Mr. Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

On several occasions in the past, this House discussed serious droughts and other similar disasters in the country. Therefore it is certainly not inappropriate also to discuss, by means of a special motion, serious flooding and their effects. The serious floods which commenced last year at the start of the rainy season have already resulted in considerable loss of life. According to news reports between 20 to 30 people lost their lives during the past weekend. When natural disasters are accompanied by loss of life one’s sympathy with the people who are affected goes even further. Therefore I think I am possibly speaking on behalf of everyone when expressing our sympathy with those who have lost relatives or friends in this tragic way. On this occasion I should also like to say that one learns with regret that considerable losses in the form of houses and other property have been suffered in recent times. Every province has since, last year, had its share of floods. With a few exceptions, inter alia, the Western Cape, the Boland and Namaqualand, there is hardly one district in South Africa which has not been affected by the floods. Damage has not been confined to the agricultural industry either. City dwellers and inhabitants of towns, industrialists and businessmen have also suffered considerable direct losses. One particularly thinks of the tremendous damage caused in Natal during the past few days. Any person familiar with the rainy season of this country is sceptical towards the idea that the worst is over. One can only hope that further aftereffects will be limited for the rest of the year.

†Mr. Speaker, many members of this House represent constituencies that are affected. Others have made it their business to acquaint themselves with the position in those areas which have had the worst rains and floods. My particular interest and the interest of the agricultural and natural resources group on this side of the House, have caused us to take a very serious view of the widespread floods. I have, personally, in the course of weeks visited many of the areas where the rains were excessive. Others, in turn, know those areas well and have been in contact with prominent people in all these areas.

The purpose behind my motion is more or less the following: Firstly, to outline to the House the extent of the damage suffered; secondly, to warn the public of South Africa that our food and fodder production can for the time being be seriously affected and, indeed, retarded—this is a very important aim of this motion—thirdly, to consider suggestions how best the areas that have been affected can again be made productive and, at the same time, how best to limit the effects of the floods; and, fourthly, to determine what role the authorities should play in building up the districts and rehabilitating the people concerned.

As I have said, I have personally visited many of these areas and have had numerous discussions, both formal and informal, with prominent people about the effects of the floods. I have had such discussions with people in the Northern Cape, in the Karoo, in the Western Transvaal and in the Orange Free State. One feature of these discussions that has struck me forcibly is that farmers would have liked to overcome this particular set-back by employing their own individual resources. However, that is just not possible. They all agreed that if they had received adequate commodity prices which allowed for the steep rise in production costs and also adequately took into account the risk factor, enough reserves would have been built up by individuals for them to cope with such emergencies themselves.

You are playing politics now.

I am not going to play politics with this matter. What I am stating, is a fact. If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has not had this experience, I am certain that the hon. the Minister, his Deputy and also the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs will have learnt the same if they have had discussions with farmers of the Vaal Hartz and Riet River schemes because these are the points which the farmers there have raised with me. Sir, I must just point out to you how difficult it is and has been for farmers to build up adequate reserves. Take, for example, that over the last five years, from 1970 to 1975, there has been an increase of no less than 175% in the price of dieseline, and an increase of no less than 154% in the price of petrol. In the case of tractors, the position is that with tractors of 100 h.p. the price has risen in those five years from R7 000 to close on R20 000, an increase of 171%. Sir, when they have had to cope with this sort of situation it is just impossible for farmers to build up adequate reserves to meet emergencies. When an emergency or a disaster strikes, one realizes immediately that the financial position of our farmers is not in line with the vast amount invested in farming. After all, inflation pushes up the value of land and of our resources, but it also depletes the value of our cash assets. The second feature which worries farmers in South Africa is the lack of a comprehensive plan which can be put into practice the moment a disaster strikes a particular area. All our planning—this is what they say to us—is done on an ad hoc basis. When a farmer has been badly hit by disaster the first thing he needs is an assurance that he will be assisted to get back on his feet again. In that respect he must have peace of mind.

*But what do we find? First investigations have to be made and after lengthy discussions it is said that production loans are available, precisely the same kind of assistance which is also available under normal circumstances. For that reason the farmers ask that plans should be available which could be put into effect immediately in any emergency. Over and above production loans such a plan should also provide for other matters.

In the first place, where damage has been caused to land, it can be brought back into production again by putting it right immediately. Where erosion, for instance, took place due to floods, it would have to be put right immediately. If the farmers do not have the necessary machinery at their disposal to do this, they should be able to obtain the necessary loans to purchase the machinery. For these repair works the Government should be prepared to pay a subsidy if we want to restore those areas to be able to produce immediately—I am referring to the areas where physical damage has been suffered. In some irrigation areas such as the Vaalharts settlement, the area can only be made productive by carrying out large-scale drainage operations. Draining of holdings can be carried out if the necessary deposit facilities exist to dispose of the water. And what makes the situation so serious, is the fact that of the more or less 1 200 holdings in that irrigation area plus-minus 800 are today in the process of becoming water-logged and brackish.

Who is to blame for this?

I am not saying hon. members on that side are to blame. We said the reason why we want to have this debate, is that we can have a discussion on what should be done and what the authorities ought to do under these circumstances. [Interjections.] Sir, the garden of the hon. member for Stilfontein has not even washed away. Therefore I do not know why he is becoming so agitated now. The Department of Water Affairs should create the necessary deposit facilities and then leave it to the individual plot owners to continue the drainage on their plots themselves. We know it is a fact that with the rising of the water level due to the irrigation methods, it would in any case have been necessary to expedite the draining of the whole scheme. No one can allow the production of that area, which is an intensive agricultural area, with 1 200 plots and a turnover of R30 million, to drop to zero. Therefore, something drastic should be done. It has become imperative for steps to be taken, and the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will have to take immediate steps to restore this area. The same applies to the Riet River settlement scheme. These are both intensive agricultural production areas and they ought not to be unproductive for long. One should realize that many farmers, not only those on the irrigation schemes, but also in the dry land areas of the Western Transvaal and the Free State, are going to have very poor maize, groundnut and sunflower crops this year. They are entering a period of no income and heavy expenses. And we find that bank credit has already been curtailed for various reasons. We on this side believe that this approach should be reconsidered in respect of these people. Furthermore, they should also be afforded extraordinary credit facilities by the Land Bank and by the Department of Agricultural Credit. Far more assistance will have to be provided to these people. Consider the position of the maize farmer of the Western Transvaal. Large areas there are water-logged. Where there has never been any water before, one pan after the other is filled with water now. Even homes and labourer cottages have been hit. One asks oneself what could be done about this.

Sir, this water will have to be pumped away into side streams and rivers so that drainage could be speeded up considerably. If this is not done, large areas will be unproductive for one or longer season. I do not want to estimate the extent of the damage throughout the country, because this would require an intensive study. It could amount to hundreds of millions of rands and even more, but all the authorities of the agricultural departments concerned and of Water Affairs will have to put their heads together, and I hope the hon. members who have so much to say on that side of the House will avail themselves of this opportunity to tell us what they have done, and to indicate what they are still going to do in future. They know, for example, that there is hardly any fertilizer left in the soil as a result of these tremendous rains. Practically everything has been washed out. This is going to be an enormously expensive process to restore the fertility of the soil. What do the hon. members on that side of the House have to say now? Are they going to sit back and allow the price of fertilizers to be further increased in future for these people who will have to use two or three times as much as in the past? Sir, we shall have to see to it that extension services are provided to save these areas from deterioration. This has become imperative, because we do not want to create white elephants anywhere. South Africa simply cannot afford this. Whether the climatic conditions are changing, is also an important question. Rumours are being spread by so-called experts that this is in fact the case, and if this is true, I suggest that the experts ought to investigate the matter, because we shall then have to make essential adjustments in our agricultural industry in these areas.

But, finally, what is still the most important aspect to me, is how to restore the confidence of that farmer, who has been severely hit, in order to continue his task. We should prevent farmers from leaving agriculture as a result of setbacks. After every drought or disaster people leave agriculture. It is the wish of us on this side of the House that the effects of this disaster, which has hit so many areas of South Africa, will be limited to the minimum. However, everything will depend on the urgency and earnest with which the authorities, the responsible Minister, are prepared to approach this task. If there is any lack of purposeful action, it can cause the agricultural industry and the economy of South Africa permanent damage. It is for that reason that I asked for a discussion of the matter here in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I really have heard better speeches before from the hon. member for Newton Park than the one he made today. While I was listening to him, one thing became very clear to me. He told of all the people he spoke to and where he had travelled during the past few days, weeks and months. However, one thing is quite clear and that is that the people who represent those farmers do not sit on that side of the House.

That is why they talk to us.

That is why the hon. member is playing politics here with the absolute distress of people today. [Interjections.]

There is no politics in the motion at all. It is you who have now dragged politics into it. Let us hear what you have to say about that!

Mr. Speaker, if a person could suggest here that prices of products should be increased in order to be able to help these people, I ask how one would be able to tell this to the people of, for example, Rietrivier. These are people who have lost 80% of their groundnut crop, 60% of their maize harvest, 85% of their cotton harvest, and I could continue to mention their losses in this way. What is the use of increasing the price of products when the producer has nothing to sell? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Newton Park had been in close contact with these people, he would have known that they had been in this situation for the past three years.

What is the Government doing about that?

I shall presently tell the hon. member what the Government is doing about it. However, this has nothing to do with the prices. Therefore, when the hon. member for Newton Park suggests that, when there is physical destruction—soil erosion, floods, dams and fences which are washed away—a subsidy has to be paid, I want to tell him that a subsidy is indeed paid.

And the farmers know it.

The farmers know it; they all know it. If a dam wall has burst in the past, and the same thing happens again, a subsidy is paid again.

That is not so.

What does that hon. member know. Mr. Speaker, what do the farmers do about this? I shall tell you what they do. The hon. member spoke about Rietrivier. That is my constituency. Over the past three years the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has been there twice to make a special inquiry into conditions in that area. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture was also there twice. The previous Minister of Water Affairs was there twice; the present hon. the Minister of Water Affairs has also been there. The hon. member for Newton Park suggested things here which are already being done at Rietrivier. [Interjections.] Those things are already being done there, and I want to say … [Interjections.] Please give me a chance. The hon. the Ministers did not go there alone; they were accompanied by three secretaries of departments—the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and the Secretary for Water Affairs—as well as by the other technical officers who were necessary to investigate the whole matter. Now the hon. member for Newton Park suggests that facilities have to be created so that these things can immediately be put into operation after disaster. Does the hon. member expect the State to put these things into operation and simply spend money without inquiring into it beforehand?

Who says this? [Interjections.]

That hon. member said this.

Yes, he did.

Oh, nonsense! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it has been raining for the past three years.

They know nothing about it!

It has been raining for the past three years.

Do you not have a solution?

Do you have a solution for stopping the rain? [Interjections.] The hon. member was unable to stop the rain in Port Elizabeth. The only possible way out for him is perhaps to move to Israel. [Interjections.] My constituency consists of two areas. There are the irrigation areas, and there is the rest of the constituency, an area which is plagued by gnats and mosquitoes. This is a plague which arose as a result of the large amount of water which has dammed up in the area. Besides that, the farmers are plagued by diseases on a large scale. Now the hon. members will once again ask what we are doing about it. These problems have existed for the past three years, and during those three years so much assistance has been provided and so much research has been done, especially in the field of rift valley fever and the plague of gnats, that this year, in spite of all the rain—we have not experienced so many problems with rift valley fever and with Wesselsbron disease as was previously the case. Therefore progress has been made in these spheres. I previously mentioned that we experience problems due to the shortage of veterinary surgeons. You are aware of the problems, Sir, which the hon. the Minister experiences in this respect.

However, I can mention with gratitude that this year a start has been made with the training of double the ordinary number of veterinary surgeons at Onderstepoort. We can therefore face the future with the prospect that relief is also forthcoming in this sphere. Thanks to the sound advice we received from Onderstepoort, as well as the quantities of vaccine which could be made available to the farmers, animals could be vaccinated in time. Consequently the losses due to rift valley fever, blue tongue and other stock diseases were not so acute this year.

However, one’s heart bleeds for the people on the irrigation holdings, people who have no other income. It is possible to possess a large farm and perhaps lose one’s entire maize crop. However, if one has livestock, one may carry on. The hon. member referred to Vaalharts. Other hon. members will speak about that later.

I want to confine myself to Rietrivier. When hon. members ask what is being done about problems there, I consider these to be stupid questions. The hon. the Ministers were there, accompanied by all the departmental secretaries, and the problems of all the farmers at Rietrivier were discussed. That Thursday afternoon all the people were quite happy and satisfied. However, on Friday afternoon, 112 mm of rain fell once again and everything was washed away. Hon. members must not ask such stupid questions now, among other things, what is being done about those problems. The situation also exists that, even the heavy machinery which the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs had brought from the P. K. le Roux Dam to help with the draining, is standing there idle and cannot be moved. The amount of mud is so immense that draining has become impossible. These Ministers went out of their way, and I believe they will also go out of their way in future.

In the short time available to me I want to ask that the procedure concerning applications for loans will be streamlined so that people will obtain crop loans more easily. I ask that the loans should not be repayable in one year, but that it would be possible to spread them over four years. I think that the co-operative societies are the bodies or persons that will best be able to exercise control over the loans. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister that a number of the holdings which have not become water-logged in that area, have been made available to the people who were hit most severely so that they can farm there in the meantime in order to support their families in this manner. In conclusion, I should like to ask that we should do everything possible to provide the people whose holdings have been damaged to such an extent that they will be unable to cultivate them in future, with work elsewhere in the meantime. Here I am especially thinking of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, and I should like to know whether he could possibly accommodate them in the Orange River development area.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the first speaker on the Government benches to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park should have taken the line that he did. The hon. member for Newton Park, with great restraint and responsibility, I thought, dealt with a serious situation which is affecting the country as a whole. He dealt with it constructively. The hon. member for Fauresmith has, in effect, said that the hon. member for Newton Park has come here to play politics with the misfortunes of others. That was an unworthy remark to make and it was not in accordance with what the hon. member said. I am, indeed, fortified in that criticism by the arguments of the hon. member for Fauresmith himself who, as I understood him, said that there had for three years been excessive rains and wet seasons, that for three years there had been bad crops or no crops at all, and that for three years there had been problems associated with stock disease and an excess of insect pests. It appears quite clearly from his own arguments that the Government has dealt with these matters each time on an ad hoc basis and that long-term planning to meet contingencies of this kind, which we know arise seasonally from time to time, does not appear to be adequate. As I understood it, that was the very argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Newton Park.

I rise in the 10 minutes that are available to me to deal principally with the situation in Natal which, as hon. members will have seen from the Press, is very serious indeed. Firstly, what has happened? We have had, at the end of a summer season, in which there have already been exceptionally good rains, an exceptionally heavy downpour over a period of two days and three nights. On my own property, from Thursday night until Saturday night, we had 11 inches of rain. When that situation arises on ground that is already wet, you are in for a tough time. It is not an exaggeration to say that there has been brought about, as a result of this, in Natal, throughout the province but in the coastal areas particularly, indescribable devastation to property and a heavy loss of life. The figure already stands at 25 dead, and I have no doubt that others will be found in the more remote areas when the waters subside. Major bridges have come down, and I have in mind the Illovo bridge on the national freeway to the south of Durban. There are numerous landslides impeding communications. I have in mind the 12 landslides on the new six-lane freeway from Durban to Pinetown, a distance, I suppose, of 15 to 20 miles. There are many main roads cut as a result of this. Water mains have been undermined and are bursting, telephone cables have been broken, communications have been disrupted, and what is more important, whole communities have been uprooted. I have in mind the so-called “tin town” on the Spring-field Flats within the municipal area of Durban. There is also grave industrial loss with premises flooded out, up and down the coast, to a remarkable extent. Agriculturally the matter has been dealt with by the mover of the motion, but there is large-scale inundation of low-lying farmlands, particularly on the north coast, and there is what one can describe as devastation of crops, particularly winter feed crops in the high-lying areas of Natal as well. I do not propose to elaborate on what the mover has said as to what that means. If there are no winter crops you cannot feed the stock, and if you cannot feed the stock, there is an immediate shortage of meat, dairy produce and milk.

The Minister of Water Affairs laughs, but where are we going to get hay from?

I have noticed that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs smiles … [Interjections.] There is also great loss to the Government agencies of various kinds, the provincial authorities and the local authorities. That is what has taken place, and the next question is: What can be done about it? The first requirement is an immediate top-level investigation to assess the damage and the loss of life, and to assess what can be done to help. I suppose the burden will fall principally on the hon. the Minister of Community Development and of Indian Affairs. I can assure him that he will have the utmost assistance from the Provincial Administration and the local authorities, particularly the municipality of Durban.

We are aware of that.

The hon. the Minister says that he is aware of that and I am glad of it. A great deal has been done by those authorities up to the present time.

The next point is: What immediate emergency assistance is required? From the floods which we have had on the north coast a year or two ago, we know that what is required are tents for emergency housing, blankets to keep the people warm, clothing, cooking facilities, transport and medical help and medicines. If those can be provided as a matter of immediately priority, then we are making progress. In the third place, the Government must act in a manner which rallies the local population. I notice that the Durban Corporation have already contributed the sum of R50 000 to the disaster fund launched by the mayor of Durban. I can say from my own knowledge—the hon. member for Umhlanga, who I notice is not here, was intimately involved in it—that after the floods we had in the Stanger area a year or two ago, the assistance, following upon the assistance from the Government, of the local people, in the sense of money, food, clothing, transport and willing workers, was quite remarkable. They came forward in a voluntary effort to such an extent that in a short while it had to be made known to the local people that no further help from those sources was required. That is the third field in which I believe the hon. the Minister can move and in which he can motivate help from the voluntary organizations.

I should like to pay tribute in passing to what has been done by the various arms of the civil defence in this tragedy. All reports indicate that in the Durban area and in the Pinetown complex their contribution has been noteworthy. To those who have taken the trouble to interest themselves in this, a word of thanks is due.

In the longer term—and I speak particularly so far as the urban areas are concerned—what should be done? I think the main priority—and this falls into the lap of the hon. the Minister of Community Development—is the need to move the people permanently from the low-lying riverine areas where they are living in slum conditions, because this happens over and over again, particularly in the low-lying areas along the Umgeni River. I pause here, Sir, to say that it is not a particularly angry river any more, because it has two major dams on its course to impede the flow of flood-waters. Nevertheless, every 10 years or so it breaks through that area and thousands of people—the estimate is of the order of 4 000 at the present time—lose virtually everything in the flood-waters. They lose what pitifully few possessions they have. Their shanty buildings are swept away or damaged, and then you have the problem of looting when these people evacuate the area and the ne’er-do-wells move in to rob them of what little is left. The only permanent solution to this is to move the settled population from those areas for good and all. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to that.

They are living in dreadful shanties in any case.

That is so. I know it can be said, as it sometimes is said, that this is merely the responsibility of the Durban Corporation, but I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that conditions of this kind in an area as large as this, and relating to a population as big as this, are very often beyond the resources of a municipality. In any event, if they are to be moved to other areas, the assistance of the hon. the Minister is a priority.

Who gave them permission to settle in that area, especially not on a river’s flood plain?

I do not know the details, but I do not believe that they are settled there illegally. It is an area which is more suitable to Indian market gardening.

But then somebody has given them the right to settle there legally.

I believe that they are not there illegally; let met put it that way.

They may not be there illegally, but they should not be there.

Sir, it is very easy for a person in the position of the hon. member who has just spoken to say that they ought not to be there, but people in the very lowest order of our economic and social society are not in a position simply to acquire a house somewhere and establish themselves in a better area. They are there because they have nowhere else to go, and I think the attitude which the hon. member appears to be adopting is not a helpful one in this regard.

Sir, I have come to the end of my time. Finally there is the question of health and planning against epidemics which result from floods of this kind. I hope we shall have an assurance that whilst temporary measures are being taken by the city health authorities at the present time, there is planning to prevent any major outbreak of typhoid or anything of that kind in flood damage of this kind in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I must say the hon. member who has just sat down, acted far more responsibly in this debate than did the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member acted more responsibly because to my mind, he was better informed on the subject he discussed than was the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member for Newton Park was kind enough to come and tell me, after he had visited the Western Transvaal, that he had also visited my constituency. Sir, if a member of the United Party pays a visit to my constituency, I always go back on his tracks a little, because I do not trust the United Party an inch. I then did the same as the hon. member for Newton Park did, and the information I obtained was obviously much more correct than his information. He hardly spent 24 hours in the Western Transvaal, and now he is pretending to be an authority on the flood damage in the Western Transvaal.

I should like to tell that hon. member that before he was even aware that there had been any flood damage in the Western Transvaal, I had already travelled through those parts. At that stage I had already been in contact with the various departments. Before the hon. member had been in those parts I had already flown over that area at my own expense and ascertained what damage had been caused. That hon. member can therefore forget about trying to make political capital out of a disaster like this one which has struck the Western Transvaal and other parts of this country. The hon. member told me that he was going to move a motion of this kind. He told me personally that he was not going to play politics with this motion. Once again I must say that I am disappointed, because the pattern followed has been precisely the same as the pattern followed by him in respect of the seven-year droughts which ravaged the Karoo. Was it not that hon. member who came up with a motion of this kind at that time too? Sir, the members of the United Party should not try to catch us in such an obvious trap with a motion of this kind. If those hon. members really want to be serious, what they ought to be …

Why are you so angry?

The hon. member for Durban Point should rather go and see how the United Party supporters are drowning in Durban. When we look at the flood damage in the Western Transvaal, it is very clear that the damage is on a vast scale. Morally or ethically speaking, it is perhaps not quite right to say this, but these flood damages have accumulated for three years as a result of excessive rain. This followed excessive rains in 1974 and 1975, rains which have now reached a peak in 1976. In former years action was taken in this regard by the Government, and especially by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This is why the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure exists, and it is senseless for that hon. member and the member who followed him in this debate to say that the Government acts on an ad hoc basis. In the Western Transvaal we approached the hon. Minister and the secretaries for the departments as far back as 1974, when there was flood damage in the vicinity of Hartebeesfontein. In that year we received the assistance of the departments. We did not ask for charity, because the farmers are not interested in charity. The farmers want to be helped to help themselves. We approached the department and proposed that we be given production loans, but that we should not be forced to repay those loans within a year. The hon. the Minister and his department considered all those requests favourably, and today those farmers are producing. In 1974 and 1975, when we suffered flood damages, we did not hear from the hon. member for Newton Park. However, now there is a by-election in Durban North and an election for them to lose in Alberton, and now they should at least pay a visit to the platteland. After all, friend Harry, who abandoned the “deep” platteland, is no longer there. The hon. member now wants to try to visit the “deep” rural areas again.

Sir, I want to be more serious now and leave the members of the United Party as far as this debate is concerned, because they only annoy one with their opportunistic politics. Since the hon. the Minister of Community Development is also present today …

Come up with proposals now!

Yes, I am going to come up with very constructive proposals, including proposals relating to measures which are already in use and which we want to improve. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister, in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that in 1974 and 1975 we had experience of what it means when an area is declared a disaster area. I want to say in all honesty that it only means something to those who live in urban areas when an area is declared a disaster area, because a farmer cannot claim anything from the Department of Community Development in respect of damage on his farm, except as far as his dwelling house is concerned. We should streamline our ideas and policy concerning disaster funds a little more. When we consider the situation of the farmer—and I am now referring especially to the farmers between the Vaal Dam and the Vaalharts diversion dam, we find that if damage is caused to his irrigation equipment and/or his irrigation area, the Department of Water Affairs is responsible. Now we come to the really senseless aspect, i.e. that if this water pump has been damaged, Water Affairs is responsible for that, but if the pump building is damaged then the Department of Community Development is responsible for that. We get the situation that the farmer may only go to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services if his land, fencing, etc., has been damaged. I want to ask that where we have to deal with a disaster situation, we should not subject our farming community to this filling in of forms. Some farmers have to fill in up to four or five sets of forms to try and obtain compensation for the same damage. I think we should really give serious consideration to viewing the farmer’s crop in the same light as the Department of Community Development views the dealer’s stock-in-trade when he loses it and is paid out for it. Like the dealer, the farmer should be paid out for the loss of his harvest, because the harvest he has lost represents his stock-in-trade, just as the trader has a stock-in-trade. By taking a step of this kind, we should be making matters much easier for our farming community. We shall probably have to consider the fact that since we have had quite excessive rains for three years, we are bow probably going to have a situation in which we shall even have to withdraw soil from our dry land areas for the sake of soil reclamation. We should regard a situation of this kind in the same light as the stock withdrawal scheme, in terms of which livestock is withdrawn to reclaim the soil and grazing. We should consider adopting the same method in order to reclaim our agricultural land. The damage to crops in my constituency is between 30% and 40%. This represents vast crop losses. However, I am afraid the damage done to our soil is much greater than this. The time and expense involved in reclaiming this is great, and for that reason we shall possibly have to pay more attention to this particular matter.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether they could not agree to our making use of DDT again under permit in the Vaal River, in the area of the Vaalharts Scheme, for a spray capable of dealing with the gnat plague in that area. This is the only really effective method available at the moment. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs that we should have a completely new policy in respect of the Bloemhof Dam. It is unnecessary for us to follow the same policy in respect of the Bloemhof Dam as we do in respect of the Vaal Dam; i.e. a policy of always full because we are afraid that there may be a drought tomorrow. The Bloemhof Dam is only there to meet the water requirements of the Vaalharts scheme, and even if that dam were only 33% full, it could meet the water requirements of the Vaalharts scheme for three years. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to follow a policy of “always full” in respect of the Bloemhof Dam. We could make much better use of that dam in the flood control situation by maintaining it at a lower percentage throughout the year, in order to provide for a possible flood. This would cause the agricultural damages below the Bloemhof Dam to be so much more limited.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to place this important motion in a slightly different dimension. Fortunately, I do not come from one of the devastated areas of our country, nor do I represent one. I grew up in an area where droughts were a far greater danger than floods. However, in spite of this, I fully realize the implications of such a disaster. I should like to draw attention to its non-agricultural aspects, because the consequences of this disaster go much further than agriculture. The implications affect not only individuals and their possessions, but also the economy of the country as a whole, particularly as far as the export of produce and the production of food are concerned. We in these benches should like to express our sympathy with the families and individuals in those areas, those people who have suffered as a result of the flood, and, even worse, have lost relatives and friends.

†Floods have a rather recurrently fluid place in South African history, and to me, who has tried to bend my mind to the problem in these past few days, it is astonishing that there appears to be no permanent machinery in existence to give relief when it is most urgently needed, when the disaster has struck. I am not trying to make any political capital out of it, because I do not think it is the fault of any particular Government. I think it is something that should have been put right generations ago.

I am particularly thinking here of non-agricultural interests. To show hon. members what a regular occurrence these disasters are, I find that the first recorded flood in South Africa took place in 1790, when the Orange River attained a width of several miles. Thirty years later, in 1820, floods caused such havoc in the Western Cape that the British Government had to give £ 100 000 for relief and added £25 000 to repair churches and public buildings. In those days 25 houses and one church were damaged in Somerset West. I mention these facts simply to show that floods have occurred all over the country, down the years. They have happened in the Eastern Cape and in Natal, where I see that in 1856, elephants were swept into the sea down the Umgeni River after 686 mm of rain in four days. I am glad to say that Natal has been spared this in the past couple of weeks! There are places like Mafeking, Bloemfontein and Standerton which have had floods. In actual fact, there is no area in South Africa that has not periodically and very regularly been visited by these disasters. There is therefore nothing new in what has happened in the last couple of months, except perhaps in the intensity and extent of the tragedy of what has happened. In spite of the regular occurrence of all these things it seems, as far as I can find, that there is no special machinery to deal with these tragedies as they occur. We know funds are periodically established. For instance, one comes across the Central Boland Disaster Committee in the Auditor-General’s Report of last year. This committee was appointed after the 1969 earthquakes and spent R8 million. The Centre Flood Disaster Committee of 1974, which was brought into being after the country-wide floods in February and March of that year, has a balance of over R2 million after having spent almost a similar amount in providing relief and financial assistance to the victims of the floods.

My point is that there are these funds and bodies, but as far as one can find out, there is no one centrally consolidated fund to deal with these problems as they arise, whether it be the result of storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. This House should ask itself whether there should not be some permanent machinery which can go into action without any delay to administer funds and to take other necessary action in these kind of emergencies. Experience has shown that relief and aid is always given in due course. The compassion of the public manifests itself without any doubt, but it is immediate relief that is needed and this should be met by permanent machinery. As the hon. mover of this motion has mentioned, ad hoc arrangements are all very well and are usually made, but surely in an ordered society something far more permanent and longer ranging is needed. Does the Government have any specific plans in this regard? I ask this because it seems to me as if there is an urgent need to cope with the situation.

Let us come nearer to the floods themselves. Since this is a country that we in the Free State call “’n land van buitensporighede”, it is surely necessary that, for instance in the planning of towns or new townships for Whites as well as non-Whites, we should start from the assumption that floods or some other natural disaster are more than simply an outside possibility. Should there not be some kind of inquiry as to why it so often happens that townships are allowed to be built below flood level—and here I am thinking of places like Vereeniging …

They are no longer allowed to build townships in that way.

I am very happy to hear that, but we still have the situation at places like Vereeniging, Standerton and elsewhere along the Orange River where such townships exist. It is also the case, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, in large areas of Durban where this kind of thing has happened. It should never have been allowed to happen. What one would like to know now is whether there is any kind of supervision, in the planning of such residential areas, to ensure that flooding will not affect the lives of people. Similar considerations, I submit, apply to the planning and construction of roads and bridges. Anyone who has seen pictures, in the past couple of weeks, of roads and bridges washed away in the Western Transvaal will know what I mean. It seems to me that we too often work on the assumption that rains will be normal, whereas we know that too often the exception tends to become the rule.

What I should like to know, and what I think this House is entitled to know, is who is finally responsible for ensuring safety levels in this kind of situation. Is there not, a case to be made out for supervision of this kind of construction, particularly with floods in mind and also particularly in areas that we know are prone to this kind of disaster? What tests are, in fact, applied when bridges and roads are being built? Who lays down standards and who enforces them? Is this done by individual local authorities or regional authorities? Is there, moreover, any kind of overall supervision? My point is a very simple one. We have the evidence of more than a century to prove that floods occur with almost predictable regularity over large parts of South Africa, and from that I therefore argue that there should be special and specific machinery to cope with the problems of the aftermath with the minimum delay, because that is when the need is really greatest. We know full well—as has been said here this afternoon—that local and regional authorities, including the Department of Social Welfare, the Police, the Army and civil defence do come to the aid of the hapless victims and they often render splendid service. However, I submit that all this effort needs co-ordination and special planning by somebody whose job it is. It must not simply emerge in a sudden emergency. My argument is that something ordered and planned is needed if we are going to—as we should— avoid needless suffering and hardship.

Mr. Speaker, provision has already been made by means of legislation, for many of the things requested by the hon. member for Parktown. Only last year legislation was introduced to ensure that people did not build houses in the low-lying parts of rivers, and so on. I shall not take this matter any further. I should like to emphasize that hon. members on this side of the House are deeply conscious of the vast losses which individuals, communities and the country as a whole are suffering and are still going to suffer because it is still raining. It is quite interesting that the hon. member for Newton Park gave notice of this motion as early as last week, but the major rains only occurred over the weekend. I wonder whether he is grateful for that. However, I have not heard from one hon. member opposite—nor from the hon. member for Newton Park who has travelled the world so extensively—that he had noticed that there had been blessings, too, resulting from these excessive rains of the past three years. Owing to the rain our grazing lands are better than they have been for years. Furthermore, our subterranean water resources have been replenished to an incalculable extent. In my part of the world, approximately 100 000 ha grazing were destroyed by fire during autumn and if it had not been for these excessive rains there might have been reason for the hon. member to discuss the matter in this House as a matter of public importance. However, what is the aim of this motion? I should like to express my conviction that this is an extremely transparent effort to catch a political fish in the muddy flood waters for selling in Durban North and Alberton. [Interjections.] In 1974, too, we had floodwaters. At that time, too, there had been excessive rains. In certain parts of my constituency it rained more in 1974 than it did now. We had much worse flood damage then than now along the various major rivers. However, then they were not regarded as being conditions of public importance to which attention had to be called by means of a motion in this House.

Why did you not speak at the time?

This was not only the case in 1974. I shall go further back and point out that such a serious drought prevailed in the country in 1966 that more than 800 farmers of the Vaalharts scheme were unable to reap a crop. As a result the Government was forced to pay out an amount of more than R1,3 million to them. These were oppressive circumstances of public importance; however, the hon. member for Newton Park was not concerned about them then. At that time he did not introduce a motion in the House stating that it was of public importance. While the hon. member is travelling around looking at the damage caused by an excess of water in the interior, he should bear in mind that he is chairman of the committee whose business it is to know that the hon. member’s own area, the Southern Cape, was experiencing one of the gravest droughts in many years. Is the hon. member not aware of that drought, and does he not know that it has only now been broken? However, it did not rain grass. Does he not consider this matter, too, to be of public importance? Is it not necessary for him to wonder in that respect as well how our people are to be fed and what the price of food will be as a result of the drought? It is senseless and heartless to go and see how people are having problems caused by too much water and not look at one’s own region where people are having problems caused by too little water. We should really maintain our balance. For these reasons I can only come to the conclusion that this is cheap politicking. A party must really be politically bankrupt when it seeks to make a political capital out of circumstances such as these which are beyond our control.

I also regard this motion as a means to discredit the Government by implying that the ministers concerned are unsympathetic towards the situation. What are the facts? On 21 January the then Minister of Water Affairs, together with the most senior officials of his department, paid a visit to Vaalharts. He also went to view the situation at Delareyville as well as the whole Harts River area as far as the Spitskop Dam. He instructed his officials to deal with the situation without delay so that immediate relief could be afforded. What is more, a team of three officials of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure not only visited the area on the same day, but carried out a thorough investigation of the needs of the farmers throughout the area and how relief could be afforded them by means of recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture. On 11 March the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and of Water Affairs, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, visited that area in the company of the most senior officials and had consultations with the farmers, listened to complaints and heard and saw what their problems were. Only last night the hon. the Minister of Community Development announced that his officials had been instructed to go at once and ascertain the extent of the damage caused by the floods, with a view to distress relief. What do the hon. members expect to be done over and above what I have spelled out as having been done by the hon. Ministers? Allow me on this occasion to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Ministers and the officials for what they have done and are still going to do.

How do the farmers—I am not referring to the braaivleis farmers—and our communities in general, regard the situation? I should like to pay tribute to those people immediately for their fine attitude in difficult circumstances. I want to emphasize very strongly that the farmers of my constituency and the farmers of South Africa are not asking for or expecting charity from the Government. What do they expect? They ask for a sympathetic understanding of the problems they are faced with in exteremely difficult circumstances. They are satisfied that they are getting that sympathetic understanding from the Government. They also ask the Government for financial support so that they may carry on their farming activities with self-respect once again after the disasters have passed. The irrigation farmers ask that their land be saved. The requests of the farmers are being attended to and we are busy meeting those requests. However, I am not going to elaborate on this; the hon. the Ministers will do so.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear not only what the hon. member for Kimberley North has had to say this afternoon, but all hon. members who have so far spoken from the Government benches. It has been quite amusing to hear the reaction of these hon. members. We have now been accused of “goedkoop politiekery”. These hon. members see politics in every drop of rain that falls. [Interjections.] We have learnt that in South African we have a very inconsistent rainfall. Our seasons have always been inconsistent unlike those of many other countries, but we still lack long-term planning designed to meet all emergencies. We do not need to work on an ad hoc basis. We realize and appreciate that nobody can be held responsible for acts of God and that is not what we are accusing the Government of. We know that a drought comes and that nobody can be held responsible. We have floods, tornadoes and fires which are all acts of God. We have seen this before. Despite all these facts, one thing is certain, if we are going to continue the way we are, there is going to be famine in South Africa by the year 2000.

Just the other day we had the pleasure of seeing a short film which was presented by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Some of us were lucky to be presented with a very nice book, too. The theme of the short film was “Food for Thought”. It certainly gave us food for thought. We have seen how desperately we are in need of food and also how much food is being wasted, not only in this country, but throughout the world. Few people appreciate this. We shall have to teach the younger generation how to conserve and appreciate good, healthy food.

I have mentioned certain inconsistencies. A few years ago this House passed a Bill legalizing weather modification. In terms of that law people who wish to induce rain to fall, have to obtain a licence to do so. I believe we shall soon have to think in terms of issuing licences to people to disperse clouds and do away with rain where necessary. In 1970 I witnessed a flood in East London where 44 inches of rain fell in 36 hours. What is more, only one large cloud was responsible for that flood.

During the latest emergency there have been floods in all four provinces. Indeed, at this very moment floods are being experienced in all four provinces. Strangely enough, the Western Cape has not been affected. In all four provinces heavy crop losses have resulted, as the hon. the Minister knows. Those of us who have travelled around the country have witnessed the damage. The country has suffered food losses as well. Let me quote the headlines that appeared in just three newspapers recently: “Soaking rain threatens the Orange Free State and Northern Cape”; “Havoc in Flood areas—Western Transvaal and Northern Cape”; and “Shortages and Drama as rain lashes the country”.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Newton Park for having had the foresight today to discuss this very urgent matter. I look upon the reaction of hon. members on the other side as “sour grapes” because we happen to have taken the initiative; we have taken the matter seriously and we have come here with concrete and constructive suggestions.

The hon. member for Newton Park made a mess of his motion.

If hon. members opposite knew that the country was in dire need of help, why did they not introduce this matter earlier, why did they have to wait for the official Opposition to raise this matter by way of a motion? [Interjections.]

I have mentioned that we have suffered heavy crop losses. In many areas where farmers have been able to cultivate their land and plant their seed—I am thinking of an area such as the Eastern Cape where I myself farm—most of the seed has not germinated, but has drowned. Where the seed has germinated, the crops have drowned. In the Orange Free State we have recently seen maize which should be standing six foot or seven foot high, but which was only two foot or two foot six inches high—a complete loss. We have seen wheat crops lost. We have seen oats and barley drowned. We have also seen well-established lucerne drowned.

Unfortunately the floods have caught the agricultural industry at a time when the Reserve Bank has placed credit restrictions on commercial banks. In other words, to put it plainly, this emergency has caught the agricultural industry with its pants down. The hon. member for Kimberley North said the farmers were prepared to pay for the losses. Of course they are, but where are they going to find the money if we in this House do not provide them with it?

It has been provided in the past and will be provided again.

We have institutions which make money available to agriculture; we have the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. You know, Sir, I like the words “agricultural credit!”

I bet you do!

These are nice words. I have always liked them! However, what will be the use of going to the department for a loan if they do not have the money? We on this side of the House suggest that on 31 March the hon. the Minister of Agriculture must not ask, but tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that he must provide enough funds for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to be able to lend money to the farmers to repair the damage. The farmers are prepared to pay. We know the rates of interest are minimal. The farmer does not wany anything for nothing. They have learnt to pay for everything they have been able to get from either the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, if by August or September this year, when the rains have stopped and the soil has dried sufficiently for the damage to be repaired, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank then turn around and say “Jammer, Meneer, maarons het nie meer geld nie”, this Government will never hear the end of it. I want to tell the hon. member for Kimberley North that we want long-term planning to be undertaken in order that the farmers may repair the damage which has been done. If such long-term planning is not undertaken, we are going to find that farmers are going to leave the land, and this we cannot allow. Surely, we have to keep the farmer on the land no matter what it costs.

The heavy rains have washed out the crops. The fertility of the soil has been lost temporarily. Fertilizer which is another important and expensive ingredient in agriculture has been washed out of the soil—and into the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

There is another problem which points to an inconsistency in agriculture. Why should an agriculturalist, when acquiring a new tractor tyre, find that he must pay R400 for the tyre, while if he goes to another village or town he can purchase the same tyre for R200? Why should there be such a variation?

What has that got to do with the floods?

This is the problem. And hon. members are prepared to let this state of affairs continue. We believe that all these factors should be taken into account in the long-term planning. Why, too, should maize seed be so expensive? Why has the price of maize seed risen by 21%? Here, again, the farmer will have to go to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to raise a loan to buy maize seed which, as I have said, has gone up by another 21%. We must find a means of keeping the farmer on the land so that we can produce the food required for our rapidly increasing population. By the end of this century South Africa will experience an annual grain shortage of more than 7,5 million tons. We shall also by then have to import approximately two million tons of vegetables to meet our local demand in South Africa. As hon. members know, even today we are importing red meat from South West Africa and neighbouring States. By the year 2020 the population of South Africa will have increased to more than 81 million people, and already we cannot meet the demand. This means that the agricultural industry of South Africa will have to double its production within the next quarter century. This requires long-term planning and no ad hoc decisions.

At present, while the cost of production has from 1960-’75 more than doubled, while crop production has increased by 37%, South Africa is having to import about 25% of its red meat requirements from South West Africa and from neighbouring States. We must be positive. We on this side of the House want to be positive. We have made suggestions. I have already suggested assistance from Agricultural Credit, and there are many other ways in which to do long-term planning. It was only a few years ago that we had an invasion of locusts in the centre of our country and there again we were caught unprepared. We must do something. We are going to have the main budget on 31 March, and are we simply going to sit back and allow agriculture to deteriorate and see the depopulation of the platteland continuing? No Sir, without good and wholesome food, we will fail to maintain the strong economy that we require in the defence of our country, both in the socio-economic field and militarily.

Mr. Speaker, so far the debate has indicated that we are living in a country of extremes, extremes of climate and tribulations for our farmers and also for other sections of the community. I agree with the hon. member for East London North that one must be prepared. Indeed one can practically be prepared to a certain level. I do not have enough time at my disposal to set out everything my department has done, not only in connection with the floods, but also in connection with droughts. Sunday evening I returned from an area where there are problems with water. We must therefore look at these things in a very balanced way and accept that we are subject to extremes of nature and that this can cause problems for us because it is not physically or economically possible to take precautions against the extremes we experience from time to time. But what can be done, is definitely being done. This has been demonstrated by the visits of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in particular, together with the officials of his department, by myself and my officials and also by my predecessor. I would not be doing my duty if I did not demonstrate my sympathy for our farming community in these circumstances, circumstances not only of flood waters, but also of droughts, because I have already come across farmers this year who have said to me: “Look at my vineyards; if only I had a little water it would have helped a great deal.” Their problems and distress are just as great as that of the other people. I therefore want to express my sympathy to both sides and give the assurance that this Government will do everything in its power to help these people who have suffered damages as a result of an excess of water, water-logged farmlands and the destruction of crops, as well as on account of droughts. I want to say immediately that I do this in the closest collaboration with my department and with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who has a fine record as far as his intense interest in the well-being of the farmers is concerned.

I would like to refer briefly to the flood in Durban as mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. There are naturally aspects which fall under the Minister of Community Development. The latter asked me just to indicate briefly what the Departments of Community Development and of Indian Affairs were doing. Together with the local bodies they immediately gave their attention to these floodwaters. He also asked me to apologize for his absence here today. Unfortunately he has an important foreign visitor whom he could not see at any other time, otherwise he would have tried to participate in the debate himself. I want to assure the hon. member that the regional representative of Community Development and of Indian Affairs is visiting the scene in Durban and that they have already taken steps in conjunction with the authorities concerned to provide homes for these people whose shanties have been destroyed there. The hon. the Minister also asked me to announce that he is considering, and has decided in principle, to extend the assignment of the existing Disaster Committee set up in 1974, so that it can handle deserving cases which arise now as well. I mention this with pleasure to indicate that all branches of the Government are paying attention to this problem immediately and as effectively as possible. However, this does not detract from what has been said here, especially by the hon. member for East London North. He wants to try and gain a little political prestige for himself and his party in spite of what the other hon. members have said. He said they were the first to draw their attention to this matter, but they should know that the Ministers and their particular departments were actively solving the problems. We cannot speak about a matter we are dealing with.

This goes without saying. It seems to me I should tell the hon. member the story the hon. the Minister of Agriculture told at Vaalharts, just to show how these people try to take advantage of problems of this nature for the sake of political prestige. The hon. member particularly mentioned prestige. They are trying to take advantage of it. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture told the story at Vaalharts about the Black man who was walking along with his small herd of goats, a herd which had practically been exterminated by the drought. He did not have the courage to slaughter yet another one. Besides, they were too thin. At that moment a rabbit jumped out and he killed it with his stick, and when he picked it up, he said: “You are fat, aren’t you, little bag of bones.” This is how this kind of motion ends for those hon. members. They try to make political capital out of it. They present their case very dramatically, but when they pick up the rabbit, they see that they have not gained anything by it, because this Government, in all its branches is giving particular attention to the matter.

Sir, long-term planning was asked for here. I can tell you that in respect of Vaalharts, there is long-term planning by the Department of Water Affairs in conjunction with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and that work is being continued. In certain cases, like Rietrivier, we brought heavy machinery to the scene. Under the present circumstances we can do practically nothing because it is too wet, but there is long-term planning for such a scheme in which both these departments are engaged. I just want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that if he listened to the news broadcast this afternoon, he would have heard that the Department of Health, in conjunction with local authorities, is attending to a possible outbreak of diseases such as gastric fever or other epidemic diseases, in that area. I also want to mention that the Department of Health is also busy attending to this matter in Klerksdorp, where there is an Indian community in particular who suffered damage due to the flood. At Ladysmith there were also floods recently, to which the hon. member for Parktown referred. He said that there should be long-term planning. Sir, the Department of Water Affairs has put an Act on the Statute Book and we amended it this year to ensure that future planning would take place after consultation with the Department of Water Affairs, because they have information at their disposal to undertake necessary planning against floods. Mention was also made of bridges and roads.

Any engineer who undertakes planning will consider what kind of bridge he has to build, and whether it has to be able to withstand floods over 10, 20, 50 or 100 years; this is normal procedure. Sir, we cannot build the bridges, roads or houses for floods which may occur during the following 1 000 years. In some cases the floods we experienced were more severe than any we have had in the history of our country. I shall furnish a few figures in that connection in a moment. I also want to refer to what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said. He spoke to me recently in connection with the control of the Bloemhof dam. We shall have to discuss it again, but at this stage I just want to tell him that his plan is not as simple as he thinks. My department informs me that if we have to make arrangements for that dam to accommodate a flood, as he put it, it is not going to work, because we shall experience a shortage of water in the Vaalharts area.

I am just mentioning this to indicate how members on this side of the House have already discussed this matter with myself and the department in a responsible manner before it was raised here in Parliament. I also want to thank the hon. member for Fauresmith for the timely attention he gave to this matter. He brought his people to me here in the parliamentary building before I and my officials were able to inspect the area.

Do you not think it is a good thing that the matter is discussed here in Parliament so that the public may know that Parliament as a whole is concerned about it?

Yes, it is perhaps a good thing that the public should also know it. But the public knows this Government so well in any event that they know that the Government will take steps, whether or not the matter is discussed in the Parliament. I should say that it is important for hon. members on the other side to broadcast the little they do. They want to hold up that thin rabbit to the public and say: “Look how fat he is.” But I grant the hon. member for Durban Point that it could indeed be valuable to discuss it here. But now the hon. member should make a contribution himself by telling the public that this matter was discussed in Parliament on their own initiative, but that the Government indicated that they are indeed doing the necessary in all spheres and that, therefore, it was not really necessary for hon. members on the other side to raise the matter here.

There is also an area of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development which was flooded, an area at Vaalbossloot. The Commissioner-General acted so quickly there that we were reproached by the White farmers that, before we were able to do anything for the White farmers, we had already provided food to the Bantu at Vaalboschsloot by means of helicopters. This area really falls under Bophuthatswana and a permanent agricultural officer has now been placed there to see to those people’s needs. I also want to point out that the planning of that area was originally undertaken by engineers, and this goes to show that conditions of this nature cannot even be avoided by means of planning. There will always be extremes in weather conditions, something which cannot be avoided by means of planning. Now there is the problem of mosquitoes which are attacking the people there, and we shall have to devise a plan in that connection. Man and beast are suffering as a result of this in large areas of the Northern Cape and the Western Transvaal, and we shall have to see whether anything can be done about it. However, this is not so easy. When floods occurred at Delareyville, I asked my department to send an engineer to investigage the floods there, and after we had received representations from the hon. member for Lichtenburg, we had pumps and pipes brought there. Within a few weeks 14 pumps were erected there in order to ensure that town’s immediate future. Hon. members must take note that this town had already been established in 1910-’2. The town has therefore existed for more than 60 years and has never experienced anything like that during that time. This shows how unequalled the present floods are.

As far as the Vaalharts scheme is concerned, we are planning this scheme as well as the Riet River government water scheme, while my department is also doing a great deal in connection with the floods in the Vaal and Orange Rivers. It is naturally better to plan things ahead, better than to rectify them afterwards. Therefore irrigation schemes have to be planned properly. My department uses the dams on the Orange and Vaal Rivers to combat floods like these. Indeed, I issued a Press statement in this connection in which I congratulated my department on what they had done in this respect. Let me tell hon. members what is in progress at the moment. The inflow in the Verwoerd Dam began to increase on Sunday night. On Saturday, 20 March, at 12 p.m., 3 300 cumec entered the dam. The following day, Sunday, it was 4 400 cumec. The following day, Monday, it increased to 7 000 cumec. The peak inflow ought to reach the dam at 12 o’clock today and is calculated at 8 500 cumec. The peak outflow is calculated at 4 800 cumec and is expected to take place on Wednesday at 2 o’clock as against that 8 500 cumec flowing into the dam. In other words, the outlet is equal to 56% of the peak inflow. Control such as this has been exercised this year and is again being exercised now. The peak inflow in Bloemhof Dam was 2 000 cumec last Monday at 8 o’clock, while the outflow remained constant at 1 300 cumec over the past 20 hours. We are therefore also trying to keep the flood waters back there. Today the outflow was 600 cumec.

Therefore the Department of Water Affairs has reduced the outflow so that when the floodwaters of the Orange River arrive, we shall be able to avoid a further disaster. The expected maximum water level at Upington is approximately 7,5 metres. It has already been 7,45 metres this year, and it is expected that the water level will rise a little higher with this flood. Available flood absorption is being used at both dams, and the following maximum dam content is predicted: At some stage the Verwoerd Dam will have an absorption equal to 131% of its capacity and the Bloemhof Dam an absorption of 115%. Hon. members will appreciate that these dams, besides water provision, can serve a very useful purpose provided this additional water is utilized correctly, and my department is doing just this in a very effective manner under the present circumstances. But hon. members should appreciate that rain may fall in the meantime and that this makes it very difficult for the department to exercise proper control. I may just mention that the necessary warnings have already been issued to owners along the Vaal River and Orange Rivers, but according to the weather report today the weather is clearing up and it is expected that the floodwaters approaching along the Orange River, will not cause any greater damage than what has already been caused this year.

I want to point out to hon. members that we have already provided for damages in the additional appropriation this year, among other things for weirs which were damaged, and in the Budget for the ensuing financial year, provision has already been made according to what has happened as a result of previous floodwaters during 1974 and this year. Our engineers and technicians have already planned what is to be done in the future.

I want to emphasize that my department is giving effective and vigorous attention to these matters. But hon. members must also remember that this cannot continue indefinitely. For example, it has been estimated that my department will have to spend R16 million on the Vaalharts scheme in order to provide flood conduits and general drainage in order to safeguard that scheme. Ultimately it may lead to the doubling of the original construction cost of the scheme.

You will have to do it, because just consider its production potential.

Yes, we shall also have to do much more. However, we cannot undertake this planning and expenditure alone. We shall also have to change the irrigation methods. My colleague’s department, in conjunction with my department, is dealing with the matter to avoid methods of irrigation which may result in saturation and brackishness. This demands a comprehensive organization and profound study by highly qualified people. Therefore, we cannot rush in head over heels and say that we shall solve the problems overnight. But what can be done— and I can assure the public and hon. members of this—has been done.

Mr. Speaker, we have been reading since the beginning of this year of the storm, hail and flood damage recently suffered by large parts of South Africa. In the Parliamentary Library there are two bulky files containing newspaper cuttings about that damage. However, there have been very few references to what will in fact be done to assist the afflicted people in their troubles. [Interjections.] Nowhere do we find a comprehensive programme of what this Government is going to do to render assistance to those people. There have been casual references to investigations that are going to be undertaken, but nowhere is there any mention of any active steps which this Government is going to take to aid the afflicted people. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we have had a fierce reaction here to the proposals made by this side of the House. We have been accused of wanting to play politics with this situation. However, the politics came from that side of the House. There have really been very few positive proposals from the Government side.

Now you are talking HNP language.

By way of illustrating the lack of interest, we need only look at the many empty benches on the other side. [Interjections.] They testify to the lack of interest in the fate of an afflicted group of people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to express our serious concern about the people whose homes, whose business concerns, whose farms and fields have been flooded. We have already produced good, practical suggestions. We hope that all parties who are able to render assistance will in fact do so, and we also expect this Government to contribute its share to relieving the distress of those afflicted people.

We find it particularly shocking that people have been allowed in the past to build their houses in some low-lying areas next to creeks and rivers, and that some people have even been forced to do so by socio-economic conditions. There are many examples of this throughout South Africa. We know that legislation was promulgated last year which will prevent such things from happening in the future. We know that the Department of Planning will see to it that future township development and expansion will take place in suitable areas. Mr. Speaker, what about existing townships—in many cases these are Indian residential areas in the low-lying parts of towns—which are still vulnerable in the event of flood damage of this extent? Places such as Ladysmith and Durban have already been mentioned. Twenty-five bodies have been found in Durban, and 2 500 people are homeless.

Mr. Speaker, we expect a vigorous programme to be drawn up, as proposed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, in terms of which these people are to be moved to higher terrain. We have been assured that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will investigate these problems. However, my experience of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is that he has been investigating Indian affairs for many years. An investigation of Actonville, at Benoni, has been going on for more than seven years with a view to making extra land available for occupation by Indians. The investigation is still continuing and nothing has been done. [Interjections.] At some places, seven families are living in one house. Can we expect that something will be done in the future to move these people living in low-lying areas? It is true that we have had promises here that attention will be given to this matter. However, we know the kind of attention which is given to matters of this nature. We know that nothing will come of it.

Mr. Speaker, there are other areas as well which are suffering from flood damage. I want to refer in particular to the extensive damage done to salt-pans in the Northern Cape and in the Western Free State. Those salt-pans are flooded at the moment. They had barely recovered from the rain damage of the past two years, and I anticipate that the possibility of a shortage of salt in the future is not excluded.

What do you recommend?

I should like to inquire whether the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will investigate the problem, or otherwise give us the assurance that there will be no shortage of salt. [Interjections.] We are all aware of the fact that … [Interjections.] Yes, we should like to hear what provision he is going to make if he finds out that there will in fact be a shortage of salt in the future.

Are you all as silly as McIntosh? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we know how dependent the farmers are on salt licks for their stock. Our lambing and calving percentages are dependent on it. The growth capacity of our stock and the amount of red meat that farmers are able to produce annually are dependent on salt licks. We must combat lamb diseases by administering phosphates along with salt, and in spite of the assurance given by the hon. the Minister, there have been problems in the past in obtaining salt in certain parts of Griqualand West. We should like the hon. the Minister to have the matter investigated in order to ascertain the extent to which our salt-pans have been affected by the flood water and the extent to which the production capacity of the farmers may be affected by this in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have also had serious problems …

That we can believe!

… in the stock-raising areas of Griqualand West. That hon. member knows very little about this. That is why he is being so noisy and why he is finding things so amusing. There are farmers, especially in Griqualand West and in the Northern Cape, who are waiting to hear what this Government is going to do for them. Meanwhile hon. members, such as that one, sit here cracking jokes about the predicament in which our farmers in the country districts find themselves. The problem experienced by the farmers there is that large parts of their pasturage have been flooded. Percentages of between 30% and 40% have been mentioned here. There are farmers who believe that they are going to suffer greater losses as a result of this rain damage than they suffered because of droughts. I should like to recommend the hon. the Minister actively to consider applying exactly the same measures now and making the same relief available to farmers in areas suffering from flood damage as was done during the drought conditions. There are farmers who will need fodder. We should like them to receive subsidies for this. There are farmers who suffered tremendous stock losses as a result of the mosquito and gnat plagues. They lost large numbers of their young lambs as a result of the fact that black clouds of mosquitoes and gnats literally sucked out the blood of the lambs just after birth. Karakul and Dorper lambs are being picked up dead in the veld. While hon. members are sitting here laughing, we feel concerned about the production capacity of some fanners. [Interjections.] Because so many farmers do not have sufficient capital to rehabilitate themselves, we should like loans to be made available to them more readily at low interest rates, so that we may keep those farmers on the land and on the farms. We expect this Government to do something about that problem.

The farmers have been willing over the years to make their products available at low prices. As a result, they are not as well-provided with capital as we should like them to be. For this reason I believe that the farmers are entitled to expect this Government to provide them with the necessary aid.

Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating the query as to how much farming we do in Houghton. It is a pity that nobody has asked me that leading question, because I wanted to tell them that although we may not do much farming in Houghton, we certainly do consume a good deal of agricultural products. We are interested in the fate of farming because we also contribute, as do other taxpayers in the country, towards the Government subsidies that assist farmers, not only in times of need and emergency, but also throughout normal periods in South Africa. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the damage which has been suffered by farmers due to the recent floods. My hon. friend from Parktown has already expressed the sympathy which we feel with people who have suffered such damage and also with people who have suffered loss of life, which is even worse. I have the feeling, however, that everybody in this House who has been talking about farmers, has been talking only about one type of farmer, and that is the White farmer in South Africa. This is very important, and I want to point out to the House that there are millions of Black farmers in South Africa. There are something like seven million people living in the homelands and the majority of the economically active members of that community, who are not working as migrant workers in the White areas of South Africa, are engaged in agriculture. These people have suffered considerable damage as well. The rain falls without discrimination in South Africa and when it falls heavily it falls on the Black areas as well as on the White areas. Throughout the country, be it in the Transkei, the Western Transvaal or the Northern Transvaal, great damage has been suffered by farmers farming in the Black agricultural areas in South Africa. I also want to point out that there are Indian farmers in South Africa. The last census estimated that something like 3,7% of the economically active members of the Indian community were engaged in farming. These people too have suffered very considerable damage. What I want to know is what steps are being taken by the central Government to aid Black farmers in their hour of need to enable them to rebuild the dams which have been broken, to enable them to get stock feed as they are not going to be able to grow stock feed, and to enable them, if necessary, to move stock from flooded areas to areas where stock can survive. Are they being given the same sort of assistance that White farmers are getting? Are they, for instance, getting rail rebates in moving stock feed? Are they given assistance in the from of a subsidy of something like 60% which is given to farmers to assist them in rebuilding irrigation areas? These are the questions which I would like to ask the hon. the Minister. I know, of course, that the answer will most likely be that since these people are farming in the homelands, it is up to the homelands Governments to provide them with the additional assistance. I want to point out that the homeland budgets have been pared to the bone and that there is no additional money available in the homeland budgets to assist the farmers in the Black areas. If ever there was a time for a generous gesture, a gesture which could do enormous good for South Africa, it is now, at this time in our history. I urgently implore the hon. the Minister to give this matter his most serious consideration and to tell this House whether there are plans to give assistance to the millions, and there are millions of Black farmers in South Africa who have suffered very considerable damage as a result of the floods.

Which are the Black areas most affected?

Bophuthatswana has been badly affected and there are areas in the Transkei, I am told, which are badly affected and where they could not plant the seed for next year’s crop, and so on. There are also many areas which have been badly affected in the Western Transvaal and in the Northeastern Transvaal. Zululand has been affected as well because, as the hon. member knows, there are no areas where the homelands do not abut on the White areas and where there is complete consolidation, except in the Transkei, and even there the consolidation is not absolutely complete since the Transkei comprises three separate portions of land. Certainly Bophuthatswana and the other areas in the Northern and the Western Transvaal have been badly affected.

I want to say something in particular about one group of Black farmers that have been especially hard hit and I think that it is incumbent on the Government to take special measures in their case. I refer to the people who have been forcibly moved, and I use the word “forcibly” advisedly, for they have been moved against their will from one area to another, and to an area which they consider certainly not to be as good a farming area as the area they used to occupy, and which at present is certainly in a very bad condition.

You voted for that.

No, these are the Mayen people. I voted very strongly against that. You must not anticipate what I am saying. The Mayen people were moved in 1974. This has nothing to do with the consolidation plans which we voted for last year. The former Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is very well aware of the history of the Mayen people but I think there are other members in this House who are not as well aware of this. These people have been moved twice.

The first time was 100 years ago.

It may have been a 100 years ago, but they remember it. The hon. Minister remembers the Anglo-Boer War, I bet he does. The Mayen people therefore remember when they were moved from the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers which, is as I have said, coincidentally where diamonds were discovered just over 100 years ago. That may be one of the reasons why they were moved. They have been moved twice, in the first instance to Mayen and a few years ago, under tremendous protest from these people, to Vaalboschhoek, which is approximately 80 km from where they were, making life even more difficult for them. The land, in their opinion, is inferior to the land that they had. Some 2 000 people were involved in this, not just a handful. Quite recently a number of women took their children and left the area to which they had been moved and went back to Mayen, complaining that the land was sodden, that their children were dying because of the wet conditions and that stock was dying because they were plagued by mosquitoes— the things that members have been complaining about in respect of the White areas—and that the walls of their houses were collapsing. They were of course arrested for trespassing and they were hauled into court and some of them were sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment, another group of women came down and they were also arrested, but fortunately the magistrate who tried that case bothered to go into the circumstances of the case and did not sentence them. He suggested that they go back to Bophuthatswana and that they find other people with whom they could live while the matter was being investigated. There the matter rests at the present time. I have put a series of questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he has told me firstly that conditions were found to be satisfactory. The second answer he gave me, following upon the case where clearly the magistrate had accepted that these women had been driven away from the areas in which they have been resettled by the rotten conditions there, was that the matter was under investigation. I think that something should be done about these people as an emergency measure. I do not know whether there are other cases which are identical to this. I would not be at all surprised if the people who were for instance removed from Doornkop to an area which they dislike intensely are also finding conditions very difficult in the Transvaal.

No.

Hon. Ministers say “no” very easily. They tell me that their officials have investigated and that they find that everything is absolutely fine. I do not believe that women will leave an area and take their small children with them, risk imprisonment and indeed be prepared to go to gaol …

I am talking about Doornkop.

All right, I am not sure, but I would not be surprised.

You are always not sure.

No, I am not always not sure. When I am not sure, I say so. That is where I differ from the hon. the Minister, because when he is not sure he does not say so. There is a very special responsibility on the shoulders of the Government, where it has been engaged in the forcible removal of people and the resettlement of communities, to make sure that those people are not at this moment suffering particularly as a result of the floods. I hope that I will get an assurance from the hon. the Minister on that score.

Finally I want to join with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in pleading for special measures to be taken to assist the Indian community that is suffering so grievously at the present time. In addition, I want to join with that hon. member and with the hon. member for Parktown, both of whom say that forward planning is required to make sure that communities of human beings are not settled on land which is likely to suffer recurrent flood damage.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton, who mentioned flooding in the Transkei. She said that the farmers in the Transkei could not plant seed.

That is right.

But you cannot plant now, before winter-time. [Interjections.]

They were not able to plant …

That is altogether a different problem. The hon. member raised further pointes relating to Bantu Administration. She said that those farmers should get the same 50% subsidy as was paid to White farmers. I want to point out that the Department of Bantu Administration is paying them subsidies of 100% on dams that are broken. In other words, they are getting 50% more than the White farmers.

*The hon. member for Newton Park said that he was not going to play politics in this debate. I am pleased about that. We are not going to play politics. The hon. member said that if the farmers had obtained good prices they would have been able to manage on their own. This is not politics at all; the hon. member was only stating facts. I should be glad if the hon. member could just tell us what a good price is. But he did not do so; he just made a general statement. Furthermore he said that all our planning was being done on an ad hoc basis. I wrote down every point as the hon. member spoke. I repeat: He said that our planning in respect of agriculture was being done on an ad hoc basis. Sir, speakers on this side of the House have pointed out that there are parts of our country that are being afflicted by terrible droughts, and that at the same time there are parts which are flooded. Then there are also parts of the country in which conditions are splendid and ideal. The hon. member for Parktown said that there was no long-term planning and that there was no system to provide for an emergency such as a cloud-burst. Sir, something like this can happen in Somerset East tomorrow, and in Nelspruit the day after. This is something which can occur everywhere. I want to point out that I am not quarrelling with the hon. member. I just want him to understand what the position is, because he made quite a number of statements. He said that assistance was not immediately available. Let us take the case of a farmer in Vaalharts. In fact, allow me to say something about the problem of Vaalharts. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, the members of the House of Assembly who are concerned with this, such as the hon. members for Fauresmith and Kimberley North, all our officials and I have gone to look at Vaalharts and Riet River. Sir, we did not build that Vaalharts scheme. That Vaalharts scheme was laid out the wrong way.

By the United Party.

I am not going to say who built that scheme, because I do not want to play politics; however, we did not build it. [Interjections.] I am not making any reproaches. The scheme was built with very good intentions. However, we certainly would not build a scheme like the Vaalharts scheme today, as part of the Orange River scheme, for example. If we have to build a scheme, it will be quite different. No one foresaw at that time that that area could have five inches of rain within one night, and that this could be followed after three days by another four inches. That area got half its normal rainfall within a week. These are unprecedented conditions, and we cannot reproach one another for them. Now the farmer is there. He can only harvest in July or August. Even with the best sunshine conditions he would not have been able to harvest at this stage anyway. He would have harvested in July or August. He cannot move with a tractor, and he can hardly get to town. Now the hon. member says that aid must be available immediately. What kind of aid are we to give the man? I can tell the hon. member that the Deapartment of Agricultural Technical Services is looking for solutions by means of internal drainage, and that facilities are being provided by my colleague,the Minister of Water Affairs. The hon. member said himself that he had been there. The Department of Water Affairs has to spend R8 million just on main channel drainage systems to drain off the water. We must remember, however, that it is an investment. There may be drought conditions again over the next five years and then it will be very easy to say:“Why did you spend that R8 million on drainage? Could it not have been used to build canals for supplying more water? We have a drought on our hands.” If the farmers have that internal drainage laid on, as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services … Would the hon. member please listen? If he listens, these motions will not be conducted in this way again.

But you have to provide drainage there.

That is right.

I mentioned the irrigation method.

It was not necessary to do something of this nature for the next 20 years. Now we suddenly have an over-supply of water, an abundance of water. I now want to indicate the assistance we are giving to these people. If a man digs the canals, we give him a subsidy of between R3 000 and R4 000 a site. In respect of the other R3 000 or R4 000 it costs him to have the internal drainage installed, he received a loan at 5% from the Department of Agricultural Credit. The other R8 million for the main channels is provided by my colleagues, without those farmers having to contribute a cent. What more are we to do?

Get a move on.

But, Sir, we cannot get a move on. We have got bogged down. Everywhere there is a morass of mud. Everything gets bogged down there. How are we to get a move on?

We have been warning for a long time … [Interjections.]

They have got bogged down, but they are getting a move on … [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that we should give more subsidies and that in granting these subsidies we should view agriculture as a whole. The hon. member said he had visited the area. I should like to refer to a meeting which was held by the farmers in that vicinity. This meeting was well attended. Meetings were held in several areas, but I am referring just to this one, which was held without any interference on our part by the S.A. Agricultural Union at Ottosdal on 11 March. Here I have a list of all the people who attended the meeting. I want to refer briefly to the resolutions that were passed—

That was the very first resolution. Then we have the following—

So they want the amount to be increased from R8 000 to R12 000. This is a loan, however.

Did they not say anywhere that they wanted better prices?

Further resolutions read as follows—

And then we have the following—

There we have it.

But what are we to do at this time of the year? The hon. member said that the farmers would not have been in this dilemma if the prices for the agricultural products had been right. Sir, we normally check all production costs at this time of the year. We look at international circumstances and at the national economy. We are a responsible Government. Next year we have to fix prices again. It is very easy to come here with popular slogans, but we have to go back to the farmers every time and we have to take them with us. We have to act responsibly, and we have a national economy that has to balance. Our farmers are aware of this. However, my attention is being diverted from what I want to bring home to the House. This was the standpoint of those farmers at this specific meeting. Do hon. members remember that our country had a maize crop of 42 million bags in 1973? There had been a terrible drought. We then obtained R25 million from the Minister of Finance to lend to the co-operatives, apart from all other so-called ad hoc assistance to which hon. members refer. We lent R25 million to the co-operatives so that this amount could be lent to farmers, at a co-operative interest rate. Do hon. members know what is still owing on that R25 million? On R893 is still outstanding. This is the kind of farmer we have in this country. I mentioned this just to prove that these people do not want subsidies and free assistance all the time. If the farmers find themselves in a financial dilemma because of circumstances beyond their control, they know where they can turn to for assistance.

Now the hon. member for East London North says: “Why wait for the Opposition to take the initiative?” Sir, the initiative comes from the Opposition today—that is quite right. Why did it not come from this side? The hon. member for Brits came to visit me at half past seven this morning to tell me about a cloudburst that had taken place in his area. The Elands River was in flood and the belongings of the people of Koedoeskop were washed away yesterday. We decided not to go there until 29 and 30 April. We could go tomorrow, but then we might have to go again in a week’s time. The normal rains are over by the end of April. Then we shall visit the constituencies of Brits, Schweizer-Reneke, Lichtenburg, Standerton, the Wilge River and the Vaal River, Parys, Bothaville in particular, Winburg, Hoopstad in particular, Heilbron, Villiers, on the river. Fauresmith and Vaalharts we have visited already, and the same applies to Kimberley North, but if it is necessary, we can go again. Even the hon. member for Marico came to say that the Marico River, too, was in flood. Now I ask why the initiative for such a thing does not come from this side. It is because the members of the House of Assembly who represent these constituencies are in close contact with the farmers and know what their problems are and because they have free access to me and to my deputy, day and night, for stating their difficulties. I do not blame hon. members for having raised this thing here today, but do not say that the initiative comes from their side only. The hon. member for Fauresmith rightly asked that we should not have the loans repaid after the first year. From Agricultural Credit a man gets a production loan of R8 000 at 5%, but he need only write a letter to say that his circumstances are such and such, that he has been having difficulties for five years running. Can hon. members name one person on whom we have brought pressure to bear under these circumstances because he has not been able to pay? He has only to react and we shall give him respite. I must say the bad debts are minimal. As soon as the weather is on his side he pays back. The hon. member for Christiana suggested that farmers be compensated for losses on their crops just as compensation is paid when the stock of a shop has been washed away. Unfortunately, Sir, I can never accept the principle—I should not use the word “never”—that we are to compensate for losses on crops in agriculture in South Africa. There are farmers whose crops have been completely destroyed by hail, there are farmers whose crops have been flooded, and there are farmers whose crops have been destroyed by drought. One simply cannot remove the risk factor from agriculture, for by doing so one would be killing the farmer’s initiative. I quite agree that the man who can produce must be enabled to do this, so that when he has a good crop, he is able to save something for the difficult years ahead. This has always been our idea. I think the hon. member feels that while this is done for the shopkeeper—I must say it was done in a time when we were rather more indulgent—it should be done for the farmer as well.

I was referring to the distress fund, not to loans from Agricultural Credit. Is it not right that where there is a distress fund, all people should be able to benefit from that fund on an equal basis? I am not talking about normal crop losses.

It is possible, but it could happen, as it happened during the 1973 drought, that damage amounting to more than R300 million may be suffered in agriculture. We do not have that kind of money. But we can discuss the matter. We would have to build up such a fund gradually, because that fund would be exhausted by loans. If they know that a large amount of money is being held for a disaster which may occur some day, the farmers will borrow it. There is no doubt about that.

I was very pleased to see how the hon. member for Kimberley North intervened on behalf of his people at Vaalharts. He wanted us just to hold out a helping hand to these people; they want to produce, and the area is a rich source of supply for our country, as is the Riet River scheme. His slogan here today was “Save our land”. By saving the land we shall be saving the farmer as well. This is why my colleague, the Minister of Water Affairs, and our officials have decided together with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture that if only we can get enough money, we are going to save that scheme.

What are you doing about it?

What am I doing about it? [Interjections.] Sir, my time has almost expired. I want to tell the hon. member that he has painted certain pictures here. We have a fantastic country which is able to produce all these requirements. The hon. member said that we would have to import 2 million tons of wheat by the year 2000. Sir, I predict that we shall not have to import it. We have the human material; we have the farmers on our side and we have the research at Agricultural Technical Services, and if we consider that our production has doubled within 10 years, I say that we shall yet see miracles in the next five years.

But the greatest damage was done in the Western Transvaal. In Hoopstad and in parts of Bothaville there has been 35% to 85% damage. But do you know, Sir, what our estimated maize crop is? And normally we are not out by more than 5%. This estimate was made before the terrible rains this weekend and therefore it will have to come down a little. Last year it was 8,8 million tons and this year it is 8% lower—8,1 million tons.

It will be just the same as last year.

Let us first get the price. Sir, I receive reports from the teams who are fighting locusts. The hon. member said: “The locusts will catch us unawares.” Can you imagine, Sir, that the hon. member can say that the locusts will catch us unawares? At the moment there are 6 anti-locust teams in the De Aar area; 15 at Fraserburg; 3 at Carnarvon; 3 at Vanwyksvlei; 5 at Brandvlei; 3 at Vosburg; 10 at Kenhardt; 8 at Calvinia East; 3 at Loeriesfontein; 4 at Kakamas; 5 at Pofadder—a total of 65 in this area. In the Kimberley area there are three teams at Marydale and two at Prieska. Most loucusts have now reached the flying stage. Many of the units are not working and are awaiting further developments at the moment. Because the flying locusts move about over a quite large area, the surrounding districts may shortly be affected. Rain and damaged roads make it difficult to combat the, but we are ready for any further outbreak. But the hon. member says: “They will catch us unawares. ” The year before last we spent R2,2 million on combating locusts. I think, Sir, that now and then, not for the sake of the ministry or of the Government, but for the sake of the men who do research work out in the veld and who go about with locust-spraying equipment on their backs, it would be a fine gesture if the Opposition were only once to express its thanks for the fact that we still have enough food to eat, in spite of all these things which threaten us. I do not mean to criticize the hon. member for Newton Park. He has every right to move a motion of this kind. There is nothing wrong with it, but we must see it in the right perspective. We must always remember, in speaking about agriculture, that we cannot predict these things. Sir, there are farmers in the Eastern Transvaal who have a harvest of 115% this year compared to last year. These are splendid agricultural circumstances, but I am very disappointed and very sorry indeed for these men who are in financial difficulties because of the present weather conditions. But I may just tell them that this Government will always be sympathetic towards them because they are prepared to produce food in a country such as this one, where the conditions can never be predicted.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to what the hon. the Minister has said, I just want to put right, for the sake of the record, the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton a little earlier where she said that we concerned ourselves only with the White farmers of South Africa. I want to say that we never mentioned White farmers. We spoke about farmers generally, in fact, she ended her speech by associating herself with the plea made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana for the Indian farmers on the flats of the Umgeni River.

The hon. the Minister has now replied and I am sorry that he has taken the line he had, because I believe the hon. member for Newton Park came this afternoon with a motion which he hoped would be to the benefit of the people of South Africa. I know it was his intention when he came with this motion to say to the hon. the Minister and to the Government what should be done, and I am sorry it is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture alone together with his colleague, the Minister of Water Affairs, who have to bear the brunt of this debate. I think what the hon. member for Newton Park was trying to say was: We have a problem; this is the problem as we see it and these are the suggestions we have for resolving those problems, but what is the Government doing?

Is it aware of the problems? What is it doing to combat those problems? Can we perhaps get together and find some solution so that we can avoid the “ramp” we experience every couple of years in the same place? The hon. member for Fauresmith will know of an area where this has been experienced three years running. For three years running the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, with his colleagues and staff, has gone there and made ad hoc plans to combat that particular problem, but the same problem is experienced all over again every year. What future planning has there been? This is the question the hon. member for Newton Park raised.

The hon. the Minister referred to the question of financial assistance to the farmers. In so doing, he misconstrued completely what the hon. member for Newton Park had said when he referred to the reviewing of prices. What the hon. member for Newton Park in fact said, as the hon. the Minister would have known if he had listened, was that the farmers themselves said they would like to carry themselves through such periods, but that they were not in a position to do so because of the nature of the prices and because of their increased production costs. The hon. member for Newton Park merely asked the hon. the Minister to see what he could do about the situation, even if it should mean subsidizing consumer prices. That is what he said, and I do not believe that there is anything wrong with that at all. I believe the hon. the Minister must accept that in the same spirit. The hon. the Minister spoke of having travelled around. I wonder whether he undertook those travels only after he became aware of this motion, or whether he travelled through these constituencies before that. The hon. the Minister also said he could not undertake long-term planning in South Africa, since floods are experienced in one year and a drought in the next. I accept that, and we on this side of the House accept that it is very difficult to have long-term planning, in view of the extremes of climatic conditions experienced in this country.

The hon. the Minister also said we would not find one person in the stricken areas who has not been helped by his department. We concede that point, but he gives assistance on an ad hoc basis. That is the crux of our criticism of the Government. We had hoped that the hon. the Minister or some member on that side would have told us this afternoon that the Government had in fact made plans so that, if a situation such as this should develop— such conditions keep on recurring—there would be somebody who could press a button thereby implementing plan A, plan N or plan X by means of which everybody would know what they had to do to combat the particular conditions that had developed. I know what is going through the hon. the Deputy Minister’s mind: He wants us to come with suggestions. How many years in succession did the hon. the Minister not hear the former member for South Coast, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, plead for long-range weather forecasting? Has the hon. the Minister gone into that? He did not even reply to the same point made by the hon. member for Newton Park today. What has he done about long-range weather forecasting? Something can be done. We can, for instance, make use of the American or some other satellites for such long-range weather forecasting. In that way we would be warned when something like this was liable to happen so that we could start taking the necessary steps. What about flood warnings? What about anti-flood action? Take the example of Ladysmith in Natal. Every few months the river there comes down in flood and every time it breaks its banks in the same place. When there is a flash rain in the mountains, we must have a squad to put down sandbags or to do something to prevent the river breaking its banks. What about the evacuation of people, and of animals, for that matter?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, there is no time. The hon. member had more time than I have. What about the mobilization of our civil defences? I want to join the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in paying tribute to what the civil defence has done, particularly in Natal, where I know what they have done. They must make plans for the accommodation of the evacuees, for the transport of workers, for the maintenance of essential services and for the supplying of power, food, medical supplies and immunization. After that, the matter should be referred back to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs laughed when my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, referred to the flood conditions and the fact that there was no forage in Natal.

You are talking rubbish.

Not at all. It is a fact. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs laughed and asked: “What has that got to do with it?” He said the farmers must look after themselves. The point is that it is so wet that the farmers cannot reap any hay. They just cannot make hay—there is no sunshine for them to make hay. It is raining in those areas! The question is what planning the hon. the Minister has done in this regard. Has he gone to those areas where there is a possibility of making hay to encourage them to establish fodder banks to keep our animal population alive during the coming winter? Vast areas of Natal will have no hay this year. I think, for instance, of the whole constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Mooi River. There are areas in the Karoo where not a single bale of lucerne has been reaped. Parts of the Orange Free State and the Vaal Hartz area have no lucerne, as the hon. the Minister knows. What are the cattle going to eat if the hon. the Minister does not now start collecting grass in the areas where there is some grass? During the severe drought experienced some years ago, even the land along the runways at the airport and along the railway lines was mowed to get some grass for the cattle. We expected to hear from the hon. the Minister that he had made this sort of plan and that the Government was aware of the problems facing the country and was taking the necessary steps. In exactly the same way that we expect to hear of this sort of plan to counter floods, the converse also applies. We hope to hear from the Government that they also have relief plans in the event of a drought or any other natural distasters that may occur.

The hon. the Minister must not start talking of flash floods in localized areas. Nobody can control those and, naturally, we are very sorry for the few farmers who may be hit by such floods. I know that the hon. the Minister’s department helps such farmers. We have not criticized the department or the hon. the Minister for that at all. However, I am talking of floods on a vast scale such as are being experienced at present. This is almost in the nature of being a national emergency. I am disappointed that we have not heard more from the hon. the Minister.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to inform hon. members that I have decided, after consideration, to move amendments in the Other Place in respect of certain of the matters which we discussed during the Committee Stage. I should like to inform hon. members of this in time, with a view to the debate which may follow here. The amendments will be as follows: That in the long title the word “in” where it occurs for the second time be omitted and the word “within” substituted; that in the preamble, in the third paragraph after “people and” be inserted “without prejudicing any further constitutional development of the territory of South West Africa”; that in clause 10 on page 9, in lines 54 to 57, the following subsection be substituted for subsection (4)(a)—“(4)(a) Provision shall be made for the holding of elections by secret ballot, and every citizen of Rehoboth, whether male or female, over the age of 18 years, who has full citizenship rights in accordance with the customs of the Rehoboth Baster community, shall have the vote” and, finally, that in the schedule on page 35, in item 52, after the word “crime”, be inserted “in Rehoboth”. With these few ideas I move the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the amendments which the hon. the Minister intends moving in the Other Place, and which we welcome, a little later. In the course of the Second Reading debate, allegations which had very little to do with the Bill were levelled at me across the floor of this House. These came in particular from hon. members representing the White voters of South West Africa in this House. Naturally we shall have to seek other opportunities to reply, where necessary, to the allegations. However, I hope you will permit me to reply as briefly as possible to a few personal accusations which were made against me. The hon. member for Middelland quoted quite a number of passages from newspaper reports on what I had allegedly said recently at the symposium of the Federal Party in Windhoek. In not a single instance did he take the trouble to quote me correctly.

Were the newspapers reports incorrect?

He was shaking because I had used words simply to the effect that we “should lead the revolution in South West Africa ourselves”. The speech which I made in Windhoek during the symposium was written out, and this was what I said when I referred to the extraneous dangers threatening South West Africa, and to the necessity for timeous political adjustments within South West Africa—

Dit is die kern van my boodskap.

The revolution I was referring to was therefore peaceful change, in contrast with those who were seeking violent change. I know of no right-minded person who could have any objection to that.

It seems to me a few apologies will have to be made.

The hon. member and various other hon. members almost had a stroke simply because I had allegedly said that we had passed the point of peaceful solution in South West Africa. Again this was a case of half a quotation; for this is what I said—

Inteendeel, hoe langer ’n oplossing vir Suidwes uitbly, hoe groter moet verwag word dat hierdie bedreiging sal groei … Ek vrees ons het reeds by die punt verby getrek waar die oplossing geheel en al vreedsaam sal wees.

Various hon. members attacked me because I had allegedly offended members of the Windhoek constitutional conference and had allegedly said that none of them had any knowledge of constitutional matters and that assistance from overseas should be called in for them. This is not an entirely correct version of what I said either. I was replying there to a question from the audience, and I said that South West Africa was a multi-national country and that it was a pity there was not a single delegate at the conference who had undergone a study of the constitutions of other multi-national countries in the world, and of how other multi-national countries were resolving their minority problems. This is an ordinary statement of fact; it is true. I then added that it was the duty of the Government to cause delegates to the conference to be provided with advice by people who had sufficient knowledge and experience of the constitutions of multi-national countries, and that they should call in outside assistance if it was not to be found here.

Is the conference under discussion now?

Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the conference; I am merely replying to personal accusations, and with that I conclude.

Order! Has the hon. member not already replied to both points on which he was attacked?

Yes, but there is another point.

What point is that?

The hon. member for Middelland angrily charged me with having an interest in the matter and wanting the conference in Windhoek to fail and miscarry. The hon. member had no ground whatsoever for making such an allegation. On what did he base it? Apparently there are members in this House who believe they are entitled to say anything they like as long as it suits their propagandistic purpose. At the symposium in Windhoek I expressed myself very clearly in favour of the conference, and that is also the attitude of our party. The conference undoubtedly suffers from certain shortcomings which cannot be discussed now, but it is the very best development which could have taken place in South West Africa. But I want to tell the hon. member for Middelland that it is not I and the United Party who wish to cause the conference to miscarry; we welcome it. It is the hon. member who should be concerned, because his party are the people who will have to make adjustments.

Order! The hon. member has now presented his explanation, and I shall allow no further discussion on those points.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling.

I must point out that a great many personal attacks were made here. I regret to have to say that in general the contribution of the few South West African members to the discussion of the Bill was of such a nature that they did not improve their position in this House. To them what was involved was to a far greater extent the ideology of their political party, rather than the general interests of South West Africa or of Rehoboth. Some of their speeches drew sharp reaction from non-White leaders in South West Africa, and helped no one. The last thing non-White leaders in South West Africa want is to be associated with the political policy and ideas of the governing party, for they do not want to be regarded as “stooges” of the Government. The South West African members in this House demonstrated during the course of the debate that they were completely out of touch with the situation and that they could not see any further than the immediate interests of their political party. As far as the general interests of South West Africa are concerned, they serve no purpose here, and I regret to have to say that it would be better if the present system of their representation here were brought to an end.

During the Second Reading debate we voted in favour of the Bill, and I do not think it is necessary for us to defend the standpoint which we adopted to anyone. The Bill seeks to give the territory of Rehoboth a form of local self-government. In fact, a form of local self-government which the territory formerly had and which is fully in accordance with the policy which we advocate and the direction which some of the principal population groups in South West Africa also advocate. In our opinion the principle of the Bill is contained in the legislative and administrative powers which are being conferred upon the Kaptein, the Kaptein’s Council and the Legislative Council of Rehoboth. We have correctly advanced the argument that this is in accordance with the express wishes of the people of Rehoboth. We are always the first—I admit this—to criticize the Government if it does not consult a population group before coming to this House with legislation. In spite of the shortcomings, which we have pointed out, in the Bill and in the way in which it was formulated, the Government did consult the people of Rehoboth in this case, and we are satisfied—we know this from our own knowledge of the affairs of South West Africa—that the people of Rehoboth want this local self-government on the basis of the old Paternal Laws.

The hon. the Minister, during his reply to the Second Reading debate, seized upon a minor debating point and intimated that I had allegedly said that I was not interested in the wishes of the people of Rehoboth. However, that is not what happened. In my Second Reading speech I emphasized that the Baster community had been agitating for years for the reinstatement of the paternal laws, that they admitted that in many respects they were obsolete and had to be modernized, but that they wanted to do this themselves. I added to that that we sympathized with such an expression of desire to help themselves. With regard to the most recent election in Rehoboth, I also mentioned further that the party that was in favour of the reinstatement of self-government and the Paternal Law of 1872 had won the election convincingly. I made it clear on behalf of this side of the House that, in dealing with the Bill, it was an important consideration on our part that the wishes of the Baster community in Rehoboth should be complied with as far as possible. This was, in fact, one of the principal reasons which we advanced to indicate why we supported the Second Reading of the Bill, in other words the principle of the Bill. There is therefore no question of our not recognizing the wishes of the people of Rehoboth or of our not being interested in them. This is clear from all the speeches which were made on this side of the House. I am afraid the hon. the Minister misinterpreted a reply to an interjection which I gave him. I was discussing the position of this Parliament in respect of the international status of South West Africa. The hon. the Minister made an interjection referring to the wishes of Rehoboth. At that moment, however, I was not discussing the wishes of Rehoboth. I was discussing the position of this Parliament. I want to concede that the report of my reply could perhaps have created a misunderstanding, but the context ought to have been completely clear. In any case, it is of no great importance. The record makes it clear that our support for the Second Reading was based on the wishes of Rehoboth and the fact that the Bill expands local self-government.

As regards the Third Reading, we have already objected to the general formulation of the Bill, and particularly to the constitutional terminology which is being used in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has been accommodating in two respects, apart from the fact that he also accepted quite a number of practical suggestions which we put forward in the Committee Stage. He eliminated the racial clause, to which we had very serious objections, and in his reply to the Second Reading debate he said, and I quote—

I know the hon. the Minister was glancing over his shoulder while he spoke, because it was not we who suggested that the Bill had anything to do with sovereign independence for Rehoboth. The people of Rehoboth themselves said that they did not want this. Those of us who know Rehoboth, know that it can no more become an independent State than Mamre or Genadendal can become independent States. Therefore, that was never our problem. We did not fear that this was a step towards independence. We simply did not want terminology to be used which could cause confusion and misconceptions to arise in the outside world and could place ammunition in the hands of our opponents, particularly those at UNO. That was why we insisted that it should be written into the Bill somewhere that the self-government—in the terms in which it is used in the Bill—which is being granted to Rehoboth, should be within and as an integral part of the territory of South West Africa. The hon. the Minister did not comply with our request in so many words. A few minutes ago, however, the Secretary gave me the amendment which the hon. the Minister will move. Where the word “in” is now stated in the title of the Bill he will use the words “within South West Africa”, and will also insert other words to the effect that when self-government is granted to Rehoboth it will be done “without prejudicing any further constitutional developments of the territory of South West Africa”. That is very close to what we wanted. Therefore we welcome it, and I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has just said that he will effect that change in the Other Place. However, because he did not want to accept these amendments during the Committee Stage, we stated our standpoint very clearly on four occasions during the Committee Stage. We told the hon. the Minister that we did not want to accept co-responsibility for any hostile propaganda which could stem from the formulation of the Bill. This is also the reason why we asked for a division on some of the amendments.

Since the hon. the Minister is now going to effect these amendments in the Other Place, we feel that it would be wrong of us to oppose the principle of local government in the Third Reading and, as it were, to try to punish the Baster community for any shortcomings for which the Government may be responsible. In any event it is in our opinion only a question of time before this Parliament will no longer have any authority over Rehoboth or the territory of South West Africa. I believe the power will pass into the hands of the people of South West Africa themselves. The sooner this happens, of course, the better. In view of the standpoints which we have made clear at all the stages of the Bill, and in view of the amendments which the hon. the Minister has promised to introduce in the Other Place, we shall not oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, please afford me the opportunity of replying in just a few sentences to the first part of the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that part in which he referred to that revolutionary and evolutionary situation. The passages I quoted were taken from the hon. member’s own newspaper, and if that newspaper reported him incorrectly, he must say so. That is all I want to say about that.

The hon. member also said it was time the representation of South West Africa in this Parliament was brought to an end. However it is not the United Party that will decide this, neither here nor there. The Federal Party in South West Africa—as they call themselves—wants the same thing of course, and that is why they have decided never again to oppose a single seat of this Parliament. That is quite understandable, for since 1950 they have never had a single seat in this House of Assembly. But I want to leave this matter at that.

With this legislation we have, in our opinion, reached a new milestone in the history of the territory of Rehoboth. This legislation is indeed a realization of a long cherished ideal. I do not want to delve too deeply into the history, but I just want to refer to a few important dates. Rehoboth had the right of self-determination until it was divested of that right on 26 July 1895 by the defence treaty, in terms of which absolute sovereignty over the territory was with any doubt granted to Germany, and under the provisions of which the German flag was hoisted over the territory. Subsequently they even went so far as to abolish the office of Kaptein completely in 1905. This is further proof that they divested the Rehoboth Basters of even that measure of self-government which they still had. In the place of the Kaptein they appointed a Gemeindevorsteher, as they termed it.

Even the Union Government of the time had many problems because it was not clear at that time precisely what the Rehoboth community wanted. It decided to appoint a White person as magistrate in that territory, who would then automatically be the Kaptein of that territory. In the well-known case, Rex v. Christian of 1922 in the Appellate Division (A.D. 101), it was ruled that South Africa had absolute sovereignty over Rehoboth. We cannot get away from that. The Union Government of the time gradually began to grant Rehoboth a certain measure of self-government over its own affairs. Firstly it promulgated proclamation No. 9 of 1928, which established an Advisory Council of six members, of whom only three were appointed by the Administrator. It was only in 1935 that proclamation No. 5 provided that all six members of that Advisory Council had to be elected. In this way a variety of Governments of the then Union from time to time confirmed the special status of the Rehoboth territory in South West Africa. Throughout its history—and I am now speaking with a measure of authority because I have made a special study of this—the Rehoboth community was not satisfied with the position in which they found themselves. From time to time they agitated for a greater measure of self-government. Recently, in 1969, they even agitated for full independence. I want to present hon. members with proof of this, for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout denied that they wanted it. I want to quote from The Argus of 20 January 1969. Under the headline “Basters seeking independence” it was stated—

He proceeded to state his case, and subsequently said—

In other words, as late as 1969 they were still striving after absolute independence. We have now, by way of this legislation, the Third Reading of which we are now dealing with, granted them their inalienable right of self-determination after they had asked us to make their Paternal Law of 1872 applicable to them again. It appeared over the years that it was a sore point with them that this Paternal Law should be regarded as part of their own culture. Therefore I am pleased that specific reference is being made to it in this legislation, in the Preamble. It reads as follows—

They have regarded their own culture and identity throughout as their right of self-determination. That is why we are coming forward with this legislation to restrore to them those ancestral laws—whether we agree with them or not—for they have a right to self-determination, and for that reason we must give them what they are asking for. That Paternal Law of 1872 is more than a 100 years old, and I do not want to maintain now that the measure of self-government which it confers complies with the modem requirements of a constitution. In fact, I do not think there is any constitution in the world which is drawn up with the object of never being changed. Britain is the only country which has no constitution whatsoever. Its entire administration is based on practice. But consider how many important amendments have had to be effected from time to time to the American Constitution. Just think of our own South Africa Act. How many times has it not been necessary to amend it? For this reason I do not want to say that this legislation is absolutely perfect. But at least it lies within their right of self-determination to ask for it. I do not believe that this legislation, as it reads at present, is the alpha and the omega for the Rehoboth community, and it is certainly their full and alienable right to ask this Parliament to amend this legislation from time to time. I would recommend that we comply with their wishes at all times, except if it appears that, as they quarrel among themselves and one party is replaced by another, it is as a result of the whims of one party that they suddenly want a change in the constitution. Then I would say that we should stand by the original legislation. Surely hon. members can understand that it will be of no avail our altering this legislation every year, or whenever another party comes into office.

There are various aspects of this legislation which we would normally not have embodied in a modem constitution at all. Take, for example, the case of the head of Rehoboth, who is called a Kaptein. Among us, in terms of modem constitutional law, reference is made to a Head of State, Prime Minister, Chief Minister, etc. Why, then, is mention made in this legislation of a Kaptein? However, it is to a certain extent their right to want it like this. The word “minister” of course comes from the Latin word ministri, which refers to the office of a minister. That is why we refer in English to a preacher as a “minister of religion”. Even the word “Kaptein” has a Latin origin, i.e. capitaneus, which means “headman”. I could go further and say that the word “colonel” comes from the French word collonella which means “head of a colony”. However, they may retain their use of the word “kaptein”; I do not want to argue about that. In this legislation, for example, we speak of a Kaptein’s Council, but in modem constitutional law we would prefer to refer to it as a Cabinet. We have a Cabinet, if we think of our own history, which stems from Britain. The word “cabinet” had indeed never been mentioned in any Law of the Parliament of Britain, except in the Crown Act of 1937, therefore only recently. It arose as a result of tradition. It is interesting to see how the cabinet system developed there. I am referring to this because I want to return again to the question of the Kaptein’s Council. Henry VI who lived between 1422 and 1461, established the Privy Council. I hope the hon. member for Mooi River is here, because it seems to me that he is the only person on the opposite side who knows something of British history. Charles I decided in 1625 to turn the Privy Council into a smaller body because the Privy Council at that stage already consisted of more than 50 members and it was impossible to ensure secrecy in such a big and clumsy body. He then selected a small group which met before the Privy Council meeting, a kind of vestry meeting, and from that the Cabinet system arose. It is interesting to see that originally the Cabinet members were not members of Parliament. Only in the year 1662 did two members of Parliament, Bennet and Coventry, become members of the Cabinet. Until 1714 the King in person was always chairman of the Cabinet. In those years when King George I became king of Britain, he was unable to speak a word of English. At his first Cabinet meeting, because he was unable to speak English, he switched over to German and no one could understand him. Then he switched over to French, but then Robert Walpole could not understand him, and then he switched over to Latin and Lord Somers and Lord Cowper could not understand him. Because they could not understand him, they then appointed a Chief Minister, a Prime Minister, with the name of Lord Walpole to act as chairman of the Cabinet.

What does this have to do with Rehoboth?

I am merely drawing a comparison. At the same time you could learn something. In this way the custom arose of the Prime Minister being the primus inter pares, and so, in fact, our Cabinet system developed.

As regards the question of the House of Assembly, it has many designations. Personally I like the term “Volksraad”, but it is not used throughout the world. The Americans use the term “House of Representatives”, the Russians the word “Soviet” which means a meeting, and the French use the word “Assemblé”, which also means a meeting. In this way there are many designations one could use. The most important point is that this legislation, if it is passed at the Third Reading, expresses the desires of the Rehoboth community. However much it may perhaps be in conflict with modem constitutional law, it is the duty of this Parliament to give them what they want. Therefore I have no objection whatsoever to their wishing to see these designations, which they have taken from their own culture, applied in this legislation. With reference to the amendments which the hon. the Minister is going to move in the Senate, I want to make one recommendation, and that is in connection with clause 10, in which it is provided that persons over the age of 18 years who have full citizenship rights in accordance with the customs of the “Rehoboth Baster community” shall have the right to vote. I would recommend that we change the words “Baster community” to “Rehoboth community”, because nowhere in this legislation is there a reference to Baster community. I think it is time the Rehoboth people stopped calling themselves Basters, and called themselves Rehobothers. For that reason I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would consider, when he moves that amendment in the Senate, to consider the question of the designation “Baster” which does not occur anywhere else in the legislation.

Actually, I should like to take issue with the hon. member for Sea Point. He kicked up a great fuss about the so-called 3 000 Damaras. He quoted from something and said that those people had all been born in Rehoboth. I want to tell him that wherever his source for that statement is it is not true. In the second place I want to say this concerning those 3 000 strangers, as I want to call them, who are present in Rehoboth—his object was that they should participate in the election of the Advisory Council—and he should put this under his pillow tonight so that he can sleep on it. They never had citizenship rights in Rehoboth. In fact, they do not consist of Damaras, but also of Namas, Hereros, and there were even Whites in Rehoboth until recently, and even they did not have citizenship rights. In fact, none of the Damaras and foreign peoples living in Rehoboth—and their estimated number is approximately 3 000— were ever at any stage regarded as Rehoboth citizens, but worked for the Rehoboth citizens on their farms. They were servants, and that is the reason why there is in Rehoboth at the moment an entire residential area in which they are living separate from the Rehoboth people.

Ask him what language the Damaras speak.

I hope the hon. member for Sea Point has in the meantime ascertained what language the Damaras speak. Has the hon. member ascertained that? I hope so. The hon. member for Rondebosch kicked up a great fuss about this legislation allegedly having been requested by a so-called minority party, and I think the hon. member for Sea Point also mentioned something of the kind during the Second Reading. I think that if we speak in terms of democracy, we should not concern ourselves too much about minority parties. We have three parties in this House. In 1968, during the election in Italy there were 73 registered parties that participated in that election. How many of them were not in the minority? Nor should we claim, when the Kaptein’s Council or the Legislative Council differ when they pass legislation as they inevitably will, that the world is coming to an end. This is the ordinary democratic process. We may say this in favour of the late Winston Churchill, i.e. that in 1942 he earned himself the distinction of obtaining the greatest majority in a motion of no confidence which any person had ever obtained in a motion of confidence, namely 464 votes to one. I want to refer to another interesting aspect, viz. how things can change. In 1874 the Earl of Halsbury was a candidate in the electoral division of Launceton in Britain, and received only “a single vote”, and the suspicion exists that that vote was cast by none other than himself. What is strange is that five years later he was returned unopposed in the same electoral division. That is how rapidly things can change. The hon. member for Rondebosch, and also the hon. member for Sea Point kicked up an enormous fuss about the rights of the requests of the minority not having been taken into consideration. Does the hon. member not know that one of the most important pieces of legislation in the world was passed with the smallest majority imaginable? I want to refer for example to the Reform Act of 1832 of Britain, which extended the franchise to the ordinary member of the public. It cost seven night sittings, 71 members participated in the debate, and at the Second Reading the measure was passed with a majority of only one vote—302 votes to 301. And no one is annoyed about that today. That just goes to show how they felt about the matter at that time. We are living in a changing world. Often there is an equality of votes. If this should happen in the case of Rehoboth, we should not be annoyed about it. We shall simply have to realize that this is part of our democratic process. The first equality of votes in a division which I was able to trace in British history was that of 14 June 1610. However, it is interesting to note that the Speaker of the time, when he had to use his casting vote, had to declare why he exercised his casting vote on one side or the other. In 1673 there was a motion in the House of Commons that the House do adjourn. On that occasion Mr. Speaker’s simple explanation as to why he had exercised his casting vote in favour of the adjournment was this: “Because I am hungry and I should like to have my dinner.”

The hon. member should please not move that we adjourn now.

No, Mr. Speaker in the remaining ten minutes I should still like to complete my speech. We need not find all our examples in England. There were similar examples in our own country. I should like to bring this matter closer to Rehoboth, for then the hon. member for Rondebosch would also be able to understand it better. In this Parliament—I am referring now to the Other Place, which consists of a small group of members and where there has frequently been an equality of votes—an hon. member by the name of Friedlander moved a private Bill in 1941. When that Bill was eventually put to the vote during the Report Stage, the division was equal, 49 as against 49, and the Speaker had to exercise his casting in the manner described in the Standing Orders, to ensure that the matter was taken further and then negatived. In this way the Speaker still exercises his casting vote today. It was interesting to note that—when this specific matter was put to the vote a second time—the division was once again equal, 52 as against 52. Whereupon an hon. member requested that the House adjourn. Fortunately his motion was passed by 46 votes to 45.

Mr. Speaker, what I should also like to say in regard to the legislation we now have before us—and I must make haste because I see that time is marching on—is that we have with this reached a very important milestone in the history of Rehoboth. I believe that in future Rehoboth and its inhabitants will be very grateful for this historical Bill which the hon. the Minister presented to this House. Since provision is in the first place being made—and I find this commendable—for a flag and a national anthem of their own, I asked myself why we were giving them these things. I mentioned a moment ago the long struggle of many years between the two groups of people in Rehoboth. First the one group was on top and then the other. So it went on. Now I want to say that this provision in the Bill, by means of which Rehoboth is being given a flag and a national anthem of its own, is the only method by means of which true unity can be brought about in Rehoboth. If this cannot be done successfully by way of this provision, that desired unity in Rehoboth will not be brought about by anything in the world. This Bill makes provision for the people of Rehoboth to be able to develop their own cultural heritage and their own pride, pride for their flag and their national anthem, a pride which is intended for every citizen of Rehoboth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Rehoboth community, the citizens of Rehoboth, on this important beacon which they have reached on their journey. I want to congratulate them on having become a nation with an identity of its own. Through this legislation we have set the seal on it, a special seal. I know the people of South West Africa, and I can only say that I do not know of any of the peoples of South West Africa who are not exceptionally proud of their own identity and who would not like to preserve their own identity. I am referring now to the Damaras, the Hereros, the Ovambos and all the others. Each of these peoples wishes to preserve its own identity, and this legislation affords the citizens of Rehoboth an opportunity to do so.

As I regard the matter, this legislation will not only have an influence in Rehoboth itself. As this legislation is aplied by the people of Rehoboth, as unity is established in Rehoboth, as political stability develops, as their political stability results in economic stability and as Rehoboth develops … Believe me, Rehoboth has a tremendous potential; we need only consider the possibilities which mining there offers. There is gold and various other minerals. Rehoboth could become one of the richest areas in South West Africa. At present there are two mines which are being operated in the area. Both those mines could be expanded tremendously if the necessary capital were placed at their disposal. The local development corporation is also doing …

[Inaudible.]

Oh please, if that hon. member would only listen, he might perhaps learn something for once in his life. It is obvious that he does not even want to do that. Mr. Speaker, just the river which flows through Rehoboth alone presents tremendous possibilities. If a dam were to be built there, it would be possible to apply large-scale irrigation. Small farms and riparian plots, such as those situated around many of the larger dams in the Republic, could also be established there. This could contribute considerably to the development of Rehoboth. Thousands of people would be able to settle there and live prosperous lives.

I also believe that this legislation—and with this I want to conclude—will also serve as a guide-line for other population groups of South West Africa. The wonderful example Rehoboth is setting will encourage them to turn to this Parliament with the request that we should help them, too, to preserve their identities. It is not only Wambo that has that right. Nor does that right belong exclusively to Kavango. I believe that the Damaras, the Hereros, the Namas and all the other peoples of South West Africa also have that right. This will also be granted to Caprivi this year.

I believe that with this legislation Rehoboth will be able to set the pace, Rehoboth will be able to take the lead and will develop to the well-being of every man, woman and child in that territory.

But I should now like to make a request to hon. members on the opposite side of the House—and in particular the members of the Progressive Party—not to disparage this legislation, not to shoot the piano player. In that way things will never work out. If they did that, they would not only be doing the people of Rehoboth a disservice, they would also be doing each separate population group of South West Africa a disservice. The hon. members can take my word for it that we, the White representatives of South West Africa, have no intention of leaving. We are going to stay there. Not only are we going to stay there to maintain the White civilization, but also to ensure that it is made possible for each non-White population group to exercise its own rights, its human rights, its right of self-determination. The right of self-determination, as I have already said, is one of the principal rights of mankind. People can only be free and enjoy their human freedom if they have the right of self-determination.