everything at no cost whatsoever.

Did the department pay for the hall?

Yes, did the department also pay for the hall? I believe it was the Provincial Administration who put the school hall at Louis Trichardt free of charge at his disposal in this particular instance. I do not intend making that a big issue.

This, indeed, can even lead to members of Parliament using official stationery at election times for getting meetings together of their own supporters in their constituencies. Is this now a new principle which is to be accepted? We want to know whether the other side is doing it, because if they are going to do it during the election which is to come, then we should like to know whether we are allowed to do it too.

I am not satisfied with the replies which I received from the hon. the Minister. I believe that a principle is involved. I believe that the hon. the Minister does not properly distinguish between his three roles. The first is that of a party politician, an important party politician in his own province, the second is his position as the Member of Parliament for Soutpansberg and the third is his position as a Minister of State. A Minister of State should not abuse on this huge scale official stationery at the cost of the taxpayer for organizing people to come to a party political closed conference as in this case. I trust that we shall have further replies to the questions I have put to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, there is no law or regulation which prescribes when a Minister may or may not make use of a letterhead. Never in the past was this the case, nor in the time of the previous Government.

Because that behaviour was never expected.

It is not a question of expecting any behaviour; I want to say what the position is. [Interjections.]

Order!

There have never been any rules or regulations, just as there is no rule or regulation laying down that an ordinary member of Parliament may not use the letterheads of Parliament for his private correspondence. [Interjections.] I wonder how many hon. members opposite can say with a clear conscience that they have never used a letterhead of the House of Assembly for private correspondence. There is not one of them.

What about the postage?

The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs paid the postage. He did make use of the letterheads, but he has already said in reply to a previous question that he did pay the postage.

No, he did not say so.

I did pay the postage.

If the hon. the Minister says he did pay the postage, I would rather accept his word than that of the hon. member.

This is the same kind of thing as we had in regard to the use of the Minister’s official cars. The Minister has a free right to the use of his official car for himself and his family. I have repeatedly said that here. A Minister has the fullest right to use the letterhead of his ministry for any private correspondence. I wonder how many of the hon. members have made use of the services of the typists in this building, for which Parliament pays, to have their personal correspondence typed and dealt with.

That is not allowed on our side.

It is done, and hon. members opposite know it as well as I do. The hon. member for Orange Grove need not pretend to be so innocent. He is the first who will make use of it. If this is not beyond dispute the Controller and Auditor-General will report on it in his report submitted to this Parliament. I repeat that a Minister has the fullest right to use letterheads for any private correspondence. They have always done so; this has been the case under this Government as it was under the previous Government.

Provided he pays for the stamps.

Of course, but the hon. the Minister did pay the postage.

He did not say so before.

Does the hon. member want to call the hon. the Minister a liar?

When did he say so.

If the hon. member wants to call the hon. the Minister a liar, I am prepared to ask for a Select Committee to investigate the matter.

He has only said so now.

The hon. the Minister says that he paid the postage.

When?

It does not matter when; he says that he paid the postage. I do not know why that hon. member is always engaged in muckraking. Why he does it, heaven alone knows. He is always burrowing in the mud and he takes the greatest pleasure in it. This is the kind of speech he makes and this is the kind of question he asks. It seems to me as if he is unable to emerge from the sewer. I have never yet seen an hon. member on that side of the House behaving like he does. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. Of course, this has been the case as of old and perhaps we shall never be able to reform him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you to lift the protection you gave to hon. members opposite, to enable them to argue with me by way of interjections.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

I am glad the hon. the Leader of the House got up and said a few words, because the hon. member for Orange Grove behaves just like a barbel does in winter. He lives under the mud. He came along and spoilt a completely decent debate on a decent subject with only one purpose, and that is to tell the Press that they must tell the public that our Ministers are taking advantage of the powers they have and are avoiding payment of postage by using stationery they are not entitled to use. By doing so he wants to create the impression that there is actually corruption among our people and our Ministers. I can tell him now that if he were as honourable a person as one of our Ministers’ chauffeurs, he would not have been sitting there; he would have been in the higher echelons of his party. I object most strongly to the fact that he is continually making personal attacks on the integrity of our people on this side of the House. The hon. member, as a man of “Kruithoring” fame …

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to make a reflection on the integrity of an hon. member as he did just now?

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the words “if he were as honourable a person as one of our Ministers’ chauffeurs …”

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I am withdrawing, but I shall withdraw it in any case because I should like to proceed with my speech.

Order!

I still think it reprehensible of the hon. member to have referred to it. The other day the hon. member referred to a horned caterpillar. He should rather have spoken about the “Kruithoring”, of which he was the horn, but which later got rid of him. At that time he used the same methods to cast suspicion on other people and to make a personal attack on them instead of talking about the matter that was really at issue. I want to leave this subject at that, because I do not have much time left.

You want to go into the woods!

I want to associate myself with the plea made here by the hon. member for South Coast when he mentioned a pertinent aspect of the timber industry in this House. Without reply to this, I want to say that the request made by the hon. member is a fair one except for the fact that the producers have been granted majority representation on the board that has been appointed and to which all of us have given our approval. The fact that this is so, is a clear indication that this board, which is already functioning, is going to function in the interests of the producer and that the adjustment in prices will rather originate on the part of the producer. For that purpose the department and that board, too, will be able to have access to the books of the private companies in order to determine the way in which they calculate their prices. It will therefore be possible to make a calculation from the point of the producer down the line to the final purchaser, excluding those purchasers who are abroad. But I want to make haste to say that I support wholeheartedly the hon. member for South Coast in his plea for the producer to acquire what he wants.

In recent times something has happened to which I would like to refer, namely the large contract concluded by the co-operative timber centre with a Japanese company for the delivery of chips to the amount of about R4,5 million per annum for ten years. In other words, R44 million to R45 million is involved in this matter. This contract has already been concluded and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the negotiators of this contract, quite a number of whom are on the list. There is the Department of Forestry, the hon. the Minister personally, the Central Timber Co-operative Society and its affiliated companies—i.e. the Union Bark Milling Company—the Natal Agricultural Co-operative Society and the Transvaal Wattle Co-operative Society. They have now negotiated a price and a market which must necessarily result in an expansion of the internal market for timber products by at least 30%. I do not want to say a great deal about the price, but now we have a problem: We probably agree with the present chairman, Mr. Van Breda, and with Mr. Craig Anderson, who played a very prominent role in the negotiations, that we should ask the Department of Forestry not to penalize us under the Forestry Act but to allow us to plant wattle trees whether or not surveys have been made, for the sake of this contract and its execution. We as a country are now bound by this co-operative society and with the approval of this department to execute our contract, and therefore it will be necessary for us to plant a substantial number of wattle-bark trees to be able to meet the requirements of that contract. Hon. members will notice that I do not mention the reason why this is so, but for the information of the House and for the record the position is that the Water Act and the Forestry Act are so closely linked that forestry is not allowed to be practised for commercial purposes in those areas which have been proclaimed critical water catchment areas, unless there is a permit from the Department of Forestry in respect of new land. Old forests may be re-established—and it is perhaps necessary for this to be said—so that the people who had black wattle on certain parts of their farms and later planted different crops there, are, according to my interpretation of the Act, apparently entitled again to put that land under trees with a view to the execution of this contract. Now the profitability of the forestry industry has changed virtually overnight because there is a difference between the price abroad we were able to negotiate and the domestic price of about R2 per ton. This will mean that the domestic purchasers of timber, whether round timber, mining timber or whatever it may be, will now have to pay that R2 more in order to get hold of timber. If they do not do so they will have to accept the substitutes for wattle timber and that is not easily obtainable because wattle is known for various characteristics other wood does not possess. For example, it is a hard wood and the tree is a fast grower which, within six to seven years, can be used for timber purposes in most practices in which it is utilized, such as in mining, and so forth. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear with us and allow our farmers to plant more trees to enable them to execute their contracts. I just want to refer to the fact that this contract is perhaps a major breakthrough for South Africa. There are many other countries in the world which export wood chips to Japan, but a Japanese firm is to build a cargo ship for this project of ours which will be the largest of its kind in the world, and it will be built specially to transport these wood chips from South Africa. An option has already been obtained on a site at Cato Ridge to erect a factory for this chipping, a factory which will be completed within the next two years. This factory will cost abour R4 million and will probably offer employment opportunities to many hundreds of non-Whites and also to many Whites. It is therefore essential that we should not apply the terms of the Act too strictly with regard to the issuing of permits, but that at least those people in the areas which are not critical water catchment areas be given permits to plant trees more freely, more easily, and more quickly. My calculation is that if a person should start planting wattle trees this season, for example in August or September—because in the initial stage the trees are sensitive to frost—then those trees would be suitable for chipping and ready for the market by 1976, even though it will not be possible for its bark to be used. However, the wood will in any event be a paying proposition without the bark. We also want to thank the Department and the hon. the Minister for everything they have done and for the negotiation of a higher wattle bark price for the wattle farmers. I can assure the House that this means a big substantial saving in currency for the Republic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Leader of the House that the first time we heard of this matter of the circular being sent out and that the hon. the Minister paid the postage was now when the hon. the Minister was sitting in his chair and was asked by the Minister of Transport whether he in fact had done so. I think it is an indiscretion and that it is unwise for the hon. the Minister to use departmental stationery for a purpose of this nature. I would welcome something, perhaps a directive from the Minister of Transport, that this sort of thing should not happen. I think it is unwise and that it does not do the reputation of this Parliament or of the Government or the Ministers any good …

We are discussing forestry, Bill. Leave that matter alone now.

Yes, I want to stop with it by saying that it is a question of Caesar’s wife who had to be above suspicion. I would certainly welcome an attitude like that on the part of the hon. the Minister of Transport that this sort of thing should not happen again. I think it was unwise of the hon. the Minister and I hope it does not happen again.

I would like to say a few words on the question of the Green Heritage, something which was raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I think it is vitally important that the people of South Africa should realize and that it should be brought pertinently to their attention what a beautiful country this is. Where it is possible for us to move as we do so often in the continuous consciousness of beauty, people should be encouraged to go and to move out into these areas to see what a really beautiful country this is. I welcome very much indeed the year of the Green Heritage which is designed to do this. I realize, of course, that when they are looking for beautiful places in South Africa to celebrate this Green Heritage they have to come to the constituency of Mooi River. This is obvious. The hon. the Minister is going there next week to Highmoor to declare a large area of my constituency a forestry, or a reserve area.

A wilderness area.

Yes, a wilderness area. My constituency is now becoming a wilderness. This is a terrifying thought. I welcome this and I hope that in the course of the development of these wilderness areas we will never lose sight of the idea of the trail which is used in the United States to such a great extent where huts where people can simply go into the wilderness with a pack on their backs and get right away from the motor traffic and be able to get miles and miles away spiritually as well as physically from the cities of our country, to go fishing and so on, in these areas as an additional incentive. I think it is important for our people that this sort of facility should be provided and that they can get away into nature as often as they possibly can.

It is a civilized concept.

It is a mighty civilized concept and a very civilized constituency at Mooi River.

I come now to the question raised by the hon. member for Vryheid with regard to afforestation permits. As I mentioned yesterday, the Umgeni River flows through my constituency, and here a blanket prohibition has been placed on afforestation by the hon. the Minister’s department.

It is not permanent.

No, it is by permit. No one may have a forest area on his farm without a permit. I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention something for which we have been battling for many years, and which we have achieved in the last couple of years. I want to put it to him that low interest loans are made available to people who wish to have forests on portions of their farms. Several people have asked me about this, people who have made application to the Minister’s department. These applications have simply been allowed to hang fire. Nothing has come about where people have applied for loans in this way to enable them to afforest odd corners of their farms. This is something which the Minister himself and the South African Timber Growers’ Association have regarded as of the utmost importance. In order to achieve the maximum possible development of afforested areas and plantation areas in South Africa, the private grower, the small grower, the farmer who has about 100 acres or 30 on his farm which he is not utilizing to the maximum possible extent, is encouraged to plant trees there with a loan from the department. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give the most urgent consideration to the determination of exactly where in the Umgeni Valley he is going to allow afforestation to take place. It has become a very serious matter, indeed, with farmers in that area. The hon. member for Vryheid was quite right when he said that this has become a matter of some urgency for the farmers to get this time cycle going. We have ten years during which the Japanese market is going to absorb a considerable portion of our wattle timber. It is estimated by the department that, at the end of ten years, that amount of timber will be absorbed into our local industry. I asked the hon. the Minister and his department some time ago to try and establish what kind of situation we were moving into.

With the establishment of the Forestry Council, I think we have come to a watershed in the relationships between the various groups of people who are interested in the timber industry. The Council has extensive powers. I believe that one of the first points they will be asked to settle, will be the one raised by the hon. member for South Coast, namely the question of the price of timber. I would like to put it to the hon. the Minister that we would like to see the forest industry regarded as one integrated industry, one in which all the sectors are tied together. By “all sectors”, I mean the Department of Forestry, the large growers who are also users, who have today a separate organization from that of the small growers, who form the South African Timber Growers’ Association. Those three spheres of interest should be tied together under the control of this Council. Somewhere or other there should be a place where consultation and direct negotiation can take place with the Bantu governments, who are going to emerge as a very important factor in the timber industry in South Africa. At this moment, the Forestry Department plant for the Bantu governments, and administer those areas; but sooner or later, control is going to pass over into the hands of those governments themselves. If we are simply going to let those areas of timber fall out of our purview, I think it is going to have a very serious and deleterious effect on the interests of our own private growers, and not only our private growers particularly, but of the timber industry as a whole in South Africa. I would like to suggest that the price-fixing should be on the basis of one price for all the sectors of the industry. I am certain the Minister and his department have bound themselves to be party to any price-fixing negotiations which may take place. The department, as well as the large growers who are using their own product and are obviously charging a price in accordance with that of the final product which they are selling, whether it be paper, sawn timber, or whatever it may be, should also be included in these negotiations. If we can achieve a common price for all those users, I think we are going to be able to get to the point I want to get to, the one raised by the hon. member for South Coast in passing, namely the protection of the interests of the small private grower by fixing a price which is calculated to give him a reasonable return on the capital sum he has invested, the care and the effort he has to put into bringing that plantation from the initial planting right through to the place where it is marketed. That is the concern of the hon. the Minister, because he has gone out of his way to make loans available to people who will come into the Forest industry. In other words, they are being induced to do so. Sir, the private grower must know that when his timber comes to maturity, he will receive a price which will enable him to make ends meet, which will be remunerative, and which will make it worth his while to have been in the industry over all the years that he has been growing this timber. In other words, the price should be based on the basic product, the timber itself. The question of the role of private enterprise was raised by an hon. member on this side. I think I am correct in saying that today the price is fixed at the retail end. If, however, you are to fix a price and you start at the grower’s end, then you can be quite sure that the normal forces of supply and demand will work their way through and make sure that at the retail end the price is kept as low as possible, by reason of the competition from the various sectors in the industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River dealt with this matter as a gentleman should. As a matter of fact, his actions are always those of a gentleman. But I cannot accept his reprimand. The hon. member said that it was an indiscretion on the part of the Minister to use departmental stationery for the purpose he did use it. Sir, this was actually a conference and the matters dealt with at that conference were matters for which the Government is responsible. I should like to give the hon. member a few illustrations. These were some of the points raised—

These are matters falling directly under the hon. the Minister’s department. I can mention four points raised—

These are matters actually affected by Government policy and Government action.

May I ask a question? Would it not have been better if that had been addressed to all people, rather than to Nationalists in the Minister’s constituency? That was my argument.

Sir, when you hold a party congress you do not invite all the people; you invite members of your party to that conference. This was a conference in the constituency and members of the National Party were invited to this particular conference to deal with these matters for which the Government is responsible. I am quite prepared to accept that if a Minister is guilty of any serious indiscretion, it is the right and the duty of hon. members to raise the matter, but to raise these piffling matters, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has done, is simply a waste of the time of the House. To give you an instance, Mr. Chairman, I was responsible for hon. members being given the privilege of free air trips to their constituencies during the sessions and during the recess, but I have never asked them whether they use this privilege only for official purposes. They are quite at liberty to use these facilities for private purposes too; they travel free of charge on my aeroplanes and I have never queried that in the least. I have never queried the practice of hon. members using official parliamentary stationery to write private letters. Now why should this type of thing be raised? It merely gives Parliament and hon. members a bad name. I fully agree that it would be entirely wrong if a Minister sent out thousands of circulars, as the hon. member suggested, to all his constituents in regard to an election, but in this particular case I do not think it was an indiscretion. The hon. the Minister paid the postage and he had the fullest right, as I have already said, to use official stationery for this particular purpose, just as hon. members have that right. As I say, I do not think it is in the interests of Parliament and in the interests of the House for this type of thing to be raised here by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

May I ask the hon. the Minister how many of these circulars were sent out; whether he knows how much was actually paid, and whether any resolutions were sent to that conference dealing with matters outside Water Affairs and Forestry?

I have just given an indication of the type of resolutions that were dealt with there. There were resolutions dealing with different departments for which different Ministers are responsible. You could not ask every Minister responsible for a particular matter to attend that conference. In regard to the amount of postage that was paid, the hon. the Minister will be able to give that information to the House. But apart from that, Sir, this type of thing should not be raised here. I have been in this House for a very long time, for almost 30 years. We used to have a member named Marwick in this House in the old days. He was that type of member, too; he was always muckraking; he always had his nose in the sewer.

It is a question of principle here.

It is not a question of principle. It would also be a question of principle then if that hon. member used a plane, as he is entitled to do, to go to his constituency for private purposes. If we want to take this to its logical conclusion, then we will have to delve very deeply into all these matters, and I do not think it is right and advisable to do things like that.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to state very briefly that I think that the hon. member for Orange Grove owes the hon. the Minister an apology …

And the country.

Because he is not prepared to offer the Minister an apology, I want to state that although this debate was opened on a high note by the hon. member for Humansdorp in this year of our Green Heritage, that hon. member has dragged the debate into the mud. Sir, his remarks were completely out of place in this debate and were completely discordant. I regard his conduct as bad, petty and indeed ridiculous. I think it is even more lamentable that a front bencher on that side of the House should make use of the cheapest kind of politicking imaginable to try to scavenge in this debate. I reject it and we on this side of the House reject it.

Sir, I want to come back to the debate on forestry, and as a result of what the hon. member for South Coast said, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we feel that the fact that things are going so well with the industry as such, at present, is attributable to the dynamic way he has managed this department in recent years. We are referring to the Japanese contract, to which the hon. member for Vryheid also referred, in terms of which we are going to sell 250 000 tons of chip per year over a ten year period, which is going to affold us foreign exchange amounting to about R40 million. Sir, our bark industry is today certainly in a better position than it has ever been before. It is so profitable and the price level is also such that I do not think there is a single producer who is not completely satisfied with the present state of affairs. This year we shall also be in a position to export about 270 000 tons at this price level. In addition, Sir, we have this new legislation, as the hon. member for South Coast said, which is going to give our producers and manufacturers the necessary bargaining power so that we shall eventually also be able to maintain a satisfactory price level. However, Sir, I should like to point out something else, i.e. this idea that we are heading for a timber shortage and the general statement that by the end of this century we shall have to produce three times as much as we are producing at present. In this connection I refer to an article in the Sunday Times of November last year, in which it is stated—

In addition they state—

If that is so, I believe the State, the senior partner in this scheme—and in this connection I am also referring to the report which is before us from the department for the year 1971-’72, page 7, which states that it was established that the available land owned by the State was sufficient for further afforestation at the rate of 7 000 ha a year for a period of no more than five years, and that steps should be taken in good time to acquire additional afforestable land. Now I think that since this is the case, and since in this connection we also have to relinquish large areas to the Bantu homelands—I am thinking in this connection of the Swazi homeland near the Eastern Transvaal—the department must, as quickly as possible, try to purchase available land that can be utilized for this purpose. They must try to intensify and speed up this process because it is in the country’s interests. Our sources time are becoming limited, and I think we must act as quickly as possible.

When we come to the year of our Green Heritage, the opportunity to enrich and adorn the country through the efforts of man himself, we find it to be something to which we can indeed make a positive contribution if we think of those beautiful man-made afforested areas of our country which we already have. It is indeed with pride that we then view that. Along the summit route at Sabie and on the road to the north at the Zoutpansberg mountains, we indeed find out green heritage. While moving along in this spirit, I think that we, as the State, should also make an effort worth following. This strikes me sometimes when I see State organizations, like Escom, the Post Office and the Road Adminisrations, at times recklessly exterminating some of our beautiful forests and trees just to put up telephone or high tension wires. I feel it is our task to make the officials, who are entrusted with that work people who do not feel things in that way, so aware of this aspect and to educate them to such an extent that they do feel these things and carry out this work with the minimum of recklessness.

In conclusion I just want to mention the fact, which I have already quoted, that large portions of our country are now being used for Bantu homelands. Parts of those areas are very suitable for afforestation. I should like us, the authorities, also to bring that idea home to those Bantu authorities who are going to occupy those areas and make use of them so that they can also be used profitably and productively for afforestation and not for any other purpose.

I want to come back to the Vote, but before I do that I want to say that I regret that the hon. the Leader of the House came into this debate for the second time just now. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to what had taken place as an indiscretion. I think it would have been well if the matter had been allowed to rest at that point. But the hon. the Leader of the House came back into the debate and I have done my best to get him back here now so that I can reply to him. I do not know where he is. I got up as soon as he sat down and I hoped that he would assume that I was going to speak, as I am doing now.

The position seems to me to be this, that what we are concerned with really is whether those letters were stamped or not; not the actual use of the letterheads to any great extent, although that is a factor. The issue to my mind is whether the letters were stamped or not. I have here yesterday’s Hansard of the hon. member for Orange Grove when he twice asked that question, and so far as the Hansard report is concerned, there was no reply to it. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, in reply to a question when the hon. the Leader of the House first spoke and turned to him and asked him whether he put stamps on those letters, said that he did put stamps on them. I let that matter rest there for a moment.

When the hon. the Leader of the House spoke a second time he went on to point out that what was debated at that gathering which was held were matters of public concern. It is true that the invitations sent out were only to members of a particular political party. However, he said they were matters affecting the constituency, were of public concern, and so forth, and that the hon. the Minister whose department sent out those letters dealt with matters which were of public concern. If that is the case, then why were the letters stamped? The hon. the Leader of the House cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that those letters were of public concern and then accept the position that they were stamped. If they were of public concern, why were they stamped? Does the hon. the Minister’s department stamp letters which he sends out as being of public concern? No.

I think it is an indiscretion. I think it was indiscreet. Perhaps the matter can rest there. As the hon. the Leader of the House himself said, when matters of this kind are raised we must deal with them without heat, without rancour. We draw attention to them—here are the facts. The question remains unanswered as to why those letters were stamped, letters which were of public importance and were dealing normally with the work of the constituency.

I want now to come back to the Vote. The hon. member for Vryheid referred to the export of wattle chips. This is something of great importance for South Africa, as the hon. member has pointed out. It is very important indeed. At the present time we in the wattle industry are operating under a quota for our bark and on the face of it one may say that normally we would have wattle available for timber purposes, whether as props or chips or any other purpose like firewood and so forth. Wattle timber is merely what is produced after we have stripped the wattle for the purpose of obtaining the bark. That timber is available. Timber growers do not cut down wattle trees, strip those trees and throw the bark away so that they may get the timber. The timber is what comes after you have taken the bark in terms of your quota. The amount of timber coming onto the market is therefore likely to be limited.

Recently, a few weeks ago and in connection with another matter, the thought struck me that for the purpose of the export trade and without harming the growers of black wattle, it may well be the case—I believe it is called “mearnsii” today —that the so-called silver or golden wattle could be cut, the wood could be stripped and chipped and taken for export purposes. That wood, so far as I know, from the point of view of the chips itself, carries a lower percentage of tannin than the black wattle wood and to that extent therefore it might be of greater value to the Japanese who import those chips because it is to dispose of a lesser quantity of tannin. I may add that we had discussions with the Japanese representatives who visited South Africa some time ago. Be it as it may, I think this is a matter which bears investigation.

The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is whether this might not be a good opportunity for us to make another effort to get rid of the green wattle, the silver wattle, the golden wattle, or call them what you like. I know all about the Latin names, but I do not want to deal with that aspect. This particular plant grows under three different names in different places. It is a weed, it is a nuisance, it has been introduced into the berg areas, and in some places, unfortunately, it served a very valuable purpose because it is easy firewood. It will grow where the ordinary black wattle will not grow and it is available as firewood, but it tends to grow along the water courses. It is, in fact, a weed over many thousands of acres. I am sorry that I cannot go to the opening of the wilderness area on the 18th of this month, which will be done by the hon. the Minister.

You have been invited.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the invitation, but I have received the invitation only today after making inquiries. I would very much like to have been there, but I unfortunately had to turn it down only this morning, since it is not possible for me to be there. That area is an area where we find scattered growth of this silver wattle. If we can put this tree to an economic use, we might take the opportunity, when cutting those trees down, to prevent regrowth. Unfortunately it does come up very easily from its own seed and has become a real problem in some places. It is spread over many, many thousands of acres, but if we can turn it to economic use and if we can prevent regrowth, we shall have scored both ways.

I want to deal with the question of natural forests. An hon. member on that side of the House has already referred to the question of cutting roads through the natural forests. We have so little natural forests in South Africa that there are times when one almost feels like weeping when one sees the plans which are being made and which include the elimination of natural forests, either because somebody wants to put a road through it, or a pipeline, a high-tension cable or something or other. It has been said that a vacant space on the map is a perpetual temptation to the planner. I am afraid that that is very often the case. When you do not have to pay expropriation fees, the people who do the planning think: “Well, that is a good place; I will put my railway, national road, telephone wires, my oil pipeline, or what would you, there.” I believe that the hon. the Minister has this matter very closely at heart, and I want to say that quite frankly. I believe that where he can use his influence to save our natural forests, it should be done. Forests are not simply trees and vegetation growing there, but are a habitat for a vast number of living animals, birds and insects of all kinds, these are all animals in terms of natural history. The forests form the natural habitat of these creatures. I have natural bush on my farm and I have never had bagworm in my wattle in my life. I keep that 50 acres of natural forest there, and that is the finest guarantee I have that I will not get snout beetle for my eucalyptus, bagworm for my wattles, and a variety of other pests. That is the case because the bird-life finds its natural habitat in those natural forests. Those birds are the finest safeguards I have against the spread of these winged pests which otherwise would have been doing the farming activities on my farm countless harm.

It is like the case where the question of good health arises. How much is good health worth to you? The answer is that you do not know until you get bad health and when you have to start paying the chemist and the doctor. That is when you find out what the cost of bad health is. We do not always realize what the value of good health is, and we do not know what the value of these areas are to us, until we lose them and then we find the trouble that flows as a result of that loss. I do make a special plea for the salvation, where it is at all possible, of these natural areas. They should be properly controlled, and here I want to pay a tribute to the hon. the Minister and his department for the way in which they have associated themselves with the conservation of the Natal Parks Board and the work of nature, water and forest conservation in the Drakensberg area. We are working hand in hand with the staff of the hon. the Minister and we are prepared to follow any of the rules and principles which he lays down for water and nature conservation up in the berg, particularly in the high berg. Therefore we wish him the best of luck at Highmoor on the 18th of this month. I want to say that we go along entirely with him and we will assist and co-operate with him as far as we can. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to link up with what the hon. member for Humansdorp said by congratulating the hon. the Minister and the members of his department on the idea of our Green Heritage Year which they have introduced for this year. I do want to focus attention on the fact that without its jacarandas Pretoria would no longer be Pretoria. Stellenbosch without its oaks would no longer be Stellenbosch to us. This indicates to us the important position that trees occupy in our country and the significance which the Year of our Green Heritage attaches to those areas of our country which are rich in trees and forests. Actually, a poet once said: “Poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree.” Here, indeed, we have a heritage which has not been established for us by the hand of man, but which has been created by Providence. And yet Providence must make use of people to preserve for us so valuable a heritage. In the history books we consult, we find that since the days of Jan van Riebeeck this heritage has savagely been wiped out; so much so that with the coming of Simon van der Stel, around Table Mountain there were hardly any more trees to be found for those early inhabitants of our fatherland. With the colonization of the interior, the destruction of our forests continued, first at Riviersonderend, later at Swellendam, at Knysna, George and the Tsitsikamma area and eventually at Plettenberg Bay where history tells us that the most beautiful stinkwood forests once grew. Today it has become nothing but a maize field as a result of human intervention. Captain Harrison, an early traveller in that area, could rightly say that those once beautiful stinkwood forests had to make way for maize fields which have really marred the beauty of that area. This wasteful exploitation took place until the first scientifically trained officer was appointed as superintendent of woods and forests in 1880. It is since those days that our green heritage has been preserved after a fashion.

In spite of the fine developments which we encounter in so many areas and which are emphasized, in particular, by the hon. the Minister and his department these days, we find that forests are frequently devastated by injudicious planning on the part of local authorities. The hon. member for Ermelo has also pointed this out. I have been told that in Europe roads are built around trees, but our roads go over the trees and every tree simply has to make way for our road-building system and our township developments. So frequently one finds trees simply being knocked down by bulldozers to make way for a concrete giant. In the cases mentioned, this vandalism can be traced back to a lack of appreciation for what Providence has given to the Republic, i.e. our lovely trees. It certainly requires no effort to observe, alongside our roads, how our most beautiful indigenous trees are simply being destroyed by a spirit of vandalism. I am struck by the fact that our children, whom I am so fond of, frequently grow up in their homes with that spirit of vandalism. I want to ask whether this Year of our Green Heritage has not developed into an exceptional opportunity, which must remain to educate our school children and to make our growing youth, Whites and non-Whites, aware of this heritage which we have not created for ourselves, but which was put there by our forefathers. I want to focus attention on the contrasting appearance we frequently find between school grounds and prison grounds. While one can find the loveliest of gardens and trees in prison grounds, school grounds have become bare and barren pieces of ground. They are bare pieces of ground to make room for football fields, tennis courts and hockey fields, while trees are absent. The question is whether the lack of trees and gardens in our school grounds do not create an opportunity to cultivate, in our youth, a new appreciation for our forests and trees. Here I am thinking, in particular, of what is being done in Somerset East by the Voortrekker Commando. They received a piece of barren land with deep dongas from the municipality and today that piece of land has been planted with some of the most beautiful indigenous trees, for example olive trees, white stinkwood trees, Camdeboo stinkwood trees and yellowwood trees. Those little Voortrekkers are being taught, as children, to extend and develop a love for the indigenous trees which are unique to the Republic and which, in many cases, are found nowhere else in the world. I say again that this feeling must be cultivated in both Whites and non-Whites. I feel that in this respect the hon. the Minister and the department have already reached great heights, but we still have a tremendous amount of fallow veld to plough and cultivate, i.e. the veld of our youth, the most precious veld to cultivate in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, the functions of the Department of Forestry include, inter alia, the protection of mountain catchment areas. The mountain catchment areas comprise about the largest area under the control of the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry controls more than 1½ million ha of land of which 819 847 ha, or approximately 54,2% comprise mountain catchment areas. South Africa’s more spectacular mountain scenery, indigenous forests, mountain and forest streams, and some of the most beautiful waterfalls in their natural surroundings, are to be found within these mountain catchment areas. One only has to look at some of the illustrations in this report of the Department of Forestry to form an idea of the beautiful scenery to be found in those areas. This beautiful landscape has only been accessible to the citizens of South Africa in exceptional circumstances and usually they have been members of organizations such as the South African Mountaineering Club. In terms of an amendment to the Forest Act, the Minister, on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council, may set aside a State forestry area as a wilderness area for the protection of the forest and scenery, and he may also throw it open to be used by responsible South African citizens for open-air recreation. Indigenous forests in South Africa comprise approximately 9,94% only of the total area under the control of the Department of Forestry, and for that reason I should very much like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for South Coast, namely that this is a unique heritage which we must under all circumstances try to protect for posterity. There are quite a number of such areas which are ideally suited to being thrown open to the public as wilderness areas. For example, there is the Cedarberg mountain range. I do not know whether the Cedarberg mountain range falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry, but, if not, I feel that it should. I know that in the past the Department of Forestry rendered assistance there in connection with the planting of our cedar trees which had virtually died out, and if we do not protect them, they will quite probably disappear. One calls to mind areas such as the Drakensberg catchment area, the beautiful Knysna forests and the other forests in that area such as the Tsitsikamma forest, the Harkerville forest, etc. I have also been informed that the Department of Forestry is working in close collaboration with the Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape Province and that they may shortly declare an area at the Keurbooms River, which is under the protection of the Department of Nature Conservation, together with the Outeniqua mountains, a wilderness area. I should be very interested if the Minister could tell us which areas he has in mind in this connection and which areas have already been proclaimed wilderness areas.

The protection of our indigenous forests has always been very close to my heart. Over the weekend I read in the newspapers that the Garden Route was being threatened by a six-lane freeway between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth which would cut across that area. This freeway is now being planned through the Wilderness area and will cut across river mouths, where bridges will have to be built. It will pass through the beautiful Lake District which we as fishermen and boating enthusiasts love so much. According to all indications, it is going to pass through some of our most exceptional natural forests, forests such as the Garden of Eden, the Harkerville Forest, etc. The Harkerville Forest has virtually acquired international fame as a result of the few Knysna elephants which are still protected there. The Wild Life Association of South Africa has determined that there are only about 10 elephants left; previously there were 11, but Aftand was shot some time ago. A court case arose from that occurrence. If the freeway with a width of about 100 metres or more, with bridges, fly-over bridges, etc., were to cut through this Harkerville Forest area, I am convinced that it would mean the end of these few remaining Knysna elephants. I, in company with many South Africans, feel that this Harkerville Forest should be declared a wilderness area, that this whole area of approximately 5 000 morgen extending from the present national road to the sea, should be proclaimed a wilderness area, and should even be fenced in order to protect those elephants. We know that there are only about three cows among those few elephants, of which only one, apparently, is fertile and she bears a calf only at rare intervals, and these calves, as a result of one factor or another, are prone to die. In other words, that small herd of elephants will really be threatened by total extinction if we do not take drastic steps to protect them. Such a freeway through that area will also expose them to poachers or people who would like to add an elephant to their trophies. I should like to see the Minister employing all the power at his disposal to prevent this freeway from cutting through that area. Not only I but the other members on this side of the House and many other South Africans would really appreciate it if he could use his influence to cause that freeway to be replanned to run through the Langkloof or another area, thereby allowing that narrow strip of natural forest between the Outeniqua mountains and the sea, to remain undamaged.

There is another area such as this which falls under the control of the Department of Forestry, namely Devils’ Peak, surrounded by Cape Town; Table Mountain with Lion’s Head and Devil’s Peak are symbolic of South Africa and they are our pride. At present, I must say, Table Mountain and Devil’s Peak are nothing for us to be proud of. When one looks at the moth-eaten appearance of Devil’s Peak, with sections of pine forests which have been felled and sections which have been burnt down, it is really something about which we ought to feel ashamed. I feel that this very year is the ideal time, during this Green Heritage campaign, to avail ourselves of the opportunity of making thousands of indigenous trees available to the Voortrekker movement, to the Boy Scouts and the various schools for planting on those bare slopes of Devil’s Peak. I am thinking in terms of trees such as our wild olive trees, the serie or wild sage, the yellowwood trees, the white stinkwood and other trees which graced the slopes of Table Mountain and Devil’s Peak in earlier times. I am sure that the whole of South Africa would regard it as a fine action on the part of the Department of Forestry if we were to avail ourselves of this unique opportunity for this purpose. If this were to be done, Table Mountain with Devil’s Peak and Lion’s Head could again become a showpiece of South Africa and of its unique vegetation. But, Sir, there is another threat, and that is that green terrorist of our mountains, the hakea plague. I wonder whether the Minister and his department have given further attention to the valuable research work being done by Dr. S. Neser at Wemmershoek in an attempt to combat this hakea plague biologically. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my 96-year-old father informs me that my grandfather always said: “He who does not plant a tree, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, because he is not making a contribution to the conservation of nature, which is part of Creation.” I largely want to endorse this. I also want to endorse what was said by speakers on this side of the House and by speakers on the opposite of the House, like the hon. member for Benoni. I must, however, regretfully say that I cannot endorse the standpoint of, inter alia, the hon. member for Orange Grove, because all he did was to wreck a fine and good debate. Sir, they have a problem, i.e. that they know as well as I do what phenomenal progress has been made in forestry in our country in the past four years. The present hon. Minister is responsible for that, because he took the initiative in this connection. We have in mind here the determination of priority areas; we have in mind here the fact that the industry is being steered in certain directions to make it more effective; we think of the liaison there is at present between the various branches of the industry; we think of the fact that with this better organization, administration and systematic planning by the department, it will perhaps not be necessary for us to import so much timber.

Sir, unfortunately there are still people today who have an antipathy to the planting of forests, it does not matter where in South Africa, because this would supposedly take too much water. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to simply overlook this; we shall continue as we are doing. In considering the water lost through trees by evaporation, I think there are other methods whereby we could save water. I have in mind the building of dams; I am thinking of better methods of irrigation; I am thinking of the fact that we should perhaps consider replacing screw-type taps with push-type taps, because thousands of gallons of water at present flow away without having been used.

Sir, I also want to lodge a plea with the Minister for the better utilization of timber in South Africa. In the saw-mill industry we find that only 51% of the timber is reclaimed and that nearly 49% of that timber finds its way into combusion apparatus, for the purpose of generating power through steam. I think it has become necessary to give attention to the greater utilization of electric power. Then there are the other branches of the industry where at least another 10% is lost as reject timber. These are practices that we must combat because there is so great a demand for timber in South Africa. Study and research could profitably be done on the better employment of reject timber so that that scrap wood or reject timber can be employed to better advantage for pulping, which we have a tremendous shortage of.

Sir, I also want to advocate that certain kinds of timber be made available in South Africa, for example the black iron wood. Although it is a very hard wood, I think that we should encourage the use of black iron wood, which is available in large quantities, so that this lovely wood can be processed. I am thinking of various places where wood has simply been destroyed completely. I have in mind Pterocarpus angolensis, particularly in South-West Africa. Then there is yellow-wood, the old, sturdy yellow-wood which was used by our forefathers and which is a beautiful, durable soft wood. I do not know whether research has already been carried out in connection with the planting and promotion of yellowwood forests, but I think that, if possible, we should develop this beautiful yellow-wood in our country and that we should make it available to the market. I am also thinking of the eucalyptus kinds. These eucalyptus kinds afford us the opportunity of overcoming the demand on our markets. There is, for example, eucalyptus saligna, which can be employed for mining struts. I also have in mind eucalyptus grandis, which can even be used for panels. I have in mind eucalyptus maculata, a hard kind, which is not such a lovely wood, but which is a good, durable wood. I am thinking of eucalyptus microcorys, a beautiful yellow saligna kind which can be used for school benches and similar purposes. I am also thinking of eucalyptus paniculata, another type of wood which is very suitable for panelwork and for furniture.

I want to conclude by sincerely congratulating the hon. the Minister and his department on the fine work that has been done. Since I last spoke in this debate in 1967, the forestry industry has undergone a complete metamorphosis. I want to ask the Minister and the department to continue with this very good work.

I am not quite sure that I agree with the hon. member for Hercules that the department has undergone such a radical transformation in the last couple of years. I think it is very much in the posture in which it has been for very many years. I think what has happened is that there has been very much closer co-operation between the department and other sectors of the timber industry. I think that is what is important. There has been a coming together of all timber interests in the country, and this is very much to be welcomed, and we welcome it from the point of view that it is the private grower who is going to be the person who will draw the ultimate and the maximum benefit from this kind of co-operation, because it has been the private growers, the people who are voters for all of us, who have been on the outside for many years in negotiations with large commercial interests, negotiations in which the Forestry Department has played a part. It is only now at this stage, under the present set-up of the Forestry Council, that all interests have been inspanned and that the private grower can look forward to a secure future as far as his own return from timber-growing is concerned, something which, of course, is of the utmost importance.

But it was the Minister who brought this about.

Sir, the Minister was the hand at the tiller, but then there is always an engine inside the boat that drives it along, and, of course, there are many other organizations, such as the South African Timber Growers’ Association and the Wattle Growers’ Union. I think all the interests concerned have played a part and the Minister has been the guiding hand that has brought about this very desirable relationship.

Sir, the hon. member for Hercules dealt very briefly with sawmills. I got a very interesting answer to a question that I asked in relation to our sawmills. One part of the question was this: What is the theoretical recovery rate of timber processed from round logs at State sawmills, and what is the actual recovery? Sir, it is an extraordinary thing that I think we ought to note with appreciation that where the theoretical recovery—in other words, the maximum amount that you can expect to recover from round logs at a sawmill—is of the order of 46%, the departmental sawmills over the past three years have recovered 51 %, 52% and 51,8%; so in fact we have got an extremely efficient utilization of the timber which is put into these sawmills; and of the roughly 50%, which goes to waste, which, as the hon. member for Hercules mentioned, is being burnt up as steam, about 20% is actually sold; so 50% is used as sawn timber, about 20% is sold for other timber products and about 30% —the bulk of it—is either burnt up for steam, which is a profitable utilization, or it has simply had to be abandoned as sawdust. I do think, therefore, that our sawmills have a pretty good recovery rate. I think that is something of which we can be very proud and with which we can be very pleased. Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent South Africa can expect, at the turn of the century to be self-sufficient in terms of timber production. This is obviously an industry which is going to become more and more important. Throughout the world the usage of timber products, particularly paper, is rising at a very, very fast rate indeed. It appears that this is one of the measures of civilization of a country; the more civilized you are, the more paper you use, and here I refer to writing paper, newsprint and all other forms of utilization of paper.

And the more pollution you create.

Well, Sir, paper does not create pollution. I think I am correct in saying that it is a bio-degradable substance, so the question of pollution does not come into the picture where paper products are concerned.

Sir, what I would like to know is what progress has been made with the delimitation of the areas which are suitable for forestry in South Africa. The answer which I had from the department in reply to a question indicated that areas which are now suitable and available for afforestation under the Minister’s control are something of the order of only 57 000 ha, which is a small area, Mr. Chairman. This cannot possibly meet the needs of this country in the next 27 years that we have to go before the end of this century. The Minister has under his control 1 892 000 ha of mountain catchment, which is not available for afforestation, so it is quite obvious that to a large extent recourse has to be had to the private sector to participate more actively in the timber industry. That is the reason why I raised the point earlier about the private loans and the urgent necessity now for establishing where ground is not only available but can actually be used for afforestation. I think it is very important indeed that we should get a delimitation of these areas and get people working on them.

Then I wish to return to the question of the price that I raised earlier, the question of where the price has to be fixed. I said earlier that eventually it would be the Minister. Whoever makes the recommendation, the hon. the Minister will have to be the person who has to say what timber of such and such a grade, whether it is pulp or sawn timber or whatever it is, will be priced at. That will be the price which will determine whether it will be economic for private growers to go into the timber industry. The hon. the Minister has in effect, committed himself already by saying to the private growers that he will give them an economic price at the time when they come to market because he has made loans available to these people. He, the Department of Forestry and we as the Government of South Africa, are committed completely to making sure that there will be an economic price for these people when they come to market. The point I want to know is this, and I asked the Department of Forestry itself, and they gave me an answer as to the prices which are fixed for sawn timber from State plantations, for pulp-wood from State plantations. I asked whether these figures had been subjected to cost analysis. In other words, is the department going to be on exactly the same basis as the private grower? Because the department, even a State sawmill, has to put that round timber in at a price. The answer to my question as far as saw-logs are concerned is that the following factors are taken into account in determining prices for sawlogs. Firstly, the percentage theoretical recovery of sawn timber. That is the figure of 50-odd per cent I mentioned just now. Secondly, the economic value of the various categories of sawn timber derived from the log—in other words whether it becomes boxes, shooks, structural timber or whatever it might happen to be. Thirdly, the manufacturing cost, the selling administrative cost, and, furthermore the profit margin and the cost of sawlog haulage. I really do not know how the Minister can determine a price which will cover all areas. Take for argument’s sake the plantation which exists in the constituency of the hon. member for South Coast. There is a State sawmill there and one other sawmill. If timber is going to be disposed of by tender to the other sawmill, then there is only one horse in the race, and that is the person tendering, the person on the spot. The State takes timber at a price determined by the department. I think the Minister will have to give very careful consideration to these various factors. Where you have people right next door to a State sawmill they will be in an extremely advantageous position. When you come to the question of pulp prices, there are various other factors such as railage which must be taken into consideration. I would welcome something from the hon. the Minister, he should tell us how he sees this working in the future so that you get one price which will cover all sectors— private growers and large growers who are themselves users and the State. How will this work out in practice? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Mooi River attempted to belittle the impact of what the other hon. members said about our dynamic Minister, but I am sure he did not succeed in that.

You must try to understand what I say.

The hon. member made a reference to the creation of a wilderness in his constituency. I now want to refer to the recent legislation passed by this Parliament, whereby the Western Caprivi is being ceded to the Bantu department under the control of the Bantu Trust. There are certain areas in the Western Caprivi—I am specially referring to the islands in the Okavongo, which would, in my opinion, be the most valuable areas for the establishment of such a wilderness. I ask that the department, as an agent of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, make such requests for the proclamation of those specific areas, which include the islands in the Okavongo, as areas to be preserved for posterity. I am referring to the descendants of the Bantu who will be in control of that area, but I also have in mind the descendants of the Whites, who will go there as tourists. Such areas will be of exceptional significance to all these people.

I want to express my appreciation about the news that has been released concerning the festival which will be held in Windhoek on 21st August this year in connection with the Year of our Green Heritage. I really hope that the department will also take part in the show at Windhoek which will take place at the beginning of September. I hope the department will again present there that lovely exhibit which it had at the Goodwood Show at the time, so that our people in South-West Africa can be shown what it means to share in the development and adornment of an area.

The Department of Forestry has a tremendous task in South-West Africa, and one of its biggest tasks is specifically to cultivate awareness in the public. The public must be made aware of nature conservation and the preservation of the indigenous flora of South-West Africa. The hon. members for Ermelo and South Coast mentioned, in a striking way, the role which State departments could play in the destruction of our lovely flora. The hon. member for South Coast spoke of the open spaces, covered by indigenous forests, which are sought out by planners. South-West Africa has semi-arid, arid and even desert areas, and the few trees that are, in fact, encountered there are really worth taking notice of. One finds, however, that when a road has to be built, or a telephone or electricity transmission lines have to be put up, they must specifically make straight for such a lovely camelthorn tree. In my estimation it is one of the most tragic of phenomena that a person must specifically pit the force of a bulldozer against that of so lovely a tree, which could easily have been growing there for more than 200 years, and which stands there as a creation of Providence.

In the course of a previous debate the hon. member for South Coast also referred to the fact that the Karoo is increasing in size to the east. There are signs in the Karoo that the flora of that area must, once upon a time, have grown lushly during a period of greater rainfall. At present, however, there are signs of stunted growth because climatic conditions have forced this upon the vegetation. There is, of course, proof of periods of climatic change. I am thinking, for example of South-West Africa. When the Kalahari sand occurred, there was a much drier period in Southern Africa’s history than we have in the Karoo at present. Although the present dry conditions prevail, we shall find the climate again changing in the course of time. This, of course, occurs periodically over periods of millions of years. This is a phenomenon we encounter over almost the entire area. The fact remains that we ought to apply ourselves more to the preservation and the protection of our present flora. If we were to do this, the desert conditions threatening the whole world would, in actual fact, not occur. It is generally known that 100 000 ha of land are annually added to desert areas throughout the world. This is specifically as a result of the activities of man. We must therefore accept that if we do not check mans’ activities, we shall have a situation in which we are going to have to relinquish more and more of the land surface from which we have to earn our bread and butter. It will become more and more difficult to make a living from that land. For that reason it is essential to ensure that the land surface is protected and that we counteract the threatening desert conditions. In South-West Africa we can only do this by giving the Department of Forestry more scope. I think that at present there are actually only four officials in South-West Africa, officials who concern themselves more, in actual fact, with the Bantu areas. I have already said that they act as agents within the Bantu areas and that they implement the principles of forestry along the Okavongo and in Ovamboland. They teach the Bantu there to do this.

I want to leave this argument at that. I nevertheless think that it is extremely essential that we should also do more within the White area and that we should establish some or other forestry activity in the White area of South-West Africa. The officials are, of course, also engaged in combating drift sand, an activity which is of great value, particularly in the vicinity of Walvis Bay. I believe that we have a dynamic Minister and that signs of life can already be detected in South-West Africa in this sphere. I hope that in future we shall be able to look forward to exceptional results in this territory.

There are no further matters that I actually want to mention. I have already mentioned what other hon. members have said and I have made my comments. I just want to ask that, in all respects, we should be more sympathetic, and that we should not level the criticism that we sometimes hear from the Opposition in connection with the activities of this department. If problems occur they are largely administrative problems. For that reason I appreciate the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast, because if he levels any criticism it is always constructive criticism. That is what is so valuable in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support the hon. member who has just sat down in his plea to protect indigenous trees. In the hon. member’s own area, all round the Etosha Pan, there are the beautiful dolfwood and the tamboti-forests that grow there, from which your own forebears, the Thirstland voortrekkers, made such beautiful furniture. It is very yeomanly on his part to try to protect the trees that are still left there.

There is a small item which I wish to raise also in connection with the preservation of indigenous trees. The Natal Agricultural Union has become perturbed at the possible destruction of indigenous trees that are still growing in the Thornveld and of the indigenous forests in Natal, both on State-owned and on private farms, which are to be excised from Europeans for the KwaZulu homeland. Many European farmers have preserved and protected these indigenous trees and shrubs growing on their farms for ages. The question now arises what will become of these species of flora once these areas become part of the KwaZulu homeland and Bantu peasants take over these farms? Will the Department of Bantu Affairs make some provision to protect this valuable plant life? It must be remembered that, when this take-over takes place, the Bantu will have no alternative source of fuel with which to cook their meals and heat their kayas during a cold spell. Will it not be possible to supply them with fuel, either wood or coal, during the takeover period until other arrangements can be made? Many of the peasants will probably not have bovine to provide them with age-old dung fuel patties. The President of the Natal Agricultural Union is particularly concerned about this matter and asked me to raise it with the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast raised the question of the profitability of all sections of the industry. The hon. member posed a few questions to me. In the first instance he wanted to know whether the present legislation will permit of the establishment of a profit margin to all sections of the industry. I think we are all agreed that the trouble which people in the industry had with each other was that through the years there was no certainty, especially with the small private grower, of a dependable price at all times. This led to the reconsideration of the whole situation which, in turn, eventually led to the establishment, in the first instance, of an advisory council—of course, the advisory council was established for many other reasons as well—and now of this Forestry Board. May I say that if we cannot get to the position where all sections of the industry would be guaranteed a tenable price, I believe that one of two things will happen, either there will be a breakdown on one of the spots, or we will find that one part of the industry will buy out the other part and we will have a total monopoly. I think we should do everything in our power to try to obviate this situation. In my deliberations with the Advisory Council, I prevailed upon them to draw up a formula as a result of which it would not be necessary for the Minister to sort of pin down a price on all the sections. I prevailed upon them to get the whole industry to come to a price amongst themselves; in other words, to get to the point where all sections of the industry will be represented at a round-table and will draw up their own formulae for themselves. There was the idea of the Minister at some juncture entering into the game and establishing a control board or something of that nature. We have always tried to keep from the idea of having control. What we want is to have the industry controlling itself, although it will be difficult.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does what the hon. the Minister has said now mean that he thinks that the processers could buy out the producers so that the processer will produce more of his own timber and that the producer as such will be out of the picture altogether, having been bought out by the processer?

No, what I say is that if we cannot guarantee a future for the small grower as well as a reasonable profit, the small grower will get out of the field. There will be a crash-down and somebody will buy him out because he will try to get out of the business. That is what we are trying to obviate. The policy will be to guarantee a stable price to every sector of the industry so as to provent such an eventuality. That will be the policy. I have great confidence that with the way we are trying to alleviate the position now and with the sort of confidence that is building up in the industry now and the fact that when this Advisory Council was asked an opinion on legislation there was only one abstention, that it will be a success. There was only one member who refused to co-operate. This fact gives me confidence for the future. In all my dealings with the industry I got the impression that they now all accept that we cannot keep on with what the hon. member started his argument off with, namely that the grower must have a residual price. The fact is that if we are always going to argue that instead of having a feasible price for all sections, the grower will always have to be satisfied with a residual price and I can therefore not see the small grower being very interested in the industry. That is the point I want to make.

My reply to the first question of the hon. member is therefore a definite “yes”; to his second question, namely whether the policy is that each section shall remain in the industry and be allowed to make a profit, my answer is also, “of course, yes”. If they do not make a profit, why should we try to keep them there? The third question was whether I agreed that sound and progressive extension could be maintained if the profit-factor was maintained. I would say “yes”. If we do not have a profit-factor there would not be an extension in the private grower’s sector of the planting of timber.

*I want to say in general, further to what I have just said …

Is the department also included in that profit motive?

On this point I want to say at once that I hope that hon. members accept that it is no easy task to lead an industry which has had no confidence among its members over the years to a point where together they can build a future for themselves. The view has always been that the Department of Forestry will not play a part as an important factor, or in any case, that the Department of Forestry will keep out of this. I want to say at once that the Department of Forestry always remains a factor in its deliberations; in fact, it must remain in the industry. The Department of Forestry cannot be an inhibiting factor in the industry For that reason it is precisely the Department of Forestry which is now, in the implementation of the Forest Act, collecting all the information in the first place in order to give a sound opinion. We now want to extend it by providing in the new legislation that we may compel the private sector to produce facts in regard to profits and costs. The Department of Forestry will in fact lend its assistance in seeing to it that a reasonable price is negotiated. In this way the Department of Forestry is proving that it means well and is trying to follow a policy of protection towards the small grower in particular.

†The hon. member for South Coast also referred to the export of wattle chips. The hon. member asked whether this would not be a good opportunity to get rid of our green wattle. Of course, the profit factor will be decisive. It would be a very good opportunity to sell the green wattle and to get rid of it in this way.

If they will accept it.

There is no question of their accepting it. The question is whether it will be profitable to accumulate the green wattle over an extensive area and to send it to the coast. I cannot say anything about it. I cannot give an opinion, because I do not know.

What is this “green wattle”?

It is a kind of tree!

The hon. member also put in a plea for protecting as much as possible of the natural forests. The hon. gentleman referred to one of his own indigenous forests. I believe I saw that forest when I was with him on his farm.

*Of course, this is one of the aims of the Forest Act and one of the aims of the campaign we are having this year in which we are trying to imbue people with a love for nature, to instil the idea of conservation into the thoughts of all our people. This is what we are striving for. This is why we are proclaiming wilderness areas. This is why we are trying to extend the area under our control. By means of all these things we are trying to protect the natural forests of South Africa. I must say that it is difficult, when we do not have control over such a forest, to find the money to purchase it. But I think we shall agree that we have come to a stage where it is just as important to vote money for the specific purpose of purchasing natural forests as it is to vote money for other purposes. I think we have just as much right to this.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the Green Heritage campaign and he spoke very well on the subject. I want to tell the hon. member that the gratifying thing about this campaign is that it is assuming such proportions. I may say that this is not a year devoted to trees; it is a campaign which is being started this year and which we hope will continue in the future. It is assuming proportions which are surpassing all expectations. I could keep the House occupied for a very long time, but there is not enough time, I believe, to explain properly the extent of the campaign. But there is almost no sector in any part of South Africa which is not participating in this campaign with enthusiasm and with great zeal and interest, beginning with the young people. Primary and high schools and colleges in all provinces have comprehensive programmes for participation extending over a year. Most of the schools have included in their syllabi for the year study and recreational programmes in this regard. Most of the schools are organizing their own campaigns and events. Participation is taking place in so many ways. More than 100 schools in South Africa are going to produce a special operetta, for example, which was composed for the occasion. We already know of more than 100 schools that are going to do this. There may be many more. Both the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural sector are participating on a tremendous scale. Agricultural unions are impressing it upon their own people. Farmers’ days are being organized. Even at this stage it is possible for us to perceive the demand the Department of Forestry is experiencing from our farmers for trees to be used for wind-breaks and for purposes of decoration in general and for trees they want to plant in order to supply their own labourers with fire-wood. We also see the interest that exists on the part of the Institute of Landscape Architects to assist in beautifying farms. Then there is the activity which was initiated by the State President’s invitation to the farmers of South Africa to beautify their farms, and there is great interest in the prize he has offered for the winner. We are getting the co-operation of local governments all over South Africa. May I just mention here that one of the local governments in Johannesburg alone is so enthusiastic—I must say that this is where the rich people live—that they have decided that they are going to make their township the most beautiful in Southern Africa, if not in the world. Sir, they are prepared to spend R2 million just on beautifying the area. They have already guaranteed the money. I am referring to Sandton.

Sir, then I want to refer to various government departments that are co-operating on a very large scale. I am referring, inter alia, to the Department of Transport, which is co-operating wonderfully so that we may also beautify our roads. In this regard I may mention the highway from Jan Smuts to the north, for example. I may just mention, too, that the Press is co-operating wonderfully, for which we are very grateful. I believe that all parties are making a contribution of which we may be proud. I hope that this will be a guarantee that once the Green Heritage programme has commenced, we shall not be able to get it out of our system. I believe that the programme will continue, whatever we may do hereafter, and this is in fact the intention. The central idea is to make South Africa more beautiful and to open up to our people our mountain areas, to which one of the hon. members here has referred. We have in our mountain areas thousands of square kilometres of the most beautiful areas in South Africa, and they are being opened up to be used by our people in a proper and responsible way. At the end of this week we are going to open up, inter alia, the first long forest trail in South Africa—120 km long—where it will be possible to spend one’s holidays on a forest trail on the Transvaal escarpment, with overnight accommodation provided by the department. All these things together mean that we are giving back the nature of South Africa to our own people, particularly to our young people. I want to say here that if we can succeed in getting our young people in South Africa to take an interest in nature, we shall not have nearly so much trouble with them in the urban areas as we have today. So I want to tell the hon. member that it is a programme in which everyone is participating, for which we are very grateful, and I believe that this will prove to be a wonderful year, and after this wonderful year the programme will continue in any case and never come to an end.

Sir the hon. member also referred here to the remaining natural forests and to the possibility of their being purchased by the State. I think the time will come when we as the Government shall have to protect some of our beautiful natural forests in South Africa by purchasing them. Sir, you may be interested to know that up in the north, in my own constituency, there is an area which has seen very little development because of its inaccessibility. In fact, I do not know of many people who have ever been there, but it is an extremely beautiful area on top of the Soutpansberg mountain range. The possibility exists that we may be able to develop one of our wonderful nature reserves there for the future, and just as it applies there, as it applies in Natal, as it applies in the Western Province, it applies, in fact, all over South Africa. We should, in other words, preserve our entire green heritage and we should see to it in time that it is not destroyed by our people, who can be rather uncivilized in certain respects, when it comes to the destruction of trees.

Then I was asked whether the department was consulted by the Department of Transport in connection with the route of the freeway. Yes, my department was consulted. There are three routes, and these three routes we have tabulated, seen from our point of view, in order of merit, from attractive to less attractive. We told the Department of Transport which of the three routes would be the most preferable from our point of view. We told them what our order of choice was. This matter is still being negotiated. Further negotiations have taken place recently in regard to this matter. I do not think it will be finalized soon, but the important point I want to make is that both the Department of Forestry and the Department of Transport are going into the matter. I do not think the Department of Transport would just take a decision in this connection without having regard to other people’s opinion as well. We have given them our own opinion, and I am satisfied that the best decision will be taken in this regard.

The hon. member for Vryheid referred to a contract for exporting timber chips. The hon. member referred to the fact that as a result of this contract it may now be necessary to plant more timber. Now I want to tell the hon. member this: If it concerns wattle we have to be very careful. This contract we have for exporting chips is really for off-cuts. It is really for those parts that cannot be used and which we are utilizing in this way. I must honestly say that as far as I am concerned, I believe that it is a wonderful breakthrough, but we must not overplay our hand. In terms of the Forest Act we are presently conducting a survey and compiling the statistics which it is compulsory to give us, in terms of which we shall now be able to make projections, so that we shall know exactly how much we have and how much will be available for sale in ten years’ time. You know, Sir, our reserves are so large that we must take care that we do not plant timber and lose our reserves in the meantime. The beauty of this whole contract is that we fulfil the contract with off-cuts, with timber that would normally have been lost. I should say that if we were to grow timber for such purposes, we would have an even greater demand for land in the future, to be afforested, and rather than afforesting that land to produce export timber for the contract, we should rather use it for planting a better kind of timber we can use for other purposes. In other words, the deciding factor is the amount of land. So I want to tell the hon. member: We must plant trees: the only trouble is the purpose for which we are to plant them.

The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the wilderness areas.

†The hon. member referred to these wilderness areas and to the availability of facilities, and he urged upon me that we should make available more of these areas and provide more facilities for staying over.

For going there on foot.

Yes, I hope we shall see more forest trails. We have already made provision for the one I have referred to, but I hope that we shall be able to create, in the Western Province, at least one long forest trail; and probably, with the help of the hon. gentleman, we shall decide on a long forest trail for Natal.

*The hon. member also referred to the loans to growers. I have the figure here I must tell the hon. member that in a certain sense I am not satisfied with the progress either. We made provision some time ago for encouraging the small grower.

†The idea was to attract the small planter, the woord-lot planter, to marignal land. We wanted to attract people to do planting on marginal areas by providing loans. I am afraid the applications for loans are not coming forward as I expected and I am a little worried about it. On the other hand I am told that the procedure for finalizing those loans leaves much to be desired.

*I want to tell you, Sir, that I shall look into this. I do not know whether there is misunderstanding between the people and whether the formula is wrong, but I believe that we should look into this. I must tell you that this is not administered by the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry has a need, and another department which undertakes the administration of all the loans in the country is doing it for us as well. I do not know whether we understand each other, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall look into the matter and if there is a snag we shall try to eliminate it.

The hon. member also referred to forestry as an integrated industry. What the hon. member says is true. We have tried to guide the industry in that direction and I hope that forestry will in fact be a well-integrated industry in the future. In a certain sense it is, of course, an integrated industry, because the one buys from the other. As far as dependence on each other is concerned, we are integrated, but as far as our organization is concerned, as far as our co-operation is concerned, forestry is not such a very well-integrated industry. However, all the indications are there that we shall make progress in that direction, and I want to express the hope that we shall succeed, through the Forestry Advisory Council, in guiding matters along those lines.

The hon. member also mentioned th: we must come to an agreement in goo time with the final authorities to be established for the Bantu homeland areas in regard to the utilization of timber. This should happen, of course, and I believe that it will happen. In fact, the various departments are in contact with one another The hon. member probably knows that the Department of Forestry is already acting as the agent of the homelands as far as the planting and utilization of timber in the homelands are concerned. What I believe the hon. member to mean, and I agree with him, is that we should try to develop timber production in the homelands to its full potential. We should try to guide them and encourage them to reach that level, also with a view to augmenting our own supplies.

I think it was the hon. member for South Coast who asked me how much timber I thought we were going to have by the end of the century. That is a very difficult question to answer. All I can tell him is that we shall not have nearly enough. The advantage we have at the moment is being able to make these projections by means of prognosis studies is that we know even now how the demand will increase, which sectors will need the timber and what kinds of timber will be required. We can also make projections of how fast the timber will have to be produced. Projections of this kind are valuable of course. It seems to me that we shall not have enough timber. I agree that we shall have to purchase more land in the meantime, and with that I come to the hon. member for Ermelo.

The hon. member for Ermelo spoke of the available land. I agree with the hon. member that as far as our available land in South Africa is concerned, we shall have to plan very carefully for the future. We have gone into the inter-departmental committee’s assessment of our situation with a view to finding an answer to the question of where we should produce our future timber in South Africa. I pointed out last year that this was not a problem which could be solved overnight. No person who has the task of drawing up a map of the country’s future development can do so within a day or two. This Committee is continuing its activities and we already have an indication of where we shall be able to produce a considerably larger amount of timber in the future. The intention is to concentrate South Africa’s timber production in those areas, to give priority to the afforestation of those areas and to purchase land there as well. I want to say at this stage that we have come to an agreement with the Treasury that a considerably larger amount will be voted for land purchases in the future. I think I can say that we shall probably get an additional R1 million a year for purchasing land for afforestation in the future. We simply have to do this. So it will happen and I believe that it may prove to be inadequqte. I agree with the hon. member and I share his concern as to whether we should not perhaps be purchasing land even now, before the price of land is so high that we may be producing cheap timber on expensive land. The hon. member has a valid point and he is quite right in his view that we should start buying now and not wait until later. This matter is being considered and I can give him the assurance that considerable progress will be made in this regard in the year to come, precisely because the Treasury appreciates our problem and will make the necessary money available.

The hon. member also referred to the injudicious destruction of trees when it comes to the construction of roads or powerlines or whatever. I must say that even when the Department of Water Affairs takes action, you always have to discuss the matter with the engineers. The position simply is that you always have to reason with this kind of person. However, I believe that the stricter control which the Department of Forestry is exercising in regard to the destruction of trees is gradually showing results.

The hon. member for Somerset East asked that we should, this year in particular, instil a love for trees in school-children and that we should improve the school grounds by planting more trees. This is what is happening. I may tell the hon. member that if it is as great a success everywhere as it is among the school-children of South Africa, the Green Heritage Year will come to be a wonderful year.

The hon. member for Benoni spoke in connection with mountain catchment areas. He said that these should now be set aside for utilization. He referred specifically to the Cederberg mountain range and the Wilderness area. Where is the hon. member?

He is answering a telephone call.

That was quick thinking!

The other hon. members on that side of the House can tell the hon. member what I had to say here in reply to his questions. The Cederberg mountain range will be proclaimed a wilderness area on 27th June, when a big function is being held there. As the hon. member for South Coast will know, the Drakensberg area is to be proclaimed a wilderness area in two weeks’ time. The hon. member was actually referring to Devil’s Peak. He referred in particular to the many forest fires. Let me tell him at once that it will not be any use for anyone to say that if we were to plant this or that kind of tree there would not be fires in the area. It is not a question of the vegetation on the mountain; it is a question of what is done by the people who live around the mountain.

I can tell hon. members that this is precisely our difficulty. Mountain fires are becoming a terrifying phenomenon. It is one of the ugly features of our community. In 1968-’69 there were no fewer than 426 fires in the Cape Peninsula. The next year there were 577 fires. The year after there were 266 fires, the year after that there were 236 fires and so far this year there have been 94 fires. Can hon. members imagine how many fires occur here? I think there are two things we have to do. In the first place we have to proceed, as we are in fact doing, to appoint not one but hundreds and thousands of people if necessary as honorary forest officers. They have to be appointed in terms of the Act and have to be vested with authority. They have to be able to help to be on the look-out for arson and they have to be able to apprehend people wherever they encounter them. That is the one step we shall take. The second step we shall have to take is to prohibit open fires.

I now want to avail myself of this opportunity to announce that, before this debate commenced, I had already issued instructions to the effect that in times of fire hazard—hon. members will know that this is more or less six months of the year and, as hon. members know, it normally has to be declared so that during the period of protection no one may light fires there—there should be a prohibition on any open fire. This has been done in consequence of all these fires we have had and it applies to the time of year. In other words, these areas will not be declared closed areas for the lighting of fires every now and again; it will be done permanently for a certain time of the year. I also think that we shall have to proceed to do the following: We shall have to establish many more formal open places for the public. It is no use prohibiting people from making open fires if one does not establish other amenities, for then they light fires surreptitiously and in that way they may be the cause of tremendous fires.

We shall, in other words, now have to proceed to establish as many controlled places as possible for the public; we shall have to beautify these so that people will drive to these places and light their fires there in a proper manner, instead of doing so surreptitiously and in that way setting fire to the mountain-side. This will now be done. We have also obtained the co-operation of students to help in the matter of patrolling. We have obtained the cooperation of the divisional council, the municipality and other organzations which will carry out patrolling duties on a large scale. I think that we shall bring this entire matter under control. If one considers the figures in regard to the number of fires, one sees that the curve is dropping sharply. I hope that we shall be able to succeed in limiting it to a minimum.

The hon. member for Hercules said that we should also be careful in regard to the prohibition on the planting of trees in order to conserve water. The hon. member mentioned a few examples of ways in which a person could conserve water. I can understand the sentiments of the hon. member, and I want to thank him for the observations he made. I want to tell him what we have done. When we come to the so-called critical catchment areas, such as the Umgeni River, on which the whole of Durban and its environs are dependent, we shall be careful and maintain control there. I also want to tell the hon. member that the golden word in this life is the word “balance”. No one should run away with the wrong idea and take it to extremes. We could make precisely the same mistake in this direction, and for that reason I thank the hon. member for his observations. The hon. member also told me that we should have better utilization of timber in this country.

Sir, are you aware of the extent to which we are wasting this commodity? It is true. The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the percentage of waste. If you consider what is being made of wood, and how the techniques have developed, you will see that in a timber mill today all the off-cuts are being compressed and reclaimed to make an excellent door or other items. The standard of the reclamation technique is tremendously high, but the willingness on the part of our people to save wood is tremendously low. I agree that we have terrible wastage. Almost 50% of everything created in nature and growing there goes to waste. As a result of the reclamation we now have, we are going to sell timber products to the value of R40 million, products manufactured from castoff timber. This is an example of what can happen in this country if we try to apply reclamation. In addition, it is so easy to do this. I think that there are far too many incinerators in this country. We should have fewer incinerators and a greater effort to change our waste into useful products. There are at the present moment a large number of companies that are engaged in this. I think that the road ahead lies open to us in this direction, and that the hon. member was correct in this respect.

The hon. member also referred to ironwood. There is a great deal of ironwood; we have a few million cubic feet of iron-wood in the Southern Cape. The same applies to dolfwood in South-West Africa. Then, too, there are so many fine timber varieties which are noble timber; some of them occur in small quantities only, such as the red-bush stumps which are used for firewood, while others occur in large quantities, such as the ironwood in Knysna, but no one wants it because no one wants to work with a hard timber. In this spectrum as well there are great possibilities. We are also trying to have these varieties reclaimed. I believe that, with all the efforts we are making, this could happen, and I want to tell hon. members—I do not want to spend too much time discussing this— that it is interesting to see what wonderful veneer is being made from the beautiful timber which we normally use as firewood, timber which is ideal for this purpose.

As far as yellowwood is concerned, we are trying to improve our yellowwood stands in the natural complexes. Yellowwood has to grow in its own micro climate; it has to grow among the other trees. As soon as one establishes yellowwood in a plantation it refuses to grow. It grows only among other trees. That is why we have to maintain the stands in our natural forests. In regard to eucalyptus as well I agree that we have many uses for this kind of timber.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Etosha also referred to our green heritage and to the position in South-West Africa. I want to inform him, since he referred to this matter, that we have four officials there. How can we maintain more people in that part of our country? We do have to keep them occupied. We commenced activities in South-West Africa only a short while ago. The Department of Forestry does not only plant trees, it does many other things as well; it has nurseries; it reclaims drift sand; and it protects areas. Our task in regard to protection is an enormous one. I have already stated on a previous occasion that in South-West Africa we have, for example, felled tambootie trees. I once made a calculation myself and found that we had felled ten million tambootie trees in South-West Africa to supply three million pit props to the mines at Tsumeb. One must prevent this. We are today trying to protect mountain seringa, tambootie trees and so on. In other words, it is a major task to carry out this conservation work in that territory. Even though that territory sometimes appears to be very extensive, very arid and very dry, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are natural forests it is our duty to protect and look after them.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City was perturbed at the destruction of some of our indigenous trees. He should know that it is possible to protect trees officially and that we are doing our best to assist in this protection and should the hon. member come forward with any suggestions, I would always be very glad to listen to them.

*That covers more or less everything; I think I have now replied to all the questions. I want to thank hon. members for their participation and contributions to the debate, and I want to give the assurance that the good and loyal officials of the Department of Forestry are going out of their way to achieve the objects of the department, and will go out of their way this year, too, to contribute their share as well as the department’s share to making a success of our Green Heritage campaign.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 14.—“Foreign Affairs” (contd.):

Mr. Chairman, I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in this House when I express our pleasure and gratitude because of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been able to resume his seat in this Committee today. We are pleased that he has recovered to this extent and we wish him the best of health in the future. I think we may also make mention of the brilliant way in which the hon. the Minister gave this Committee a survey last week of the burning issues in world politics; it was a very brilliant survey indeed, and it is to that survey that I should like to link my speech today.

I think today the world is passing through one of the most difficult stages in its development since the Middle Ages. In the field of economics, uncertainty prevails, and we find today that the richest countries in the world are struggling to survive and to combat inflation. We find that some of the poorest countries of the world have virtually no future in the economic climate prevailing today. When we look at the political situation, the picture is far darker even than that. When one casts one’s mind’s eye over the recent events in Vietnam, Cambodia, the ever-growing crisis in the Middle East, Bangla Desh, the events at Munich, the terrorism throughout the world and the growing number of coup d’états in Africa, in which in one state alone, namely Burundi, more than 80 000 people died within two months, according to figures furnished by the country itself to the U.N. and more than half a million were subjected to the most extreme suffering and misery, then one comes to the conclusion that after the U.N.’s 25 years existence a licentiousness exists in warfare and in murder of which even the barbaric peoples of the Dark Ages would have been ashamed.

Never before has humanity been subjected to so much chaos and misery in times of peace. Never before has so much responsibility rested on the shoulders of those countries which still have a sense of values and which must take the lead in these times of crisis. Never before has there been a greater challenge to the free countries of the world to produce leaders of world class, purposeful and fearless leaders. In this sick world situation, which is manifesting itself today in the more deeply rooted social problems such as licentiousness, permissiveness, false freedoms, a reckless disregard of human life and cruelty which have broken out like measles throughout the world, South Africa, as one of the few countries which can still judge rationally and objectively, will have to be prepared and ready to accept ever greater responsibilities, particularly in respect of development and leadership on this continent of Africa, of which we today irrevocably form a part. But South Africa will not only have to be prepared to establish through its conduct, a confidence and a new sense of values and a new level of standards for others, but will also have to be prepared to make material contributions at an unprecedented rate and on an unprecedented scale to initiate economic processes in Africa which will virtually give a new face, a new facet, to Africa. This year something has happened which has given South Africa that golden opportunity. I want to refer to reports which appeared this week, for example, the one in Die Burger under the heading (translation) “Millions of people in the stranglehold of drought in Africa” and another (translation) “Hunger threatens millions in Africa”, and so one may continue. In French-speaking West Africa 20 million people are being threatened today, namely in Chad, Mali. Mauritania. Niger, Senegal and Upper Volta. In Chad not only have all rivers dried up, but even the Chad Lake is drying up. In Mauritania millions of head of cattle have died and there is a growing fear that all livestock will die within the next few months. This is a tremendous problem. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the U.N. has already sent a team of observers there. So far they have been unable to draw up an overall plan. This, today, is a question facing, and demanding attention from, not only the rest of the world, but also South Africa, which belongs to this continent. The American Nobel prize winner, Norman Dorlaug, has already appealed for the establishment of a world fodder bank in order to combat this problem. I can quote various authorities to illustrate the serious nature of the matter.

Now we know that in the past South Africa has already rendered unequalled service and has had unequalled achievements in respect of emergency aid in Africa and elsewhere. We are also aware of her assistance in respect of technical and scientific co-operation, the combating of human and stock diseases, extension and training of manpower, the creation of an infrastructure for economic development and trade in Africa. But this year she will be called upon to render an unselfish service and she will have to prove her favourable disposition and sincerity. There are, of course, those in Africa who will accept the aid and the dialogue which is associated with that, with open arms; but there are, of course, also those who will choose, as happened at the recent Oslo conference, to continue sending terrorists to South Africa and not to avail themselves of our aid, those whose hate for South Africa is greater than their love for that which is their own. To them we can only say that South Africa has two hands. She has a left hand which wants to give and it will always remain open to give aid where there is need. In this respect South Africa will fulfil her responsibility. But to those who continue to muster terrorists against South Africa with the object of destroying us we want to say that we have another hand, a fist which will pitilessly and relentlessly defend that which we have in South Africa. That fist will resolutely repulse any attack on South Africa. Let it be known in the world today that South Africa has never had any aggressive aims, but that she will defend to the death that which rightfully belongs to her. Let it be known in the world that South Africa is inspired with a fierce determination to defend herself, to defend her land and her freedom at all costs, with a willpower unequalled in this world. We shall sacrifice everything to the preservation of our country; not because we are driven by weak, a selfish motives of profit, but because we believe that we have a calling to fulfil and because we enter the future motivated and with faith.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I would like to welcome the hon. the Minister back. We hope that he is sound and well again.

Only two sessions ago, the concept of an outward policy, of contact with Africa and the term “dialogue” were on everybody’s lips in this House. For the first time since the present Government took office, we felt that we had at last become an “Africa State”. Now, here we are, two sessions later and the question is, where do we stand? Two weeks ago the Prime Minister gave an account of his stewardship to Parliament and he was silent on the vital question of our international relations. Last week the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke here for almost an hour and told us about some of the setbacks that we had suffered. Sir, yesterday we received Dr. Kurt Waldheim’s latest report to the Security Council on his negotiations with the Government over the problem of South-West Africa; and I am sorry to say that, looking at the overall picture of our international position it is far from encouraging for us. Some of our oldest allies —Australia, and to a degree also New Zealand—have now completely lost their patience with us. Major Western countries are still refusing to supply us with arms. The hon. the Minister conceded that Madagascar’s break with us last year was a setback. Botswana, one of our neighbouring states, has, as far as we can see, conspicuously drifted away from us. Strategically and politically this country is of special importance to us. It was one of the first Black states, or rather non-racial states, who after independence offered to establish friendly political ties with South Africa. Almost six years have elapsed since Sir Seretse Khama, president of Botswana, made it clear, in 1967, that Botswana would exchange diplomatic representatives with South Africa provided “the Botswana was accorded in South Africa the same treatment the South African would receive in Botswana”; and he added—

Hon. members will remember that on this side of the House we encouraged the Government to draw Botswana closer to us, and I remember pointing out at the time to the hon. the Minster that a new country is always most sensitive about being admitted to the older political society immediately after the act of independence. But the Government chose to rely on what was called diplomatic contact by telephone, and the position now is, as I see it, that Botswana has solidly joined the Dar-es-Salaam-Lusaka axis.

With Lesotho our relations seem to have turned even more sour. No exchange of any representatives has so far taken place, and the Prime Minister of Lesotho has not only personally expressed support for to quote him, “the liberation movements in Africa”, but recently his representative at the United Nations supported the admission of guerrilla representatives to the Trusteeship Committee as observers. Sir, I would like to know what the hon. the Minister has to say, but I sincerely doubt if all this has much to do with the uncertain political conditions within the country itself. Several issues seem to lie at the root of our present unsatisfactory relations. It seems to me that the failure of our two countries to come to a satisfactory arrangement about the price of water eventually to be delivered to South Africa, and the future of the so-called “Conquered Territory” in the Free State, which has become a matter of political prestige to the Prime Minister of Lesotho and his party, and also dissatisfaction over what is called the treatment of Basothos in our country, lie at the root of our present relations and difficulties with Lesotho. Sir, I am not so foolish as to believe that all the right is on the other side; far from it. Today’s Government could certainly not be blamed for what happened a century ago. But, there is one problem which belongs to our own time and for which the Government of the day will have to find the answer. We are faced with the position that, in the long run, no Black State will remain firendly, or could even be expected to remain friendly, if its visiting citizens are not treated on a par in our country with the visiting citizens of every non-Black State. Without a doubt this is one of the most crucial problems which faces us. Apart from that I can only say that it would be serious indeed if our relations with a country like Lesotho were to fall to the point where it was prepared to give support or protection to terrorist movements aimed against us.

On every side we are faced with increased activity of an unwelcome nature. Government spokesmen have told us that attacks against our country are gaining momentum and that the terrorist forces are now better armed, more efficient and more widely supported than before. Recently I read a book by Field-Marshal Montgomery and another by the late Mr. Adlai Stevenson. Both men, as we know, were in close contact with leaders and statesmen all over the world. Both books were published more than a decade ago. I found it very significant that both men predicted that the outside world would turn its attention to Africa at about the time we are entering now. It seems that with the war in Vietnam more or less over, as far as some of the major powers are concerned, this is precisely what is beginning to happen now. The battle for Southern Africa seems to have begun in earnest; and as far as we in the Republic are concerned, the attack is clearly directed at our most vulnerable spot, namely South-West Africa.

I have made as regularly as possible, a study of the proceedings at U.N. as they affect South Africa and our administration of South-West Africa, but I have looked even more intently at the scene since the Government opened direct negotiations with the U.N. and since Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher came into our lives. One thing is certain—that there is little for our comfort in the latest developments.

Firstly, the question of South-West Africa is now firmly in the hands of the Security Council which is the strong arm of the U.N. It is the one organ of the U.N. which may order the use of force. Last year the Security Council met for a series of 13 meetings in Addis Ababa. This was the first occasion in its 26-year history that the council had met away from its headquarters in New York, i.e. in Africa, which illustates the preoccupation of the Security Council with Africa affairs. There it occupied itself with four items, and two of these were South-West Africa, and Apartheid in South Africa. In the Security Council the Soviet Union now blatantly advocates the use of collective action to force a settlement of the South-West Africa issue. The Soviet Union too has committed itself to material support for the terrorist movements in Africa.

As far as ambassador Escher is concerned, his report has been accepted both by Dr. Waldheim and the Security Council as categorical proof that the majority of the inhabitants of South-West Africa favour the withdrawal of South Africa from the Territory and want South-West Africa as a whole to become a united, independent state. In fact, Dr. Escher’s findings are looked upon as an unofficial plebiscite, and every action is now based on this assumption. Finally, after years of futile effort by the U.N. Council for Namibia, as it is called there, to get one or more of the big powers to serve on it and to participate in its activities, both China and the Soviet Union have recently jumped on the bandwagon and it is now a matter of prestige to be associated with this council. The membership of the council was recently enlarged to 18, including two of the five super-powers of the world, namely China and the Soviet Union. A further significant development is that this U.N. Council for Namibia now virtually acts as a provisional government for South-West Africa, issuing travel documents on its behalf, operating a fund for the Territory and representing South-West Africa at international congresses. All this evidence is available. It is contained, among others, in part II of the White Paper on the Proceedings of the United Nations as they affect South Africa and which the hon. the Minister tabled here the week before last. This is the one side, the United Nations’ side of the picture. I believe it is important that the public should be made aware of how the situation is developing.

*There is, of course, a second side of the picture, which is of just as much, if not more, importance to us. I refer here to the attitude of the Government. There is one matter on which there cannot be any doubt in the mind of any person in this House, and this is that, irrespective of any strategic considerations, South-West Africa occupies a very special place in the history of the United Party. There is not enough time to elaborate on that, but it is a fact that nothing would have given us—and now I can only speak about us on this side— more satisfaction than that it should have been possible for South-West Africa to have become, finally and irrevocably, a part of South Africa. I believe that these are the feelings of the vast majority of South Africans. However, our people are not unaware of what is going on in the world. Over the past 10 years all our old allies in Europe—such as England, France, Holland, Belgium and others—were forced by circumstances to make painful adjustments in respect of the non-metropolitan areas that were under their control. It would have been a miracle if we, who are also controlling a territory which falls outside our sovereignty, had escaped from the demands of the times. It seems as though we are rapidly approaching the point where certain painful decisions on South-West are awaiting us too.

Last year, in Windhoek, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be perfectly frank with the population, and especially with our own people in South-West. This is an appeal which we on this side should like to endorse in full. All reasonable people realize that the South-West affair may develop into South Africa’s most difficult problem. Because it deals with South-West, there will be no lack of sympathy with whoever is charged with the matter. However, there is one thing which nobody will forgive the Government. We expect the Government to refrain from playing party-politics with the populations of South-West and the Republic and rather to be perfectly frank with them, and to tell them as unambiguously as possible where it is heading with South-West, what the people of South-West are to expect, and what they are to prepare themselves for.

Over the past number of years the Government’s policy on South-West has undergone several important modifications. On an earlier occasion already the Government frankly admitted that South-West Africa was a territory with “a separate international status”. Subsequent to that it entered into open negotiations with the U.N. on the future of the territory. It has already committed itself to the principle of “self-determination and independence”. Self-determination and independence are always mentioned together and in one and the same breath, and the one does not occur without the other. After November of last year the Secretary-General of the U.N. asked the Government to provide more clarity in respect of the meaning attached by it to the concept of self-determination and independence. We now have before us Dr. Waldheim’s latest report, dated 30th April of this year, which was published only a week ago. I do not want to read out more than I have to, but for the purposes of the record I just want to indicate certain main features of the replies furnished by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Dr. Waldheim. Dr. Waldheim said the following in his report—

I.e. 30th April—

Here I just want to say in passing to the hon. the Minister that in a further part of his reply it is stated that “freedom of political activity” is promised to everybody in the Territory. In view of this there is a great deal of confusion about the arrest of three Opposition leaders of the Ovambo people. I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could enlighten us on that score, having regard to the undertaking given here. One of the men who was arrested, is Mr. Nangutuuala, a person who had interviews with both Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher. This report goes on to say—

In this regard there are just two points that I want to quote. Firstly—

And, secondly—

Here the singular is used—

The singular again—

The last paragraph which I have read out here is of paramount importance to us. Here we are in actual fact dealing with the creation of what we usually call “a target date”. I do not want to criticize, but I am merely mentioning a fact in saying that our experience has been that whenever a target date was set in situations of this nature it immediately had an effect on the internal population of the country. In such a case the pressure is increased to have that target date advanced. This happened to Britain in Ghana, and to Belgium in the Congo. It is interesting to note that a target date of approximately ten years is being set here, and that according to this statement the Government is of the opinion that by that time the population of the territory as a whole may be ready or may have reached this stage—

There is an interesting annexure to the report, and this deals with task which the Government set the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council. I must say that I am most pleased to see that to judge by the way the activities of the advisory council are set out in this annexure, the way its future role is viewed, it seems to me as though this council is going to play a much more important role as a round-table for the population groups in South-West than we originally thought. I also find it interesting that in the annexure on the advisory council reference is made to the various “regions”—not homelands, but “regions”. The names of the various “regions” represented on the council are given: Damaraland, Owambo, Kavango, Eastern Caprivi, Bushmanland, Hereroland and Tswanaland. But there is no “region” which is indicated as White. The Coloureds and the Whites are referred to as the “Coloured Population Group” and the “White Population Group”. I understand, of course, and I think every member in this House understands it, that the moment that one comes to the question of South-West Africa, one is dealing with a delicate matter. I am also prepared to accept that the Government will want to retain a certain degree of freedom of action; that we all understand. At the same time we must realize, however, that all of us, here in the Republic and also in South-West, are going to be affected most profoundly by the Government’s action in regard to the Territory and also by the way in which it is going to take the matter further in the future. That is why we ask that our people, especially the people of South-West, should be told with a greater measure of frankness what political future they may expect, without any unnecessary play of words. There is no doubt whatever that there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty amongst the population of South-West Africa, especially the White population. I think it is in the interests of the people there, and of the development of the Territory, that the Government should display a greater measure of frankness in regard to what is in store for them. The more they know about the road ahead, the more they will know about the political future which is being envisaged for the Territory—it need not underestimate the people of South-West—the easier it will be for them to prepare themselves. We must remember that they themselves also read all these things and are frequently fed conflicting interpretations—this is not the fault of the hon. the Minister, but the result of party-politics in the Territory. I do not think it is fair for that uncertainty to be allowed to continue.

We on this side have always insisted very strongly that constitutional arrangements be effected in South-West Africa, arrangements which will prevent there being any domination by the one over the other. We have always accepted the multi-national character, the fact that there are various “peoples” in South-West Africa, and have always appreciated the necessity that, no matter what arrangement may be made there in the future, it should be done in such a manner that the one does not dominate the other, and that South-West should be rendered safe for diversity. We believe, of course, and this was stated very clearly by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that this can best be achieved through a federal arrangment, internally, in South-West Africa. We ourselves are greatly impressed by the fact that most population groups in South-West are indeed thinking along these lines and that they have expressed opinions on the matter. In the memorandums submitted to Dr. Escher and also to Dr. Waldheim it becomes quite obvious that the population groups, in their efforts to ensure that the one will not be dominated by the other, are thinking of an internal federation. The Government has certain recognized powers, and the future will depend on how it is going to use those powers. We believe that the most sensible thing which the Government could do would be to create now, while it has the time and while it has the power, and order within South-West Africa in which all population groups will take part, and which will be visible to people instead of matters being left in an abstract form, where there are arguments about concepts and where confusion arises. We believe that if a visible order could be created now, an order which people can see and in which they can take part, and if the time should then arrive to which this Government has committed itself, for there to be an “Act of self-determination” and for a decision having to be taken by the population groups of South-West on their future, irrespective of how this may eventually be worked out, they would then not have to deal with abstract concepts. I must honestly say— and I think hon. members opposite agree with me—that the ultimate solution to the South-West problem does not lie with us, but indeed with the decision of the people themselves of all the population groups living there. If we could create an order now, in the time we still have now, an order which they can see before their eyes, I am convinced that when the time arrives for them to take that decision, and if they do not have to vote on an abstract concept … we may in fact hope and expect and have the confidence in those circumstances that the decision which they will take, will be a decision which all of us will be able to welcome.

Mr. Chairman, under the present circumstances I do not think anything could be more prejudicial to the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa, and nothing could be more prejudicial to the prospect of an objective consideration of Dr. Waldheim’s report by the Security Council, than extended political debate in this House on the merits and details of the policy of one party as opposed to that of another party. It is not quite clear to me why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose and gave out so piously that we should not attempt to make political capital at one another’s expense in this debate, but then deliberately proceeded to represent certain aspects of the policy of this Government in South-West Africa and aspects of its negotiations with the U.N., or rather with Dr. Waldheim, in such a way as to try to make a little political capital out of it after all. I cannot understand this. He argues in circles; he ties himself up in knots. If he were really so concerned about a delicate situation, does he want to tell me that he finds a Minister, whom he regarded on a previous occasion on which he spoke as being extremely courteous, to be unapproachable, and that he was unable to raise everything which he discussed today, with him across a table? Does he want to tell me that he would not have received adequate replies, to his and his party’s satisfaction? He pleaded for frankness. Well and good, I want to ask him frankly, without making an issue of it, because I do not think that we should attack each other in regard to this matter in the eyes of the world—that would be irresponsible—what he really finds in Dr. Waldheim’s report as being the standpoint of the South African Government on self-determination which he will not also find in the speech of the Prime Minister in this House as recently as 19th February this year. What will he find? On that day the Prime Minister rose and explained his policy in South-West Africa in detail. He explained in detail and repeatedly that all options were being left open to the population groups to decide for themselves, because he said that he was not forcing systems on people. He went on to appeal to us to pass the measure in question, which was before the House, with as little discussion as possible and to afford the people concerned in South-West an opportunity of acquiring the necessary experience in self-government to enable them in due course to take their own decision on their future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition responded to that appeal with great responsibility. What other frankness should there be now? Over the years various publications on South-West Africa have been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. A legal struggle was waged in the World Court for years, the record of which fills thousands of pages. Can one expect more of detail and a greater degree of frankness than all those documents, read in conjunction with the articles and reports published year after year in our newspapers? After the Odendaal Commission had given all the population groups throughout South-West Africa a hearing, and its report had been debated in this House, after debates in the U.N. had been reported, after an advisory opinion had again been requested from the World Court in 1970-’71 and the same aspects had been argued once again in the World Court and once again reported fully in South Africa, after the Government, each time it negotiated with Dr. Waldheim, had either issued a statement or made it possible for the Press to report on the matter, after all this has happened it can no longer be said that either we or the people in South-West Africa do not know where they are going. What is important in this respect, is that a Government which puts the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa first, which has proved this since 1948—by that I am not implying that the Government of Gen. Smuts did not do so—that it can be trusted by the people with the kind of negotiations which are now in progress, because the record of the Government shows —be it the struggle in international legal forums, be it a struggle in the political forums, be it even a struggle against the violence of terrorism—that it always acts with the good and the promotion of the welfare of all the peoples of South-West Africa at the top of its list of priorities. There is equality of consideration for all ethnic groups in South-West Africa, and that, too, is the key to all discussions. This is the cause which the Government wishes to serve. I leave the matter at that.

I now come to what the hon. member said about our relations with Africa. It is true. There have been set-backs. It was not necessary for the Minister to admit this. One does not admit something for which one is not responsible. He indicated that to a certain extent there had been setbacks. But to what is this attributable? South Africa still displays the same goodwill towards all the African states as it has always done. Recently, for the first time in the history of the Republic, a Black head of state paid a visit to this country. This is an indication of our goodwill. That same hand of friendship which previous Governments held out to Africa, under more difficult circumstances, it still being held out. Set-backs are nothing new. You will remember that in the early ’sixties South Africa attended congresses in cities such as Addis Ababa and Lagos. In those days we made contributions in various forms to African countries. Subsequently there were set-backs in regard to our relationships. After a period of the utmost hostility, the idea of dialogue came to the fore again. However the basic standpoint of the Government throughout has been that it holds out its hand of friendship; for it can make a contribution to the welfare and development of Africa. If there are countries in Africa who do not want to accept it, then they simply do not do so. We can do nothing about it, and that is where the matter ends. The Government cannot do more to prove its goodwill than its deeds in the past. But goodwill is a quality which can only grow if it comes from both sides. Goodwill and respect, in association of peoples, is after all something which must operate reciprocally. Since this Government is constantly holding out the hand of friendship, perhaps it can also expect a hand of goodwill and respect to be extended from the other side, and what I am saying here also applies to the Bantu leaders in the Republic of South Africa, particularly in recent times. Sir, the forces mustered against us will hit these Bantu leaders just as hard as they could possibly hit us if it were ever to come to a major conflict, or let me rather put it like this: Those forces are just as single-mindedly directed against them as against us, and if they think that it is only the extermination of the White man which is involved—at present that is the principal objective because we represent the seat of authority and are a stumbling block in the path of these forces—then they are making a big mistake, because those forces will immediately drag them into the maelstrom which would ensue unless they were to play along with those forces, and these are the communistic forces which would also mean their own downfall.

Sir, Africa could therefore display a little more goodwill and respect towards a fellow African state, viz. South Africa, which wants to help it, which wants to help to solve its problems, which wants to help it eliminate starvation, and which is able to help it in the technical and in numerous other spheres.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal in great detail with the speech made by the hon. member for Wonderboom, except to say that he referred to political advantages which may be derived from this debate. Sir, if this party wanted to take advantage of a delicate political situation, this debate was the appropriate opportunity for us to have done so to our hearts’ content, and if ever there was a member capable of exploiting a situation to the advantage of his own party, it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjection.] But he refrained from doing so. He handled this matter with the utmost responsibility. We will not proceed with the sort of polemic for which the hon. member for Wonderboom has now afforded me a second opportunity. I shall confine myself to a different matter.

†Mr. Chairman. I want to refer briefly to the question of diplomatic appointments abroad and to the embarrassing and sometimes ridiculous situations which arise from such appointments. Sir, it sometimes happens that in our diplomatic service, for various reasons, appointments are made of people who are not competent, who are not trained and who are not adequate to fulfil the tasks which are required of a representative of South Africa in an important foreign country. Sir, diplomacy has been defined by one of the leading writers on this subject, de Cussy, as “the whole of that knowledge and those principles which are necessary for the good conduct of public relations between states”. This, Sir, embraces a very wide field of skill and knowledge and experience. It is a profession like other skilled professions. It should not be practised by people who are not trained to practise it, because if this very delicate, very skilled task is put in the hands of people who are unfamiliar with its principles, who are not experienced in its operation, we can expect the kind of troubles which would flow from the appointment of a butcher to the job of surgeon at Groote Schuur Hospital. Sir, what are the qualities which are required of a diplomat? One would certainly include the quality of intelligence; one would include the quality of courtesy; one would include the quality of honour, the quality of adaptability and the quality of experience. These, I think, are the most striking qualities that one would hope to fine in the ideal diplomat. I am not here to say that the gentlemen who have been appointed to represent this country abroad were lacking in one or other of these qualities, but some were certainly lacking in that skill and experience which may be expected of a diplomat. His duties are certainly, in the first place, to present as well as possible the best qualities of a country. In his person he must combine the best qualities of the country which he represents. He must have skill at negotiation. This is a skill, particularly in the international field, which is acquired slowly and laboriously. It is not a skill with which one is born. He must have skill in the task of information. I will come back to this in a moment, but in informing another country, another people, of the qualities and aspirations of one’s own people, one has to have regard not only to one’s own people, but also to the sentiments and the nature of the people to whom you expound those qualities.

To whom do you want to give a lecture now?

I am sorry I am wasting the time of the hon. member, because he obviously knows more about it than I do. But we could perhaps discuss details with him at some other time. One of the most important tasks of a diplomat abroad is, of course, to administer an embassy, which is a particular South African situation placed in a foreign country. There one of his more important tasks is to train the people who are sent as his assistants. Diplomacy is something which might be described as requiring in-service training, to use the fashionable word. Diplomats cannot be sent to a school and taught all they need to do. One of the most important tasks of an ambassador is, by virtue of his long experience in the service and by virtue of his special qualities, that he should set an example to the young diplomats, the junior diplomats under his charge, so that they may learn from him how to conduct their business. One of the most important matters is the question of language. It is almost repetitious and unnecessary to say that if an ambassador goes to a foreign country, he will do his job far better and far more effectively if he acquires some skill in the language of that country. He will find his way more easily into the hearts of the people of that country. They will accept him the more readily; he will also learn a great deal more about them, and he will be far more able to assess and judge what they themselves desire should be done to improve relations between them. He must study their history, their customs and manners, because by so doing he will also find greater acceptability.

I come now more specifically to the question of our Embassy in Rome. We have, since the Second World War, had ten ambassadors, approximately, in Rome. Of these, six were non-career diplomats, four of whom had no previous diplomatic experience at all, and this in an ancient city, a cradle of civilization, a capital city which plays an important role in world affairs and which has special links and sympathies with South Africa. Only two of the ten ambassadors who have been in Rome could understand Italian, to the best of my knowledge, and only one of them, to the best of my knowledge, could speak simple Italian. This, Sir is the standard which arose out of the fact that very largely our representation in Rome was restricted to occasional ad hoc appointments, Rome being used as a sort of discard for people who had outlived their usefulness in this country. Now, let me say at once—and let me say this in honour of the hon. the Minister as well—that I have served with diplomats who were not career diplomats, and there are very important exceptions, I am happy to say that the hon. the Minister, with whom I had the pleasure of serving at one place, was one of the honourable exceptions. But there are others of whom I regret that I cannot say the same. And it is true of Rome—and I am now quoting first-hand information about Rome because I do happen to have spent eight years of my life there—that the Italians are not happy about the quality of our representation. They are not happy about the neglect which has occurred in Rome during the 30-odd years since the Second World War. It is a great pity that this opportunity for closer relations has in fact been allowed to go by default in respect of appointments to this important post, as well as others—but I refer particularly to this one because it lies nearest to us in actual events—and that we have disregarded our opportunities and wasted our opportunities and done, I believe, over the years, actual harm to our relations with that country because of our failure to appoint to that country ambassadors of the quality which the situation demands.

I believe that the time has come to end this sort of nonsense. I hope we will have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that when diplomatic appointments are considered in future, regard will be had to the very special qualities of the men who are required to fill such posts, with special regard to the experience necessary for such appointments, and that we will not make the sort of mistakes which have been made too often in recent years. I believe that in future, if non-career ambassadors are appointed abroad, the hon. the Minister should in fact come to this House and justify to this House why such a particular appointment should be made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis was really uncalled for this afternoon. When he criticized our diplomats overseas, I think he really reflected upon himself. There has been no incident whatsoever in Italy and Rome that has upset our relations with Italy as far as I know. Because there has been no incident in Italy or Rome, there is no reason for the hon. member to criticize on that basis. For many politicians in this Parliament have been appointed as ambassadors and they have served South Africa very well, as well as the career diplomats. I am quite certain that there is no need for the hon. the Minister to come to Parliament to justify an overseas appointment he is going to make.

*I should also like to thank the hon. member for having given us a very good name for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout today, i.e. a political exploiter.

†Over the last decade and since 1960 the face of Africa has changed dramatically and tremendously. In the continuous process of change by evolutionary or revolutionary methods, changes have taken place. New borders have been demarcated in Africa and peoples have been grouping themselves into ethnic groups and nations, always striving to govern themselves, always striving to keep their identities intact. With this end in view they have managed to establish themselves in many sovereign states in Africa. Exactly the same process as in the rest of Africa is taking place in the Republic of South Africa, but here on an evolutionary basis. This Government has over the years been implementing its policy of self-determination, a policy which is so absolutely natural to Africa, but a policy which has been labelled by our enemies as a threat to peace and inhuman.

Since 1960 when there were ten independent states in Africa, that number has grown to 48 in 1973, but now there are also emerging from within the borders of the Republic of South Africa ten more states on the horizon of Africa. Each of these states is politically based on a tested and workable democratic constitution. Each state has a well established and responsible legislative assembly and a truly elected government and cabinet. These states have produced Black leaders from within themselves who are proud men, educated men. They can be compared with any other leader anywhere and they are people who can hold their own in any company. These states are only one very short step away from sovereign independence and that step is their own decision to take independence. That is all that stands in their way.

Order! The hon. member should come back to Foreign Affairs.

I am there now.

No, the hon. member is dealing with Bantu Affairs.

No, I am not and my very next point will prove it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is self-determination not the whole aim of the United Nations charter?

Order! The Committee is not dealing with the United Nations, but with Foreign Affairs. The hon. member, however, is discussing Bantu Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, my point is that the world will ask what manner of states these new states will be. I say the only way in which one can describe a new emerging state is to give that state an economic context and to compare that state with other states in Africa. I have prepared a statement which gives certain figures. I have taken these figures from a statement prepared by Professors Lombard and Van der Merwe. I have mentioned these figures in connection with another Vote, but I want to say again that I have up-dated these figures up to the end of 1972. In connection with the gross domestic product of these states I have made allowance for all the earnings of their people irrespective where such income was earned. I now want to quote the income per head of the population of each of these ten states. The highest is that of Swaziland which is R204 per annum and then we have that of Basotho Kwa-kwa which is R167. Next comes that of Gazankulu which is R156. Thereafter we have that of the Transkei which is R145 while that of KwaZulu is R133 …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I am going to compare these figures with those of other states in Africa. I want to show what the position is and how these emerging states compare with the other states in Africa. That is all I am trying to do. Therefore I must give these figures in order to be able to compare these figures with those of Africa. With due respect I must say that this concerns international affairs. These figures for Bophuthatswana is R123, the figure for the Ciskei R170 and the figure for Lebowa R140. Two very interesting facts emerge from these figures. The first fact to emerge is that none of these figures are under R100 per annum. Hon. members will see that these figures compare very well with the figures of the other states in Africa. Furthermore, the difference between the highest and the lowest is only R90. If you compare these figures with the figures of other countries in Africa it proves that the dialogue that this Government has conducted with its Black leaders and with the people had been very successful. If you compare these figures with our immediate neighbours like Botswana where it is R70 per annum, Swaziland where it is R140 per annum and Lesotho where it is R52, you will see that it compares very well indeed. Now I want to compare it with the rest of Africa. I have obtained the figures of 46 out of 48 countries in Africa. I have eliminated South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, South-West Africa and neighbouring states and it left me with 41 states. I have compared these figures with the figures of these 41 states and have found that there are only three of these states, namely Libya with R1 132 per capita per annum, Gabon with R240 per capita per annum and the Ivory Coast with R226 per capita per annum, where they have a higher income than the highest we have, i.e. R204 per capita per annum. I have found that of these 41 countries the per capita income of 23, i.e. 56%, is lower than R114 per annum. Fifteen states of Africa, i.e. 36%, fall within the same category as these nine states where the per capita income per year is between R114 and R204.

What do you expect the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do about this?

It is nothing of your concern. To sum up I want to say that these states will find that they are most probably on the verge of entering the international field. They will find themselves worse off than about 7% of the states of Africa, they will find that they are better off than 56% of the states of Africa and they will find themselves in exactly the same position as 36% of the states in Africa. I believe that these states have as much right as any other state in the world to become a fully sovereign and independent State. I am sure that they will take up their position with honour and dignity amongst the nations of the countries of the world should we compare them with other states in the world. I think that all the Western industrialized countries of the world should take note of these states and should establish meaningful dialogue with them. Furthermore, they should establish lines of communication with them because these states might eventually prove a safer and better investment field than the whole of Black Africa. Some other Western industrialized countries have already done so by investing in KwaZulu and in some of the other states.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few words to what was said by the hon. member for Von Brandis on the question of the appointment of ambassadors. I want to refer in particular to the situation which arose as a result of the appointment of Mr. Blaar Coetzee as our ambassador in Rome. We all know that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to appoint to and omit from his Cabinet whoever he pleases and to do so as he deems fit. We do of course have the right to criticize his appointments in fact, we do this where we consider it necessary. Nobody is querying the right of the hon. the Prime Minister to appoint people in whom he has confidence, but when it comes to an ambassador, one is in fact dealing with a person representing not only the Government of a country, but also his country as a whole. For that reason one finds in countries such as America—in fact, in most countries of Europe too—that prior to an ambassador being appointed, the appointment is submitted to a committee of Parliament. That committee is then in a position to scrutinize the appointment, to screen the candidate, to exercise such criticism as Parliament may deem necessary. The result is that when an ambassador of those countries go abroad, to represent his country there, he knows that he has the blessing and meets with the approval of Parliament as a whole.

In our country the process of appointment is a secret one. I am not referring now to the duty which the Government has i.e. that of first entering into negotiations with the other Government; I mean it here in a domestic sense. Parliament is not consulted, nor is it referred to. Now, the result is that once the appointment has been made, the first we hear of it, is by way of the announcement made by either the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, i.e. that Mr. A has been appointed as an ambassador of South Africa in a particular country. When that appointment has already been announced, Parliament—and I am not referring to the Opposition only, for there may also be misgivings on the Government side—is in the position that it may not exercise criticism. We may not exercise criticism once a person already has the official title of “Ambassador of South Africa”. Then I may not rise here on behalf of the Opposition and exercise criticism, for that would place that person in an extremely embarrassing position and could be prejudicial to South Africas’ representation. I think it is an extremely unfair situation towards any Parliament that before the time it does not know anything about it and that after the time it is paralysed and may not exercise any criticism. We still adhere to our standpoint that there ought to be a standing committee on Foreign Affairs which will be in a position to scrutinize appointments of this nature beforehand. This committee need not necessarily have a final veto, but should be able to scrutinize the appointments before anything is made public and before the process whereby his appointment is finalized is set going.

I think this kind of process is pre-eminently necessary when politicians who are not professional diplomats are appointed in such high posts. Here I am not referring primarily to professional diplomats who have had lengthy training; but when a party-politician is appointed in such a high position, Parliament ought to have the opportunity to scrutinize the situation.

I must say that it is a good thing for a Prime Minister to reshuffle his Cabinet from time to time. In this respect it is a common practice in Britain that, where a reshuffle takes place, the person affected may remain in Parliament if he so wishes and need not necessarily be appointed in another post. It is not considered to be necessary that, if he resigns from the Cabinet, he must be given another post, such as that of an ambassador abroad. I think this is a bad practice. Just consider what happened in the case of Mr. Blaar Coetzee. And then I am not referring to the fact that he met with an accident. I think all of us have sympathy with him for what befell him; but that is not the point. He was appointed as ambassador, and now he himself has been telling the Press what his position was. He is doing so in a series of articles which He is writing for the newspapers. This is what he says (translation)—

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister wanting to make changes, but now he asked this Minister whether he would accept an ambassadorship—

He was appointed, but he did not feel like it. I read on—

He said that was the reason “why I felt very ill at ease there”. Surely this is a wrong principle, that people who do not feel like it, that people who do not know what they have to do there and were apparently never told what the task of an ambassador is, should be given such posts because of a political reshuffle, to which the Prime Minister is of course entitled. I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa that this kind of procedure be followed. I hope that in the future, when reshuffles may have to take place in the Cabinet again, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will not allow these to be linked to an artificial attempt to create abroad high posts for people who do not care for them and who do not know what they are about. I really do not think that this kind of thing is in the interests of South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will give this matter his attention and see whether he cannot reassure us as far as the future is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that nearly 20 minutes of the time of this Committee was taken up by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Von Brandis in an attempt to generalize one single incident. We must regret the fact that, in the light of what the hon. the Minister said the other day in his introductory speech to the effect that we should try to maintain a certain standard here because what we say in this Committee is projected into the whole of the outside world, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Von Brandis completely generalized this one single incident.

This has been done many times before.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made it quite clear here that if one has the super or the ideal ambassador, it is his experience that such a person must be able to speak French and perhaps Italian, which he is apparently able to do, and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is the shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs, must remember that the ideal man is sitting almost right behind him. I would like to come to the positive aspect, because all we had in the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the negative aspects. He took the introductory part of the hon. the Minister’s speech and concentrated on that, about the whole world wanting to compel us—and his words were that we are becoming the “unwelcome guest” to the rest of the world to an ever increasing extent. I am sorry he merely presented us with a purely negative picture in spite of the fact that the Minister also gave the positive side of things. In this debate the hon. the Minister did in fact first hold out to us the negative side of things. That is all very well, because we must know what is not good for us, where we have failed, where we have not succeeded. Then the hon. the Minister went on to give us a clear and positive picture of the future and encouraged us, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did the very opposite and made us feel even more depressed.

I would like to proceed with my own argument. The OAU states the following in the introductory paragraphs of the well-known Lusaka manifesto in respect of conflicts and situations of tension throughout the world, and I quote—

The most important reason why this joint action is essential to put technology to the service of man is, in my opinion, the necessity, as far as Southern Africa is concerned, of supplying food to its ever-growing population. We in the Republic of South Africa realize that we are inseparably a part of Africa and that in the future it will be our responsibility to an ever-increasing extent to supply food to these growing numbers. According to the report of the Economic Commission of Africa— this is an U.N. commission which investigated economic conditions in Africa and which, as far as I know, published its latest report in 1970—we must expect that in certain of our neighbouring States in the southern part of Africa the population will double itself within the next 20 to 25 years. Arising from a survey by the commission, I want to furnish some data in respect of the growth of population in the neighbouring states to the north and around us. According to this report Botswana has a population growth of 3 % per annum, Lesotho 2,8%, Malawi 3%, Zambia 3,1%, and Rhodesia 3,2%. At this rate the total population of the ten southerly neighbouring states will be more or less 72 million in 20 to 25 years’ time. In the same report we find that the production of food by these States is not keeping pace with the increase in population. For example, in 1950 Botswana had 1 050 000 cattle. From 1950 to 1958 the number of cattle in that country increased by only 50 000, while its population almost doubled itself in that period. The food imported by Zambia rose from R20 million in 1960 to such an extent that in respect of mealies alone an amount of R42 million was paid out in 1972 and this, according to the report of this economic commission, happened despite the fact that Zambia is regarded as a very prominent agricultural region. So we find that one country has maize, another wheat, one has rice and another meat or wool; but hardly any one of these countries is able to supply the basic needs of its people as far as food is concerned. Particularly as regards food, not one of them, with the possible exception of Botswana, is able to supply the protein requirements of its own inhabitants.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.