Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of this discussion I shall try to reply from time to time to the questions asked by hon. members. If questions are asked to which I cannot reply because I do not have the necessary information, written replies will be sent to hon. members later.

At the end of June this year the Directorate of Forestry of the Department of Environment Affairs will come to the end of an era upon the retirement of Mr. A. E. Sonntag. After Mr. Sonntag obtained a B.Sc. (Forestry) degree cum laude from the University of Stellenbosch in 1935, he served the department with distinction for an uninterrupted period of 45 years and on 1 January 1980 he reached the highest rung in the former Department of Forestry when he was appointed Secretary of Forestry, a designation of rank which has since been changed to Deputy Director-General in the course of rationalization. I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for his unstinting service, and to pay tribute to an official who always gave of his very best.

I wish him and Mrs. Sonntag a long and happy retirement.

This is also an opportune moment to congratulate Mr. W. H. van der Merwe, who is the present incumbent of the post of Chief Director, Forest and Timber Industry, and who is to succeed Mr. Sonntag on 1 July of this year, on his promotion, and also to wish him everything of the best in the important and responsible task he is undertaking. It is not that the Van der Merwes want to take over everything; it is just that one cannot keep a good man down. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

May I at the outset associate hon. members on this side of the House with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister about Mr. Sonntag. We also regret to see him depart, but we thank him for his services and wish him well for the future.

Firstly, I should like to thank the department for the full and comprehensive report it has produced. I also want to congratulate the Director-General, Mr. Otto, on the very high standard of this report.

In a personal and business capacity, and also as a member of the S. A. Timber Growers’ Association, I have had considerable contact over the past year with officials of the Directorate of Forestry at various places in South Africa, such as Humansdorp, Eshowe, Pietermartizburg and in the eastern Transvaal. I have been particularly impressed with the very high standard of the personnel of this directorate. In view, however, of the importance to the future of South Africa of water and timber there are a few disturbing features in this annual report.

The first disturbing feature is, of course, the staff position. As the department knows, this is very, very poor. There is a general shortage of staff in this department, but in certain categories, such as technicians in water affairs, the situation is critical. In the past year more than half the posts were vacant. Among the engineers there is also a shortage which has not been made up, and the turnover of staff is high. It is clear that an already hard-pressed department is losing engineers to the private sector. I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to constitute a departmental committee to investigate the staff position and to establish what measures can be taken, firstly, to attract staff to his department and, secondly, to see what conditions of employment can be improved so that employees at present in the department will wish to remain in the department. While I appreciate the fact that the private sector is often in a position to pay higher salaries than the Government, I believe it is possible, even in the face of this, to create employment conditions which will make a career in the department more attractive than the uncertainties of the private sector.

The second disturbing feature in the report is the curtailment of funds, the shortage of funds over the years for the development of South Africa’s water resources. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in South Africa’s chain of economic development is the insufficient water supply available for the future for urban, industrial and agricultural development. By the end of this century we will have to provide water for nearly 70 million people in South Africa, and the end of the century is not very far away. It is only 18 years away. In order to meet the natural growth of water demands for the future we will have to increase real expenditure on water at a rate of 6% per year.

The report reveals that over the past eight years, despite a period of economic boom during some of that time, instead of a 6% growth in real expenditure on water needs, there has been a decrease of 6% a year in real terms. We are sabotaging our future in that way. Industrial growth will be retarded and we will face times of severe water shortages in the future. This situation must not be allowed to continue and I urge the hon. the Minister to put his foot down with the hon. the Minister of Finance when budget allocations to departments are made to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to meet the 6% growth in real expenditure per annum to ensure water supplies.

The third matter arising from the report is one which concerns forestry. As far as forestry is concerned, the rate of afforestation in South Africa has also continued to decline despite the revival in the timber market at present. The need for forestry will increase in South Africa over the years with the growth of our population and, as forestry plantations take anything from 15 to 25 years to reach maturity, there is an urgent need to rectify that position now. I also want to refer to something that does not appear in the report and that is that as a large part of South Africa’s timber resources is situated in areas that are due to become independent states soon or at some stage in the future, such as Lebowa, Kangwane and KwaZulu, it means that South Africa will be losing these timber resources and will have to import timber because we will not be able to meet our own requirements. I feel that this is a quite unnecessary situation in a country like South Africa, and it will also make us dependent upon foreign states for certain of our timber requirements. I think that the hon. the Minister knows that the private sector regards timber growth as a not very profitable exercise. This is one of the reasons why the Government has large State forests. It is not a very profitable exercise and ways and means of assisting the private developer of forestry must be found. For example, I notice from the report that during the year only two loans were made to private developers totalling R29 000, which is a very small amount. Only two loans were made by the department for this purpose during the year. While I am dealing with this question of forestry, I should just like to mention to the hon. the Minister that there is a statement in the report about the eradication of bugweed in Natal. I should like to make a special plea to the hon. the Minister to ensure that a vigorous attack is made upon bugweed in Natal. It grows profusely on private property in Natal and, as the hon. the Minister knows, it spreads very rapidly. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that private property owners who have bugweed growing on their property should be prosecuted. Its Latin name is Solanum mauritanium.

I also noticed in the report that there was a criminal prosecution in which the accused person was convicted of picking 182 000 proteas in the Garcia State forest. For this crime against our environmental heritage this accused person was fined only R250.

The hon. member should not talk about things he knows nothing about.

I was on the point of saying, Mr. Chairman, that I do not, in fact, know very much about that case other than the fact that it occurred in the Garcia State forest. However, I have read some newspaper reports in that regard and the newspaper reports indicated that the value of those proteas—I think this was part of the evidence given in the court—was in the vicinity of R100 000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of providing for a penalty other than a fine because I think the prosecution was made under a provincial ordinance and not in terms of a law of this Parliament. I feel that the hon. the Minister could investigate the question of imposing compensatory fines as is the case in other fields in respect of the damage caused by that type of rape of the environment.

I want to come back to a matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister last year in the House. It concerns the outflow of raw sludge into the sea in Durban. This experiment was officially commenced in June last year against strong resistance from the public which was concerned about the effect of raw sludge going into the sea in Durban and was concerned about its effect on the sea and marine life around our beaches.

By the time the hon. the Minister’s Vote was under discussion last year, it was too late to prevent it occurring, but in the circumstances I asked the hon. the Minister three things in that debate. I asked him to arrange for frequent reports on the monitoring of the experiment to be published. Secondly I asked him to ensure that the reports to the public detailed not only whether a hazard to health or to marine life had been created or not, but also to set out what precise changes had in fact occurred in the water and the sediment samples taken. Thirdly I asked him to ensure that the reports were explained to the public in terms comprehensible to the lay man. The hon. the Minister said that he regarded that as a reasonable request and he said that he would accede to that request.

As far as I am aware since then, although the experiment has been running for nearly a year, the public has not been regularly informed by the authorities of what the results are and there have not been any explanations made to the public. In the interim cholera has appeared in the sea in Durban, and shell-fish, mussels, oysters and crayfish, for example, have been found to contain cholera bacteria. That area in Durban is now closed to the harvesting of shell-fish.

The public is alarmed and there have been suggestions in the newspapers that the sludge pipelines may be the cause of the appearance of cholera in the Durban area. I asked the hon. the Minister questions in the House as to where reports of the monitoring of the experiments were available or where they could be obtained, and he gave me certain answers. As a result of that I followed them up and I myself have had discussions with the officials of the National Institute of Water Research, the very people who conduct the monitoring of the experiments and I have in fact studied the private reports which they have prepared from time to time.

I think it is important, in view of the high level of public concern, that the public should be made aware of the results of the monitoring and that it be informed of all the factors which are relevant. Firstly I must say that it is apparent that it is very careful monitoring. Secondly I want to say that reports are drawn up every three months. There are in fact 25 sampling stations on the coast in the vicinity of Durban between the Umgeni River and the Isipingo River and there are two sludge pipelines going out to sea, one going out from the Bluff 3,2 km into deep water and the other one from the vicinity of the Umlaas Canal going out 4,2 km into deep water.

The reports since the start of the experiment up to the latest report in April 1982 show the following: The first thing they show is that there is no beach pollution or bacteriological or biological contamination at any of the sampling stations. However, cholera bacteria of the vibria cholerae variety which is not the Asian type of cholera has appeared to the north of Durban and in the Durban area. The contention of the analysts is that this bacteria has come south from north of South Africa and will continue over the years to march southwards, but because this variety of cholera survives in sea water for three months, its source is difficult to establish. What is certain, is that the Umgeni River, when it comes down, brings down this bacteria in significant quantities. The third point is that the sampling stations have found that measurable amounts of pesticides have been detected in shell-fish near the Reunion and Umlaas Canals and it seems clear that the pesticides have come from industries and not from the pipeline. Finally, in the vicinity of the northern pipeline—that is the one from the Bluff—a measurable increase in the level of the metal cadmium has been found, but it remains within acceptable limits. The net result therefore is that the sludge pipelines so far have had no deleterious effects at all on the 25 sampling stations. In fact, the water and surf around Durban is now much cleaner than it was in the 1960s. It may be of passing interest that marine life is gathered at the end of a pipeline where the diffusers spray the sludge out and is flourishing as never before.

My time is very limited and I should therefore just like to mention one more aspect, namely the question of the rest of the South African coast which is not as well controlled as the Durban coastline. We have 2 400 km of coastline from Port Nolloth to Durban and 26 Acts of Parliament—this must be a world record—apply to it, while, as well, eight Government and 14 local departments are involved. There are only 54 fisheries officers along the whole coastline, so that each officer therefore has to look after about 60 km. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that large areas of the coastline are being stripped of unprotected shell-fish, and it does not appear as if there is much collaboration between the authorities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to establish a central State responsibility to co-ordinate all the bodies relating to the coastline, to look into the whole body of confused legislation applicable to the coastline and to establish research at central Government level into the problem of our coastline.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown, who has just resumed his seat, elaborated on the shortage of staff and funds in the department. It is true that we are having a difficult time financially, but I gained the impression from the various reports of the department that in spite of this situation the department is still succeeding in making the best of an uncomfortable situation. Since the earliest times in the history of the Cape irrigation has played a very important role in the development of farming.

After the depression which followed the Second Anglo-Boer War the churches in particular played a very important role in meeting the social needs of farmers. In this way irrigation schemes were started at Upington, Kakamas and Goedemoed. Later, during the 1929 depression the State initiated settlements schemes such as Vaalharts, Loskop, Boegoeberg, Pongola, Rust de Winter, Riet River and Marico to counteract the tremendous unemployment and poverty that prevailed. Some of the largest irrigations schemes initiated by the State, therefore, were established as a result of socio-economic and socio-political considerations. Today the State is still rendering considerable financial assistance to individual farmers and to irrigation boards.

It is interesting to consider the present state of irrigation development in South Africa. According to estimates last year 226 150 ha were irrigated by the State in South Africa; 331 510 ha were irrigated by irrigation boards, and 450 000 ha by private development. This represents a total of 1 007 660 ha. This is the situation in South Africa today. It is interesting to note that the department estimates that the maximum expansion potential of irrigable land in South Africa is 300 000 ha. According to statistics the water requirement in 1980 was 11 123 cubic metres, and of this amount 73% was used for irrigation and 23% for industries. Let us consider what the situation will be like in 30 years’ time.

In 30 years’ time we will not need 11 123 million cubic metres of water, but 24 958 million cubic metres, of which 59% will be needed for irrigation and 39% for industries. At present the total utilizable quantity of water in the Republic of South Africa is estimated to be 34 000 million cubic metres. The State has built a number of storage dams from which water can be made available for further development. Unfortunately the department does not have the necessary funds to build the necessary distribution systems. Today we are therefore in a position where part of this water is not being utilized. I was greatly concerned to hear that as a result of the restriction on the spending of funds the work on various water schemes will have to be stopped before they are completed. Work on other schemes will have to be drastically curtailed and no new schemes, with the exception of the Palmiet River project in which Escom is involved, will be started. If this situation were to continue and the supply of water to farmers along the Riet and the lower Riet Rivers were to be postponed, this could have serious implications for irrigation farmers as far away as Plooysburg and Douglas. A sustained drought cycle could also cause a disaster in that area. That is why I feel consideration ought to be given to irrigation farmers having a greater say and involvement in these State schemes. They ought to be able to establish an irrigation board to take control and, as such, to borrow funds to continue the work without having to wait until money can be provided in the department’s estimates.

Between the construction town of Orania and the P. K. le Roux Dam an area of 1 500 ha of land is waiting to be developed. I believe that most of this land can be irrigated directly from the Orange River. In other words, it will not be necessary for the department to build canals in this case. I believe that the time has now come to make this land available to our people. Many young men are waiting for such an opportunity. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister not to demolish or alienate the construction town of Orania. I believe that the department will need this town later on for construction purposes, when there is an upsurge in the economy. In the interim people should be given the opportunity to lease houses in that town. I am thinking in particular of irrigators in the vicinity of Orania, those below the Ramah Canal, who will buy farms there. The sites I referred to can be developed, particularly on the Cape side. This is near to Orania and the people can irrigate directly from the river. It should be possible for them to lease those houses. It will be a tremendous saving if the farmers need not immediately make capital investments and build houses. In the mean time the department could also receive an income from leasing those houses. I believe that under good supervision the town would be preserved in a good condition until such times as the department needs it. At present 700 million cubic metres of water from the Orange River project are being used for irrigation purposes, while a further 3 100 million cubic metres of water are available for additional irrigation development. As far as the new irrigation scheme in the Rivier-sonderend-Berg River area is concerned, 10 million cubic metres are at present being used for irrigation purposes, while a further 90 million cubic metres of water are available. As far as the Breede River is concerned, 150 million cubic metres of water are at present being used and, there is a further 100 million cubic metres of water available for future use.

In all these cases there is room for development by the private sector. In addition to the basic provision in the Orange River project approval has already been given for the granting of water rights. However, I must add that these water rights are of course very expensive, and it is a pity that these amounts do not accrue to the department, but eventually end up in the bottomless pit of the Treasury.

Order! I regret to say that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for his friendly gesture.

Owing to increasing industrial development and the accompanying urbanization, the demand for water for industrial purposes is increasing pro rata more rapidly than the demand for water for irrigation purposes. In view of the current financing problems and for other reasons, the provision of water to industries in the cities is considered to be the number one priority. However, the State must also acknowledge the importance of irrigation development, because it provides more reliable production than dryland farming and therefore has a stabilizing effect on the entire provision of food and the nation economy as a whole. By the end of this century the population of South Africa will virtually have doubled, and therefore agricultural production will have to develop much more rapidly during the next 25 years than is at present the case. At a real growth rate in the economy of 4,5% per annum for the period 1977-’87, agricultural production will have to grow by 3,2% per annum to meet the demands for agricultural products. These figures are particularly perturbing if it is borne in mind that growth in agricultural production during the period 1960 to 1977 was only about 3%.

For economic as well as strategic and political reasons, South Africa will have to ensure that in the years ahead it is able to provide an adequate food supply for the population at reasonable prices. The department will have to play an important role in this process. Agriculture will simply have to be treated in a different way when decisions on priorities are taken. Other norms will have to be found for agriculture, because the food supply is of the utmost importance and we shall have to re-consider our priorities timeously.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the report of the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Claassen which was investigating water tariffs has been submitted. If he has in fact received it, we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would make details available.

Although the hon. the Minister has already done so most ably, I should also, on behalf of this side of the House, like to thank Mr. Sonntag, the Deputy Director-General of Forestry, who retires from the service on pension on 1 July 1982, for many years of co-operation. It is a wonderful achievement to have worked in the Public Service for 45 years. I wish him a pleasant retirement and I should like to welcome Mr. W. H. van der Merwe, his successor, most sincerely and wish him everything of the best in his new position.

To be able to meet the expected demand for timber from our own resources in 10 years time, it is estimated that the commercial timber plantations will have to be expanded at the following rate, namely the area of softwood plantations by 27 000 ha per annum and the area of hardwood plantations by 12 000 ha per annum. This gives a total of 39 000 ha per annum. During the period 1972-’73 to 1978-’79 the average annual afforestation figure was approximately 22 000 ha. The private sector’s share in this was 17 000 ha and the State’s share 5 000 ha. The rate of afforestation will virtually have to double, and in this regard the State and the private sector have very important parts to play.

If I take the present staff position and the availability of funds into consideration, it seems to me as if the State will have great difficulty in reaching its target of 8 000 ha per annum. As far as the private sector is concerned, attempts will have to be made to expand the commercial timber plantations in the hands of the private sector by a total of 30 000 ha per annum. To reach this target greater financial incentives are required. The existing incentives in the form of low interest rate loans granted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for afforestation purposes are considered too restrictive by the private forestry sector. The maximum amount per applicant which can be taken up as a loan is R37 500, i.e. 500 ha at R75 per ha. This amount is insufficient, and I should like attention to be given to this matter and the amount increased.

In conclusion on behalf of everyone who has an interest in environmental conservation in South Africa, I should like to express my thanks to the SABC for its good radio and television coverage on environmental education and conservation. The SABC is really doing excellent work in this connection and we, the inhabitants of South Africa, are extremely grateful. I also want to express my thanks to our newspapers and magazines that make a tremendous contribution to conservation in South Africa by means of regular columns and articles.

This is also an opportune moment to thank all the organizations, teachers and pupils for their good work with regard to conservation in the interests of South Africa, because it is vitally important to protect our soil, from which we are nourished, for future generations. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for De Aar on a good speech, as usual, and I support him wholeheartedly as regards the arguments he advanced.

It is probably only decent and right that I also extend a brief word of welcome to the hon. member for North Rand. This hon. member is a respected member on all sides of the House and has for many years been a valued frontbencher, now on this side of the House and previously on the side of the Government Party. He is so well-respected that for a long time he was the chairman of that party’s caucus. I say to him: “It is with great pleasure that we welcome you back; we hope that you will spend many fruitful hours with us in this House.” In these times, when all kinds of surveys are being carried out, I can say that this party, the CP, has shown an increase of 6% in this Parliament with the arrival of this hon. member.

Our party’s thanks and appreciation also go to Mr. Sonntag for the services he has rendered to a very meritorious and fine department over a number of years. We also wish to extend a word of welcome to Mr. Van der Merwe, who will occupy this important post in the future.

It is with appreciation that one examines the annual report of the department. One becomes aware of the wide scope and the many branches of the activities of this department. Perusing the annual report one realizes that the men and women of the department are still experiencing certain problem areas in the execution of their task. This causes one to appreciate still more what the staff of this department achieved. As far as the bottlenecks within the department are concerned, one reads on page 3 of the annual report—

Then it is indicated that in the 1977-’78 financial year, there were 253 posts of which 85 were vacant; that in 1978-’79 there were 256 posts of which 42 were vacant; in 1979-’80 there were 344 posts of which 83 were vacant; and in 1980-’81 there were 337 posts of which 171 were vacant. That is to say that expressed as a percentage, the number of vacancies in 1980-’81 was almost 51%. In the light of these data one is so much the more appreciative of what is done by the men and women who man the posts and, in spite of the number of vacancies, achieve what they have in fact achieved in that department.

We need not debate the importance of water. After all, it is true that man and beast, industry, agriculture and mining are all 100% dependent on the water supply. We need not even debate that. As far as I am concerned it is very high on the list of priorities. It is also true, as the hon. member for De Aar mentioned, that almost one million hectares in the Republic are already being irrigated. According to data at my disposal, this irrigation water at present represents 75% of the water consumption within the Republic of South Africa. This compels one to say that the irrigation farmers will have to give consideration, now and in the future, to irrigation practices which promote water conservation, because in view of the large percentage of the total consumption of water required by agriculture, it is logical that in the future it will be more difficult to claim larger concessions as far as the quota of water is concerned. Water is going to become an increasingly sought-after item and there is going to be strong competition in future among agriculture, industry and mining for the available water.

As far as the importance of water is concerned, one notes with some concern certain facts provided in the report. Here I associate myself with what the hon. chief spokesman of the Opposition had to say. On page 2 of the report we read—

Therefore, if I am not mistaken, we are building up a backlog at the rate of 12% per annum. If things continue in this way this could have fairly disastrous consequences in the future. I therefore hope and trust that in normal times the hon. the Minister will again receive his customary allocation of funds to enable him to continue with the important activity of providing water.

I have before me a departmental report, and this enables me to refer to a more pleasant subject, a subject which makes me far more optimistic, particularly since I have just referred to the shortage of water and the shortage of funds. It is therefore a pleasure to point out that the dam wall of the reliable old giant in my constituency, the Vaal Dam, is being raised. The department is going ahead rapidly with the completion of the work involved, and once that work has been disposed of, the storage capacity of the Vaal Dam will be drastically increased. According to the report, indications are that the work on the Vaal Dam will be completed by 1984 or 1985. At present the total demand for water which is to be supplied from the Vaal Dam is 1 827 million cubic metres per annum. In 1985 it will be 2 290 million cubic metres. When the work on the Vaal Dam has been disposed of, the supply of water from the Vaal Dam and the Vaal River will increase to 2 819 million cubic metres per annum, which will be sufficient until 1992, viz. ten years from now.

We therefore hope that during the next decade we shall find other ways of alleviating the situation as far as the supply of water is concerned, particularly in the Witwatersrand and Vaal Triangle regions.

In conclusion I wish to touch on another subject. In this regard I refer to the report of the Water Research Commission. On page 22 of this report I read the following—

The commission’s finding is as follows—

Now I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in the course of its investigations, the commission extended its experiments to the dams, or whether they were confined solely to the canals. As far as the dams are concerned, I wish to point out that according to data at my disposal the surface area of dams in the Republic of South Africa is at present 990 000 ha. In my opinion these areas could be utilized for the profitable production of freshwater fish. At present they are lying fallow. Imagine if farmers in South Africa today had hundreds of thousands of ha of good grazing land for cattle and sheep which was unutilized, which was not utilized for the production of beef and mutton. Surely what we have here is an almost identical case. An area of 990 000 ha covered by dam water, an enormous area for farming with freshwater fish is lying unutilized.

Other countries that successfully produce freshwater fish contend that they produce 3 000 kg of fish per ha per annum. By conservative calculation, if we were to argue that we would ultimately use half of this surface area—about 500 000 ha—for the production of freshwater fish, and in addition only produce 2 000 kg per ha, this would mean a production of 1 000 million kg of freshwater fish per annum. At the low price of R1 per kg this could mean an additional R1 000 million per annum for the State.

It would be a major project, and in this case the State will have to take the initiative if the commission finds that it can be successfully implemented. If the commission issues a finding to this effect, the State will have to take the initiative and construct fish processing factories at our biggest dams. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are now in the process of dealing peacefully with the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs. This is an uncontroversial department, but nevertheless a department which, in view of its field of activities, is of the utmost importance for South Africa.

Whereas previous speakers have focused on our water requirements and the problems in that field, I should like to exchange a few ideas in connection with our forestry industry.

If one takes into account the activities of the past few years in the timber industry and sets down a few key characteristics of those activities, one could maintain that in general our timber industry is prospering, particularly the timber growing industry. In spite of the fluctuations one encounters in the industry and in our economy, particularly in the construction and mining sectors, the trend in South Africa is a steadily increasing demand for timber and timber products. In the long term, the timber producer and the plantation owner are therefore in a good industry.

Another characteristic of the industry is that the big concerns in the industry are constantly expanding and growing. One hears about vast projects virtually every week, capital-intensive projects that are being tackled. In this regard I just wish to refer to the March edition of the official journal of the South Africa Wattle Growers Union in which reference is made to three of these projects. Sappi: Expansion at an estimated cost of R600 million until 1984; a new paper factory; Bruynzeel Plywoods—a fibreboard plant and other developments at an estimated cost of R14 million, production to begin this year; thirdly, Mondi—a paper products complex at Richards Bay at an estimated cost of R520 million, completion date unknown. This is very good news as far as the economy of our country is concerned. These companies provide many employment opportunities and earn foreign exchange for us in regard to export products. Then, too, there are the savings we effect by not having to import similar products from abroad.

The third characteristic I want to mention is, however, that as the big concerns get bigger, the problem of the smaller grower get bigger too. In my constituency in particular I have a great deal to do with these people and I wish to draw the attention of the Committee for a moment to the smaller grower and the problem areas he is experiencing in the industry in which he finds himself. I wish to present this against the background of the worrying situation as regards new afforestation in South Africa. The hon. member for De Aar has already mentioned a few figures in this regard. I wish to add that the trend which is giving rise to concern is that the rate of afforestation in South Africa has dropped over the past 10 years. In the 1977-’80 season there was an increase of only 0,15% in the total afforested area in South Africa. Then, too, there is the figure mentioned by the hon. member for De Aar. In its annual report the department puts it to us that South Africa needs 39 000 ha of new afforestation per annum in order to prevent an expected shortage of timber and timber products by the end of the century. The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the same matter. In spite of the best efforts of both the public and the private sector in the past, together they have come nowhere near achieving the targets set. Even more worrying is the fact that the targets are constantly being raised. Three years ago it was said that we would need 250 000 ha of new afforestation and, as I say, the latest annual report of the department sets it as high as 39 000 ha. In the five years from 1975 to 1980 the afforested area increased by a mere 6 100 ha, and the target of the expansion programme for that five years was therefore 94 500 too little. According to the annual report of the department, new permits for afforestation covered a mere 17 297 ha last year, while the State itself provided only 1 800 ha of new afforestation in its own plantations. These are disturbing figures, even more so when one takes into account that in South Africa, 58 500 ha of plantations have not been replaced or re-established over a period of 5 years. It ought to be clear to the Committee that we are progressively getting further and further behind with our afforestation programme.

I briefly wish to put forward two reasons for this. The first I want to call market uncertainty on the part of the smaller grower. I believe that the major buyers of timber and timber products have failed to take the smaller growers into their confidence and keep them informed as regards expected demand and expected expansion programmes which they themselves envisage. This omission on their part is perhaps one of the factors which they can avail themselves at the expense of the smaller grower in the industry, then they can feed their own monopoly.

I believe that the most important reason relates to the economic factors. To the smaller grower, forestry is no longer a profitable enterprise, and that is why he is no longer planting trees. If it were profitable for him to do so, then surely he would continue to plant trees. The economist of the South African Timber Growers’ Association has calculated that the return on the investment of a smaller grower for various categories of timber varies between 2,4% and 6,5%. In the circumstances we are experiencing in our economy at present, it is very clear why our growers are not carrying on with afforestation. That is why they are selling plantations that they have already established to the big firms. The big firms keep getting bigger, and in this way there is a continual snowball effect.

There are also problem areas relating to the price structure of his products. The Federation of Timber Growers’ Associations has recognized three principles on the basis of which to determine the price of the product. In the first place, there must be a method of calculating the cost and the return on the investment. Secondly, the grower ought to be in a position to recover his inflation costs on an annual basis. Thirdly, he must attempt to obtain a reasonable base price for roundwood, viz. a real rate of 6% which must be revisable every three years.

The problem now is that some of the members of the Federation, the “big guys” of the FOA, which is within the Federation, are shying away from these three principles because as soon as they are individually confronted with them, they no longer wish to speak about these three principles. In this regard I wish to point to an example. When the price adjustments for roundwood were determined in January this year, the inflation costs were not fully taken into account and no effort could be made to obtain a real rate of 6% for the smaller grower; only his cost escalation was built in. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I like to follow the hon. member for Ermelo. I want to congratulate him on his speech, and particularly on the exceptional way in which he elucidated the cause of the smaller timber grower.

The Government has committed itself to following a policy of decentralization and deconcentration with regard to economic activities. For socio-economic reasons—I think the official Opposition agrees with this too— but also for political reasons, it is essential that the policy of decentralization and deconcentration be pursued with all means at our disposal. This department, too, will certainly have to see to it that in the execution of its duties this matter must always be given a high priority. It is true—the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs comes from those parts and therefore he will know this— that the central parts of our country have thus far lain fallow to a large extent as far as economic activities are concerned. However, in terms of the national physical development plan, three growth points have not been identified in this region, namely Bloemfontein, Kimberly and De Aar. Initially, the method of encouraging growth around these points will undoubtedly entail the granting of industrial benefits at these points. However, these benefits will not be maintained for all time—this is important— in regard to all decentralization points. The time will come when the economic stimulation will have to come from the decentralization point itself or from its immediate vicinity. As far as the central parts of our country are concerned, one must necessarily seek stimulation for the maintenance and development of such an economic growth point in agriculture. Approximately one third of all industries are directly or indirectly concerned with agriculture and almost 40% of all retail sales are directly or indirectly related to agriculture. Indeed, agriculture itself can provide that stimulation for the preservation and even development of growth at these decentralization points.

Let us consider what the State has spent thus far in the central parts of our country, and what can be utilized to help the national physical development plan on its way. One has to take into account the fact that the two biggest dams in the Republic were completed in that region about eight years ago at a cost of approximately R200 million. In terms of today’s money values this would probably mean a capital investment on the part of the State of very close to R1 000 million. The question now is: To what extent is this major asset being utilized in conjunction with the national physical development plan? Over the past eight years—I have the department’s figures with me—these two dams have been approximately 80% full. This means only one thing and that is that these dams have not been utilized. I have calculated that if these dams were to be utilized, inter alia, for irrigation—the purpose for which they were built—and had been approximately 50% instead of 80% full, the savings in regard to water lost by evaporation alone would be sufficient—and I want the hon. the Minister to listen to this—to provide 20 000 hectare with 1 000 mm of water. These 20 000 hectares could be utilized very productively, and the loss due to the unnecessary evaporation that takes place is almost incalculable. The hon. the Minister will know that a fourth priority was set when the Orange River scheme was built, viz. the securing of the Riet River scheme. I do not want the hon. the Minister to get weary of this story, because I put this to the hon. the Minister last year as well. In conjunction with the national physical development plan, which calls for stimulation from agriculture, it is necessary that the development of this central region, and the utilization of the water from the P. K. le Roux dam for the purposes for which it was originally built, be considered afresh. I know that the initial planning in regard to any irrigation scheme is based on the assumption that relatively level land must be sought below the canal because the aim used to be flood irrigation. Nowadays, however, as the hon. the Minister will know, mechanical overhead irrigation methods are used, and land which would otherwise not be regarded as suitable is now suitable for irrigation, including, inter alia, land in the vicinity of the P. K. le Roux dam. This land, specifically the land between the existing irrigation scheme directly below the P. K. le Roux dam and the Riet River Irrigation scheme, is now extremely suitable for irrigation.

I also wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that when the planning of a linking canal between the Orange River and the Riet River Irrigation Scheme is being considered, it must be considered on the basis of a plan which optimizes the use of such a canal by putting under irrigation land along its route. However, let us recognize at once that even on this basis such a canal could probably not be justified on a cost benefit basis. We recognize that immediately, but then we must also recognize that the construction of these two dams could not initially be justified on a cost benefit basis either. The building of the Orange-Fish River tunnel was probably not justified on a cost benefit basis either. These are decisions which will have to be taken on a different basis, a basis which must also take into account other aspects of broader importance. I therefore feel that this is the appropriate time for the hon. the Minister and his department to lay down a clear guideline in regard to what must be done, and when the waters of the P. K. le Roux dam will be utilized for the Riet River Scheme. This is a scheme which suffered under stringent restrictions for two years and has not been allocated any water this year. In terms of the national physical development plan and the utilization of the existing potential, the hon. the Minister now has a strong case for obtaining funds to provide this vital relief that must be granted in regard to this scheme.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith has covered an area which is completely foreign to me; so I trust he will forgive me for not following on the lines of his speech.

We in the NRP wish to express our best wishes to Mr. Sonntag on his retirement. We wish him a long and happy retirement. At the same time we extend a warm welcome to Mr. Van der Merwe. We are sure that he will give us cause to be most satisfied with his performance in the department. Finally, I wish to express our thanks to Mr. Otto and the other officials in the department for the courteous manner in which all our approaches have been met and for the consideration that has always been shown to us.

When one accesses the budget allocation against the important role that this department is playing in the preservation of the environment, and the role that it must play now if it is to be successful in conserving the natural resources of the future, it is apparent that the amount allocated is still abysmally inadequate if the department is to carry out effectively the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted.

One is appreciative of the warning that has been sounded by the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the need to curb Government spending. However, I must point out that one essential aspect regarding the future development of this country lies in the hands of this very department whose Budget Vote we are discussing today, and its ability to ensure that adequate resources are available for all future needs.

It must be remembered that while South Africa’s water resources remain static, these water resources are confronted with an ever increasing demand. The department must in no way find its hands tied as a result of a lack of funds. If this does happen, it will only be a matter of a few years before water becomes a highly competitive factor between the various sectors, particularly between agriculture and industry.

Inadequate water reserves could also become a limiting factor in the country’s future development, and therefore every precaution must be taken to ensure that this does not happen. It is a well-known fact that the agricultural sector is the largest consumer of water, and it is obvious that future food supplies will to a greater degree be dependent on increased productivity. Greater productivity can only be ensured through more intensive methods of production, embodying the greater use of water for irrigation purposes. I see here the need for research to ensure that irrigation techniques in this country are made more efficient and are brought into line with techniques in countries such as for instance Israel in order to ensure the most efficient utilization of the irrigation potential of South Africa.

One appreciates too that vast sums of money are required to construct impoundments with apparent insignificant visible results. This must, however, not be allowed to cloud the importance of impoundments in the catchment areas. Recent reports indicate that there has been a deterioration in the quality of water as a result of silt concentration. This must surely raise the question of whether greater attention should not now be given to the siting of future impoundment in the catchment areas where this is not a problem. It is apparent that there are numerous sites along the Drakensberg which would be ideally suited for this purpose, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he gives serious attention to the construction of impoundments in this region. Vast quantities of water are being lost during the heavy summer rainfall period as a result of the rapid flow of these rivers to the sea and which, if conserved, would augment the meagre flow that is experienced during the dry winter periods.

I must point out that the Government’s decentralization policy for Natal will bring with it an increase in the demand for water, which once again raises the question of whether present supplies will be able to cope with the additional demand. I wish to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether his department has any immediate plans for supplementing the existing water resources of Natal. When one takes into consideration the effect that an increase in population, the establishment of new industries, greater urbanization and heavier demands from the agricultural sector will have on the future available water resources, it becomes evident that this country will be hard-pressed to meet its future water requirements at the turn of the century. It is essential therefore that steps be taken now to meet this contingency. There are two fundamental areas that need immediate attention. The one is the recycling of water and the other is the importance of creating a greater awareness amongst the public of the needs to conserve water. We in South Africa could possibly be included among those countries that are the most extravagant users of water.

When one turns one’s attention to forestry matters, one appreciates that rationalization has taken place in the department and that problems have been experienced as a result of a shortage of professional officers. One realizes therefore that the department has gone through a difficult period of readjustment. The department’s annual report draws attention to the decline in the afforestation rate, and it is obvious from available figures that South Africa is heading for a serious shortage of timber. This has been referred to by the hon. member for Ermelo and others. An estimated area of some 35 000 ha to 40 000 ha is required to be planted annually to meet the needs of the country. The following figures indicate the critical supply position that faces the timber industry at the present time: In the year 1975-’76 25 000 ha were re-established. Similarly, in 1976-’77 22 000 ha; in 1977-’78, 14 000 ha; in 1978-’79, 16 000 ha; in 1979-’80, 14 000 ha and in the last survey, that of 1980-’81, a mere 12 000 ha of afforestation took place.

It is not possible at this stage to assess the reasons for the trend away from timber production, but it does appear that there are many factors involved, among others being other lines of farming which are proving more profitable. It is hardly necessary for me to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that if the present trend in the timber industry is allowed to continue, the country will be faced with no other alternative than to import its future timber requirements on a very much larger scale than at the present time involving the inevitable problem of the loss of valuable foreign exchange.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip. The portfolio environment must understandably be one which requires the services of people of particular qualities if it is to achieve the results that are envisaged. It requires people who are dedicated, primarily to the cause of the environment rather than to outside pecuniary temptations. The initial success in environmental conservation practices is dependent to a large degree on the support it enjoys on local level, i.e. the level of the individual who is dedicated to the preservation of the natural character of the environment. It is for this reason that the protection of the environment cannot be directed from, as it were, the remote armchair dictates of distant authority. The people at grass-roots level must become involved. The contrasts in the environmental pattern in this country necessitate the decentralization of nature conservation if it is to be fully effective. Here one must pay tribute to the part played by the provincial administrations in this regard. I wish particularly to mention the importance of the role which the Natal Parks Board is playing in the promotion of the concept of nature conservation in Natal. One has only to visit one of the reserves of the Parks Board to appreciate this for oneself. The staff of the Natal Parks Board are dedicated people and it is interesting to note that this is one department of government where job applications are processed through a waiting list. That bears great testimony to the manner in which it functions.

A particularly interesting feature of the Natal Parks Board’s activities has been the encouragement it has given to the formation of local conservancies in a number of rural districts for the principal purpose of protecting flora and fauna. The amount of land in Natal that is now covered by these conservancies exceeds the land that falls under the formal conservation management of the Natal Parks Board. It is interesting to note that the area covered by the 40 conservancies in existence at present amounts to well over 300 000 ha. The conservancy concept was introduced by the Natal Parks Board in conjunction with interested landowners as far back as 1978 in an attempt to encourage groups of farmers to work collectively with their neighbours to conserve the flora and fauna on their properties. It is interesting to note, as well, that to date many thousands of snares have been removed, that marauding dogs have been destroyed and that there have been convictions for illegal poaching. Each conservancy unit employs one or more game guards to patrol the properties of the owners involved.

The conservation concept has advanced a stage further in Natal in that the conservancies have now formed an association of their own which affords them the opportunity of coordinating their future strategy and policy. From this it becomes quite apparent that the involvement of people is a vital factor in preserving the environmental heritage of this country for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mooi River on his speech. I should like to emphasize what he said about the “conservancy” principle which is being applied in Natal. I am aware of the commendable work which is being done by the Natal Parks Board in this regard and, therefore, I take pleasure in associating myself with what he said in this regard.

† The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation was tabled today. I do not suppose that many members in this Committee have had the opportunity of looking at it as yet, but I just want to draw attention to the fact that it has appeared. This commission of inquiry flowed from the environmental legislation which was referred to a Select Committee and then to the commission last year. That legislation was in fact the legislation that gave effect to the White Paper on a National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation, published in 1980. That White Paper is perhaps the most important policy document on the environment that has ever been written in the history of this country. For the first time environmental concerns were seen as involving a multi-disciplinary scenario, or whatever one wants to call it. In that document a number of disciplines are regarded as one, or are seen as being inter-related. I should just like to read from the commission’s report in this regard. On page 8 various aspects of conservation, as the commission saw them, are listed. That underlines, of course, those aspects identified in the White Paper on a National Policy Regarding Environmental Conservation as aspects that should be taken into account in the formulation of a national policy on environmental conservation. These aspects are air pollution, cultural-historic aspects, marine pollution, nature conservation, noise pollution, radiation pollution, soil conservation, solid waste and littering, and water pollution. The Commission also added to these two further aspects, viz. environmental impact studies and environmental education.

I believe we have reached a watershed in South Africa as far as conservation is concerned. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what he envisages in this regard. He should tell us whether we can expect legislation resulting from the recommendations contained in this report to serve before Parliament before the end of this current session. This commission has been the first to look at the environment as a whole. One of the things that will necessarily result from the recommendations contained in the commission’s report, I believe, will be a positive action against solid waste and littering, as well as air and noise pollution. In South Africa something like 400 000 metric tons of food cans, beverage and liquor containers, are randomly discarded each year. In the USA, I believe, it is something like 3 million metric tons. The consequences of this are far reaching. Littering is ugly and creates filth. The proposed environmental legislation, I believe, will contribute greatly towards combating this alarming state of affairs. We will, however, have to be careful in this regard, as this form of litter accounts for only a minor percentage of the total amount of litter accumulating annually throughout the country. Because solid waste is not bio-degradable or disintegrates very slowly, it is of course, more visible over a longer period than, for instance, waste paper and similar forms of waste material.

In recent years we have become more aware of environmental problems as a result of modern-day advanced technological testing and monitoring equipment, which makes it possible for us to measure far more accurately any environmental changes and any deterioration in our physical environment, and therefore also in our quality of life. We also know that the combating of noise, air and water pollution has become an urgent necessity. In many respects this type of pollution has indeed become a physical danger to all human beings.

Although there is already legislation in terms of which matters of this nature are regulated, the approach is still, I believe, somewhat un co-ordinated, and in some instances legislation is either completely insufficient or does not exist at all. In the constituency that I represented earlier I had the experience of cases in which everybody agreed—the local authority, the central Government authority and the residents of a particular area—that a particular type of noise or dust pollution was completely unacceptable. Nevertheless, nothing could be done to alleviate matters since legislation was found wanting. We hope therefore that legislation will result from the recommendations contained in the report, and that the whole question of noise, dust and air pollution will receive the necessary attention of the authorities in question.

In our everyday life all of us experience the progressive loss of our natural phenomena, those things which we enjoy and cherish.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department with a great many positive things that have happened over the past year. On the nature conservation front I am delighted to point out that the Addo Elephant Park has been enlarged by 853 ha, which substantially increases the size of that small game reserve. We have also learnt of the decision by the Natal Parks Board to incorporate at last the corridor between Umfolozi and Hluhluwe, something which I regard to be a major step forward in the field of conservation. We have also learnt that the Golden Gate National Park is being extended by something like 1 149 ha, something which, given the size of that national park, is a substantial increase. I should like to congratulate both the department and the National Parks Board on this.

Because of the necessity of fencing adequately the Kalahari Gemsbok Park that process, we know, can result in a net gain of something like 10 000 ha for that national park. One can of course not discuss that in any detail now because the matter is still before the Select Committee on State Land.

Also in Natal, we have seen the addition of the Nxwala State land to the Mkuze Game Reserve, in northern Natal. The Natal Parks Board has taken over this 5 500 ha of land. Again taking into account how small and how rich that area is, this is very, very substantial addition to that game reserve. We saw the interim management committee doing sterling work at the Magaliesberg, planning and coordinating the efforts of the multitude of land owners in that area. One hopes that if and when legislation is forthcoming as a result of the report of the commission, that body will also be given permanent status. This then would also of course apply to the interim management committee for Table Mountain which has also finished its work and which has now advertised the new boundaries of the proposed reserves for comment and is currently processing such comments. The people of Cape Town are delighted that Sandy Bay now forms part of the proposed nature area as does the Karbonkelberg. This has been a great bone of contention in Cape Town and we welcome the fact that it has now been recommended that this area form part of the future nature reserve. I should like to make one suggestion to the hon. the Minister in this regard. He may not wish to reply to me in this connection today, but may wish to consider the matter further. The span of control in respect of provincial reserves along the Cape coast used to end at the high-water mark but a few years ago the span of control was extended to the low-water mark as far as provincial reserves were concerned and, as the hon. the Minister will know, in the Tsitsikamma reserve, the span of control extends 500 m into the surf. I should like to suggest that where we have management committees existing at the moment on an interim basis, which may at a later stage be given form and status, controlling areas that are adjacent to or about the sea, the same principle should be applied and their span of control should end at least at the low-water mark, if not some distance into the surf. It becomes very difficult indeed to manage an area if one’s jurisdiction ends at the high-water mark. This in fact was found to be the case in all of the provincial reserves. I say that it may be possible for the jurisdiction to be extended further but the hon. the Minister would have to bring this about by negotiation. Perhaps this is a task which the new Council for the Environment could undertake, namely, to consider extending the span of control, as in the Tsitsikamma reserve, 500 m into the surf. Here in Cape Town this would give us a magnificent marine and mountain reserve covering two oceans with a massive variety of warm and cold water fish. We know too, of course, of the variety of microclimates that we have and the concentration of flowers that is found on this fantastic mountain range that falls away towards the south.

I also want to refer to the work at Rietvlei which is ongoing at the moment. It is before the Cabinet. A new botanical garden has also been established at Roodepoort. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister in this regard and ask him whether it may perhaps not be feasible for each ecological region to have a representative botanical garden of its own. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon. member for Maitland in a debate on environmental affairs. The hon. member always distinguishes himself with his expert and polished approach, particularly to matters of this nature. This hon. member is well-known for his love of the environment. He is also well-known for his knowledge of conservation as a science, and this is what conservation is increasingly becoming. I join the hon. member in expressing my pleasure at having this report on environmental conservation laid upon the Table, and I trust that we shall soon have the privilege of having that legislation before this House and that we shall pass it.

I should like to express a few ideas on South Africa’s water requirements and water potential, which unavoidably brings one to the question of other non-conventional sources of water. Of course, South Africa is a relatively dry country. In large parts of our country, the rainfall is not only very low, but in addition, extremely unpredictable. This understandably makes heavy demands on our engineering expertise and our financial means to harness the sources which do exist and to bring them within reach of the consumers. I am referring here to such consumers as industry, agriculture, and then of course, the urban population as well. Of all the rain which falls over the Republic, almost 91% is lost through evaporation, transpiration and seepage. Only the remaining 9% ends up as runoff in the rivers. This has had to supply all the country’s needs in the past, and will have to do so now and in the future. At the moment, we can only store approximately 60% of the total runoff in dams. This can be attributed partly to the considerable loss of water from the storage dams as a result of evaporation.

Perhaps I should at least mention in passing the water which comes from underground sources, although this constitutes less than 10% of all stored water in the country.

By 1975, almost 30% of all usable water was already being utilized. It is estimated that this figure will rise to more than 50% by the year 2000. After the year 2000, the expected use increases rapidly and according to predictions, all economically available water resources will have been utilized by the year 2020. The hon. member for Mooi River has already referred to this.

As far as the allocation among the various consumer sectors is concerned, the position is that agriculture is in the lead as still the largest consumer of water. However, it is estimated that percentage wise, this will decrease from almost 75% in 1975 to approximately 65% in the year 2000. As far as the water consumption in cities and for industries is concerned, it is estimated that approximately 50% to 60% will eventually be available for recycling, and this will therefore establish a meaningful new or supplementary source of water.

From what I have just said, it is clear that water is an extremely inhibitive factor in the South African economy, if not the greatest inhibiting factor. Since we are rapidly moving towards the point of maximum or optimum use of the country’s conventional resources, it is understandable that our national economy will have to give timeous attention to the search for and the development of other non-conventional sources.

If one looks at specific areas, one finds that there are areas where the stage that has already been reached is that maximum use is being made of the available sources and that they are being forced to supplement their own resources by means of measures such as the conveyance of water from other areas. The “linking up of catchment areas” is being mooted, a concept which was used by the hon. the Prime Minister recently at the opening of the Theewaterskloof-Berg River-Eerste River scheme at Jonkershoek.

In order to have sufficient water available in future, to maintain a satisfactory rate of economic and industrial growth, it will become necessary to exploit non-conventional sources of water to an increasing extent. There are various possibilities in this regard. There is weather modification, or the stimulation of rainfall; the condensation of water vapour from the atmosphere; then there are measures aimed at the more economic use of available water. There is also the dry cooling of terminal power stations and then there are two which have more potential, viz. the desalination of mineralized water and sea water and more specifically, the method which the hon. member for Mooi River referred to, the recycling of water for reuse. Scientific research and the practical implementation of the results, have already proved that the latter two non-conventional sources can, in fact, make a meaningful contribution to solving our water problems by relieving the pressure on our fresh water resources.

It is a fact that South Africa is already gaining international recognition as a world leader in the field of the recycling of water. Thus the water recycling plant at Windhoek is, even now—13 years after it came into use in 1969—the only installation in the world which produces purified water for direct recirculation—that is, for urban use—without any restriction whatsoever. Although the purified water which is being produced by the plant, is completely potable and is entirely safe from a health point of view, it is not used continuously for household purposes; it is only used to augment other sources when there is a shortage. Even in the limited way in which this water is being directly recycled, it remains the only one in the world where potable water is recovered for direct recycling.

I should have liked to have referred to what is being done in this regard in the rest of the world, but in the time at my disposal, I shall first have to deal with the position in South Africa. In the Cape Flats, we are busy with a demonstration project for the reclamation of water, with a capacity of 4,5 megalitres per day. This is equal to one million gallons per day. A prototype unit with a capacity of 50 megalitres per day is being envisaged for the same area. After the analysis by experts of the future water needs—I am referring more specifically to the Cape metropolitan area—the conclusion was reached that non-conventional sources, for example, the full re-utilization of water or the desalination of mineralized and sea water, was not yet economically competitive with the development of conventional sources at that stage. However, it was found that serious attention would have to be given to research in this regard to prevent possible water shortages before the end of the century. Projections indicate that conventional sources will be able to supply the needs of the urban areas of the metropolis until about the middle of the ’nineties. Full-scale reclamation will therefore have to be developed in time to serve as a supplementary source, particularly from about the year 1996 onwards. This will mean that, if one allows a reasonable period of planning and development, a definite decision in this regard will have to be taken not later than 1990. The position in the PWV area is much the same, but unfortunately I do not have enough time at my disposal to go into that as well.

I wish to make a few remarks about the health aspect. It is obvious that the health aspect will be a very important factor when decisions have to be made on the question whether purified water is of such a degree of purity that it is safe for human consumption, in other words, that it may be declared potable. It therefore follows that the Department of Health will have to make inputs of decisive importance into the research which is necessary in this regard. High priority must be given to world-wide criteria for drinking water from polluted sources. In this regard I wish to mention one aspect in particular, viz. the so-called epidemiological studies which are also necessary to establish such criteria. Apart from all the other safety measures which have to be implemented in the direct recycling of water, it is considered to be essential that epidemiological studies also be carried out on the population or the urban inhabitants who will eventually use such water for domestic purposes. This has to be done so that possible changes in the health patterns in such communities may be identified. Therefore, with a view to the eventual addition of purified water to the municipal water supply of Greater Cape Town, which can be expected in the near future, it has been decided that such a survey will be carried out long before purified water will be made available for re-utilization. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sundays River in the first part of his speech spoke a great deal about the availability of water, a matter which is so tremendously important to our country. I sometimes wonder whether we are paying enough attention to the best use of our available water, and whether in many sectors there is not in fact far too much wastage, resulting in us needing more water than necessary.

I do not, however, intend to talk about water this afternoon. I want to refer to certain matters relating to environmental conservation which have been bothering me. It is a cause of great dismay to many people concerned about environmental conservation that there appears to be a lack of urgency on the part of authorities which handle environmental conservation problems and an unwillingness on many levels to allocate sufficient financial and other resources to conservation.

A good example of this is Table Mountain and the southern Peninsula mountain chain. On 7 April 1978 Dr. Douglas Hey produced his very excellent report on the future control and management of Table Mountain. It is the most recent of very many investigations that have been made with regard to Table Mountain. Now, however, more than four years later, if one looks at the problem as a whole, very little appears to have been achieved. Three years ago the Government accepted all the recommendations, except one, in principle—the one being who would control the overall management. I should like to refer to the last sentence in this report where Dr. Hey says—

That was four years ago. And what has happened? Very little of what may or may not be happening filters through to the public.

There is an interim management committee that has been established and that has been doing work in various areas. Boundary proposals for the natural area were published early in January this year, and it was said at the time that the Office of the Prime Minister would be requested shortly to provide for such reservation in terms of section 4 of the Physical Planning Act. Again, another four months has passed and we have not heard anything further about what stage has been reached in that regard. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to let us know during this debate what progress specifically is being made as far as the boundary proposals are concerned.

In Dr. Hey’s report he says that “there can be no doubt that the present state of Table Mountain is highly unsatisfactory and is cause for grave concern.” Furthermore, he mentioned that “the lack of positive coordinated action appears to have been the major limiting factor in the past.”

There are numerous worrying aspects in relation to the matters arising from this report, and I should like to mention a few of them. First of all, there was a suggestion in the report that the most suitable body to coordinate and manage the Table Mountain area would be the Cape Provincial Administration’s Nature Conservation Department. I know that that is one of the recommendations that was not accepted by the Government, but I do think it is a pity that one can imagine a body controlling the Peninsula mountains from Pretoria rather than from Cape Town.

Whoever suggested that?

Secondly, people are worried about the delays that have taken place and that they may have prejudiced the chances of saving Sandy Bay as an undeveloped area. I support the hon. member for Maitland when he said how pleased he was and how pleased most people in the Peninsula were that the proposed boundary included the Sandy Bay-Karbonkelberg area. I do think it plays a vital role, but, of course, that plan has not as yet become law, and I hope it becomes law before some developer gets busy in that area and starts developing it.

Thirdly, there is a worrying aspect that there are powerful financial interests who are going to be allowed to irreparably harm the Noordhoek Valley by the establishment of kaolin mines.

These are just three examples of the worries that people are having and which are caused because concrete action—as opposed to investigation—has been very limited since the publishing of that report. The people of the Cape Peninsula are rightly concerned about the apparent lack of action in regard to Table Mountain. If far more is being done than the public is aware of, we need a publicity and information campaign to arouse public interest and enthusiasm. If, however, necessary urgent action is being stifled by bureaucratic feet-dragging or by plain apathy, those responsible should be exposed for not doing their duty. The public will judge the Government in this respect by its deeds, not by its words. Most of the people of the Cape Peninsula love their mountain and would be very receptive to any plan to preserve and improve our magnificent natural heritage. I therefore call upon the hon. the Minister to keep everyone fully informed of what is happening.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that the legislation that was before this House last year that would have formalized the situation regarding Table Mountain, was referred to a Select Committee and then to a commission at the request of the Administrators? The hon. the Minister or this House is therefore not responsible for any delays that may have been caused by the provinces themselves.

I am aware that legislation in this regard was referred to a Select Committee, although I am not fully aware of the details of the legislation.

It appears in this report.

We do not get advance information. I do not happen to have the report in my office and therefore it is not surprising that I have not been able to read something that I do not have. [Interjections.] However, I welcome the preservation of the Table Mountain chain, and if in fact action is now going to be taken, I am very pleased about it and hope the hon. the Minister will explain what action is envisaged. I also hope that the hon. the Minister will spell out in some detail what is planned in the months and years ahead in respect of the Table Mountain Chain and what sort of programme is envisaged.

I believe that cynicism on the part of the public, particularly in regard to environmental matters, over the attitude of the authorities is an extremely dangerous thing, as we need everyone’s co-operation to preserve our lovely mountains.

A second aspect—an aspect that relates to this—that I wish to refer to this afternoon is the question of fires. Each summer large areas of mountainous vegetation in the Western Cape are destroyed by fire. This is alarming, and the position does not seem to be improving. I am aware that the regeneration of some fynbos is, in fact, enhanced by fires, but in many cases widespread damage is caused.

In the past eight months alone fires got out of control on the Kirstenbosch Estate, on the mountains above Kalk Bay and on Devil’s Peak, endangering lives and properties in the process. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to instigate a thorough investigation into all aspects of fire prevention and fire fighting on our mountains. We need to look afresh at all fire-fighting methods, for example at the Defence Force’s Cobra fire-fighting rescue vehicles, the use of aircraft, helicopters, water bombs, etc. Equipment could be kept in the Cape during the summer and moved up country during their dry winters. This would lead to a reduction in costs and the most effective use of all equipment.

We must be prepared to spend money to achieve results and I believe that would be money well spent. It would be irresponsible of us to do nothing but pray that we will be lucky enough to avoid further major mountain fires. It is heart-breaking to find that year after year large areas are devasted by fire. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we all share the concern of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens about the preservation of Table Mountain, the prevention of fires, and so on. However, I want to say a few words today about the question of environmental conservation and more specifically about the aims of nature conservation.

Environmental conservation has various aims. Firstly, there is the conservation of the soil, something which is of extreme importance to us, since our continued existence and that of future generations depends on this. The conservation of energy also falls under environmental conservation because the conservation of energy entails, inter alia, preventing the depletion of non-replenishable resources, for example, coal, natural gases, oil and so on.

Environmental conservation also includes the preservation of peace and quiet, in the sense that the combating of noise is also an aim of environmental conservation. This is indeed something which could very well be practised in this House at times, although it is fortunately very peaceful and quiet here today.

A further aim is the preservation of man’s cultural and historic heritage which we should like to preserve for posterity.

I wish to speak about a fifth aim, viz. that of nature conservation, the conservation of that which the good Lord has given us, the preservation of the habitat. The continued existence of our animals and plants in their natural habitat should be ensured by research, planning and effective management. Today we pay tribute to Paul Kruger for his foresight, for his vision in preventing the destruction of the South African veld and wild life as a result of the development of agriculture, mining and industry. The establishment of the Kruger National Park which extends over 19 860 square kilometres and which contains 450 species of birds, 45 species of fish, 100 species of reptiles and more than 121 different types of mammals and more than 2 000 kinds of plants, is a national asset of inestimable value to South Africa. One takes pleasure in the knowledge that this national park is internationally famous and is probably the greatest tourist attraction in the Republic of South Africa. It also gives us an important contact with other countries where conservation activities are taking place. This is one field where South Africa is still welcome internationally, and where our officials may talk to conservationists throughout the world. Fortunately, there were people after Paul Kruger who realized that other areas also had to be preserved. Thus a number of parks were established throughout the country, for example, the Kalahari Gemsbok Park, the Zebra National Park, the Addo Elephant Park, the Tsitsikamma Coastal Park and others. There are also a number of provincially controlled parks where very good work is being done. However, what we have today, is not sufficient. As the population becomes more urbanized, the urge to get away from it all is increasing, and numbers of people flocking to the existing parks are increasing all the time. Foreign as well as domestic tourists place a great strain on the administration of the parks and, I must say, it is an excellent administration. But I have been told that this administration receives approximately 10 000 more applications than they can accommodate annually for the Kruger Park alone. The solution is obviously that, firstly, we shall have to extend the existing facilities to accommodate visitors, without harming the character of the park. Secondly, the solution is that new parks will have to be developed, such as the Karoo National Park near Beaufort West, the West Coast Park with its islands, and the Langebaan Lagoon which is situated quite close to Cape Town, and the Kalahari Doringveld Park near Barkly West. This is to name but a few. Many others are still in the pipeline. There is still time to purchase the necessary land, but the question is: For how long? Will we have the opportunity of purchasing land for parks or nature reserves? The dilemma of the Parks Board is that it has difficulty in planning ahead owing to a lack of capital. At the moment, the board has a land acquisition fund to which the State contributes R500 000 annually. According to projections made by the board, an amount of R21,5 million is needed to extend the existing parks. An amount of R42 million is needed to purchase private land to establish new, badly-needed national parks. This amount to a total of R63 million. Hon. members can work it out for themselves. At half a million rand a year, without taking inflation and the rising price of land into account, it will take approximately 127 years to acquire the necessary land.

It is true that the public is often willing to contribute to the land acquisition fund by way of donations and bequests. The money in the fund is exclusively used for the purchase of land which is eventually transferred to the State. Our plea to the hon. the Minister today is firstly, that the State should make larger contributions to the fund and secondly, that contributions and donations to the fund should be exempted from income tax. There are many people who wish to make donations so that land may be purchased for the parks. However, I think it is a little unfair to expect people to make donations to the State and then to be taxed on them. I have already said this in the discussion of a previous Vote. I feel that when a capital donation is made to the State, it is being made to the nation, and it is being done for the future. It would therefore only be fair to exempt that donation from tax.

The work being done by the parks has a strong educational effect. I have many statistics here and I can give an indication of how many thousands of children visit the parks in school groups. Wonderful work is being done there. Since we exempt donations to education from tax if it is used for capital works, I think we could make a concession in this case as well.

Under the present dispensation, the danger exists, of course, that the natural vegetation, animal life and environment will no longer be worth preserving when the money is available one day, as a result of all the agricultural, mining and industrial development. One asks oneself whether our descendants will pay tribute to us for our conservation efforts, just as we pay tribute to Paul Kruger, or whether they will reproach us for not making timeous use of our opportunities. Let me give an example. The planned West Coast Park includes approximately 17 farms which are being used as extensive grazing areas at the moment. The other day I took the trouble to go and look at that area myself. Probably as a result of economic pressure, the farmers are already clearing strips of fynbos veld to convert it into artificial grazing land. Some of that grazing land is successful, but certain parts simply turn into drift-sand areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after the hon. member for Malmesbury, particularly when he discusses nature conservation and the Parks Board. I should like to tell the hon. member that I am one of the 10 000 people who apply every year without success to be allowed into the Kruger National Park. I should greatly appreciate it if he could help me.

I should also like to discuss the subject the hon. member for Mooi River and particularly the hon. member for Sundays River discussed, namely the question of water reclamation. The hon. member for Sundays River in particular, while he was still a member of the Cape Executive Committee, did very important work in this regard. At one stage he was the chairman of a committee which had to draw up a master plan for the construction of a regional sewerage purification plant to which he also referred in the course of his speech. The biennial congress of the International Association for Water Pollution Research was held recently in Cape Town. This is the eleventh time this international congress has been held. The fact that this congress was held in South Africa this time, in spite of attempts to prevent this, is undoubtedly international recognition for the quality of the work and research done in the field of water and particularly of effluent purification in the Republic. According to all the reports, this congress was a tremendous success, and the South African organizers are extremely satisfied with what was achieved. For the sake of interest I should like to mention that 700 delegates were present at that congress, more than half of whom came from overseas countries, and a total of 40 different countries were represented. It is the policy of this international organization that the host country may not prohibit anyone from attending the conference, irrespective of where they come from. Nevertheless the communist countries were, of course, not represented, and strangely enough, neither were our Dutch brothers. They boycotted this specific congress to their own detriment. I hear that the part played by South Africans in the papers read and in other respects was impressive.

The reason I made specific mention of this congress is that in this year’s budget, under the Environment Affairs Vote, in programme No. 1, R60 000 was voted for the holding of this congress. By doing this the Cabinet recognized the work of our technologists and other scientists in this field. For South Africa—the hon. member for Sundays River made this quite clear—it is of fundamental importance that this work be done, and that it be continued with enthusiasm.

I should also like to mention the excellent work done by the Water Research Commission. At present the commission is engaged in 45 projects, as set out in the report which was tabled last week, and I am happy to say that both Mr. Otto and Mr. Du Plessis, who are members of that commission, are present here this afternoon. In this time of staff shortages I feel that excellent work is being done by the Water Research Commission, which makes use of experts throughout the country to undertake research in this connection, and to effect the necessary co-ordination in this regard.

The financial investment made in this organization over the years, since it came into existence ten years ago, is still paying dividends. As we have learnt in the discussion thus far. South Africa is in a unique position as far as water is concerned. That is why it is also so essential that particular attention be given to other alternative matters. I should now like to refer briefly to two matters which were in fact discussed at this international congress last month in Cape Town. The first of these is the following. In no other place in the developed world do we have the situation which exists in South Africa, where one in effect has the First World and the Third World together in one geographic area. It is actually the First World with the Third World on its doorstep or, to put it another way, the Third World with the First World on its doorstep. The World Health Organization has set aside the ’eighties as the decade to ensure that water supplies and good sanitation is available everywhere in the world. As the WHO itself realizes, this is really an impossible task, but they are undertaking it with enthusiasm although they realize that in the first place their goals must be realistic otherwise they are not going to achieve them in any case. They also realize that their standards cannot always be based on those of the First World.

Although South Africa is denied participation in the activities of the WHO, South Africa also subscribes to this aim of the WHO with regard to better sanitation and improved water supplies. Of course our task is very difficult because we do not have a First World or Third World country. Because the First World and the Third World are so close together here, it is politically difficult to strive for a variety of standards, and to create First World facilities for all the Third World people in our midst is of course virtually impossible from a financial point of view. Interestingly enough, this is not what the WHO is striving for either. What the WHO is striving for is the so-called most applicable technology, i.e. the technological use of what, under the circumstances, considering the supply of funds, the economic abilities of the consumer, the population density, the standard of living, habits, religion and culture, will be best for each community. This was one of the subjects discussed at that conference, which I feel was of great interest to South Africa. The other was in fact the matter to which the hon. member for Sundays River referred, namely the question of the reclamation of water for re-utilization. The hon. member for Sundays River referred to the plant at Windhoek. He said it is the first and only plant of its kind in the world. 7,6% of all water used in Windhoek comes from that plant, and my information is that the water from that plant is cleaner than the drinking water we have here in this House. In Pretoria and on the Cape Flats there are also demonstration plants aimed at proving the feasibility of these processes and conveying the expertise involved to potential future users. There is one important aspect in this connection, namely that reclamation without desalination—and I am not referring to the desalination of sea water now—does not produce new water, because during every use cycle the saline content of the water increases and it soon reaches the end of its re-utilization value. The threshold is 500 parts per million. If it goes above that, it leads to tremendous expenditure, and this is one of the problems the Vaal River retaining dam, the Barrage, is going to experience in future. Inland, where the same water is abstracted time and again from the river for indirect use while it is on its way to the sea, direct re-utilization does not enhance the usefulness of the water much. However, at the coast indirect re-utilization of water does not really apply, because immediately downstream that water ends up in the sea and is therefore no longer available for human consumption. Here direct re-utilization of water can play a far greater role. This is particularly true of the Cape Peninsula. By reclaiming the fresh water from the Boland mountains for direct re-utilization and preventing it from ending up in the sea, the effective usefulness of that water can be increased considerably. Our sources of fresh water in the Boland are rapidly being depleted. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned this a few weeks ago when he officiated at the opening of the Theewaterskloof Dam. It has now become of the greatest importance that the demonstration plant to which the hon. member for Sundays River also referred, which is operated by the Cape Town City Council on the Cape Flats near Strandfontein, should be carefully scrutinized. We are fortunate that we have the necessary technical expertise in this country. I just want to mention that our engineers are doing invaluable work in Israel and South America, for example, and we must simply make the best use of that expertise in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to convey my very sincere thanks to hon. members who have taken part in the debate so far. I think the contributions have all been constructive and I want to thank hon. members for being so positive in their approach to the discussion of an important Vote such as this one, which profoundly affects the future of South Africa, although there are so many people who do not realize this.

I find it striking that in the discussion of this Vote, it is not the city-dwellers who talk about water. I do not know whether this is going to be evident this afternoon or this evening. To them, the supply of water means turning on a tap. Hon. members would be surprised how often it happens that people phone me at my home here in Cape town, even at night, to tell me that there is something wrong with a water-pipe in the street or wherever and to ask whether we cannot fix it. My wife has become an expert at answering those questions and she is able to give the exact number which such people can call in Cape Town. The position in South Africa will not be satisfactory as long as that attitude exists. In the future, the problem of the city-dweller may be greater than that of the farmer as far as the use of water is concerned.

The hon. member for Paarl spoke at length about the purification and recycling of water, as did the hon. member for Sundays River as well as other hon. members. The hon. member for Paarl referred to the congress of the International Association of Water Pollution Research which had been held here. I was privileged to talk to members of the executive of that group. They assured me, as the hon. member said, that South Africa was one of the leaders in the field of the purification and recycling of water. Some of them asked me why this was so. I told them that I thought we found ourselves in more or less the same position as Israel did some time ago. After the Seven-Day War, Pressmen asked some Jewish general whether Israel had any secret weapon which had enabled it to defeat the Egyptians so convincingly. He thought for a while and then said: “Yes, I think we had. I think that secret weapon was that we had no alternative.” Perhaps the reason why we have achieved so much in this field is that we do not have any alternative. We have no other choice; we shall simply have to go on with this in the future. Therefore I thank the hon. members for their contributions.

The hon. member for Pinetown as well as other hon. members spoke about the lack of funds. The lack of funds is a problem and we have to admit that. The facts that were mentioned are correct. In order to meet the water requirements of South Africa, we need an increase of 6% a year in the funds in real terms, but in actual fact we have had a decrease of 6% in real terms over the past eight years. If one were to plot this on a graph, anyone could see that it was going in the wrong direction.

I am also grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Pinetown referred to the staff of the department, whom he particularly com mended for the work they were doing and for the way in which it was being done, in the light of the shortage they have.

† wish to add my acknowledgment of that success. I thank the hon. member for those words.

The hon. member also spoke about the Durban sludge pipelines. I think I should appoint him as my public relations officer in Durban in this regard. He criticized me that we did not publish all the results, but I should like to refer him to the usual way of doing things by means of the Press. They can find out anything, but they usually refrain from finding out the good things as well. All the facts I gave to the hon. member to enable him to look into these matters were also at the disposal of the Press. I do hope they will now take note of what has happened, We have arranged with the Water Research Commission that after each evaluation of all these 25 monitoring points a Press statement will be made.

The hon. member referred to the proliferation of legislation in connection with the pollution of the sea. I will refer that part of his speech to the envisaged Council for the Environment.

The hon. member also referred to afforestation. Other hon. members, like the hon. member for Ermelo for instance, spoke about our lagging behind in the planting of new trees to reach the desired stage of afforestation.

*We are thoroughly aware of the fact that we are lagging behind in the planting of trees. The hon. member for Ermelo also referred to this. The Forestry Council recently indicated that South Africa had to plant approximately 39 000 ha a year to meet its future needs. Of this, it is calculated that the State has to plant 8 000 ha and the private sector approximately 31 000 ha. We are nowhere near this target yet, and a great deal of attention will still have to be given to it. Further calculations have shown that the State should be enabled to plant approximately 12 000 ha, so that the portion which has to be planted by the private sector will not be so great. At this stage the State is also lagging far behind, mainly as a result of the lack of funds, in the first place, and, in the second place, as a result of a shortage of the necessary staff to carry out the work. The hon. member for De Aar also mentioned this aspect, and I thank him for doing so. The Forestry Directorate is making every attempt to have the aid which can be given to private owners increased in the future.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred to the lack of encouragement for the small timber-growers as a result of the prevailing prices. I can quite understand this. Unfortunately, the fact remains that the trees have to be sold to the companies and processors in South Africa that have to supply the processed products to the market in their turn. Therefore it is a question of supply and demand and of financing. I have spoken to quite a number of the processors and producers, and they are very hopeful about the economy of the plantation industry in the future. As one of the hon. members has already said, Sappi is engaged in an R820 million project at Ngodwana in the Nelspruit area, and in addition, Mondi has announced a R550 million pulp processing project, bringing the combined value of these projects to R1 300 million. This should create a very big market, and in my opinion the price of timber is bound to rise in the future.

I am sorry to have to say this here today, but if we cannot get away from the idea that producers must add the inflation rate to their prices to keep their profits satisfactory in real terms, we shall never be able to contain inflation in this country. It is not possible to control inflation in this way, and it will inevitably go up. Someone will have to say that we shall have to change that attitude sooner or later, for if we persist in it, we might as well proceed to indexing, and then we would be in the most dreadful mess imaginable.

I thank the hon. member for De Aar for his congratulations. I have already replied to some of the points he raised, especially as far as the rate of afforestation is concerned. He also spoke about the use of the area between Orania and the P. K. Le Roux Dam. I want to tell the hon. member that we are investigating the development of that area. The initial idea was that inverted siphons should be installed beneath the river, from one side to the other, in order to start an irrigation scheme. In the light of the policy we have begun to implement, in terms of which irrigators can buy bigger water quotas from the Orange River, however, I doubt whether we shall proceed with this.

He also spoke about Orania which is going to be deserted as a result of the fact that the Ramah Canal has virtually been completed and that the people will therefore no longer have to live there, and he asked whether we could not let those houses to people who had purchased farms on the opposite side of the river, so that they could stay there for the time being while cultivating their land. The hon. member’s suggestion was rather sudden, but I almost want to say “yes” to him. In any event, we can investigate it. There is no reason why we should not let some of those houses that are standing empty there to farmers while they do not yet have an accommodation on their farms on the opposite side of the river.

The hon. member for Meyerton spoke about the Vaal Dam. Of course, the Vaal Dam is vital to South Africa and its future. We all realize that. In spite of curtailments in other fields, we are proceeding with the raising of the wall of the Vaal Dam. I hope that the work will be completed soon.

The hon. member asked a question in connection with research relating to fish in the canals and in the dams. I want to tell him that research in this connection is being done in particular by the hydrologic section of the Water Affairs Directorate. I hope everyone in South Africa will be as optimistic as the hon. member, who has even begun to think about where all the fish factories should be built next to the dams.

I have already replied in part to the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo. As he knows, the price of sawlogs is fixed by the Forestry Directorate. It is not really the function of this directorate to fix prices, but it nevertheless does so after consultations and after coming to an agreement about it with the private sector, particularly because the directorate is one of the biggest suppliers of sawn timber. I am aware of the problem to which he referred, i.e. that the members of the Federation of Timber Growers’ Associations agree among themselves, but do not agree with one another when they have to negotiate individually. Private growers have also complained to me about this. I am afraid that this is a problem which they will have to sort out among themselves. After mediation of the Forestry Directorate, the price of sawlogs was fixed at a level which I believe satisfies most of them. I think the people are satisfied with the prices of sawlogs. The dispute is now about mining timber and pulpwood. As far as these are concerned, I have undertaken to negotiate with some of the timber processors. I am in the process of negotiating with them at the moment.

The hon. member for Fauresmith—he apologized to me for his absence—basically spoke about the Riet River and about the development of the P. K. Le Roux Dam, from which the water is evaporating. We are all concerned about the fact that the scheme has not been fully developed. In any event, this is not the kind of money one carries around with one; this is big money. However, I cannot say that it is not being utilized at all in the meantime, because it is being utilized on a large scale for generating electric power which is useful during peak hours. So it is being used.

The hon. member also spoke about the supply of water to the Riet River. As far as the supply of water to the Riet River is concerned, the situation remains the same as it was when we explained it to the persons from Riet River who came to see me, and it is also in line with the decision subsequently taken by the agricultural core committee. In the first place, the opportunity was created for persons at Riet River who wished to do so to move to the Ramah Canal, where irrigation areas were made available and where the prospects are particularly good. The Riet River farmers who want to go have been given the opportunity of going there and of utilizing the benefits there. I understand that a number of them are making use of this. However, this is a matter which basically falls under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In the second place, the Department of Environment Affairs was instructed once again to evaluate the White Papers in connection with the Orange River development and the Plooysburg canals. The matter which the hon. member mentioned here, i.e. the possible further development of the irrigation areas which are not absolutely dependent on canal water, along the road up to the Plooysburg, falls under this, and it will be investigated.

† The hon. member for Mooi River thanked the Department for a job well done. He also spoke about the quality of water. He suggested that new impoundments be built in the upper reaches of the rivers running from the Drakensberg Mountains. I regret to say, however, that the cost of storing water in the upper reaches of those rivers, although the quality of the water is excellent, will be excessively high. The cost of building dams in that area will be very, very high.

The hon. member also asked me about our immediate plans to harness Natal water. He asked whether there would be any further impounding of these waters. A White Paper on the Inanda Dam has already been published. A new dam on the White Umfolozi near Vryheid is already reaching completion and will be completed this year. Investigations are progressing very fast with regard to the building of two new dams in the lower reaches of the Tugela and the Umkomaas. The waters from these dams will mostly be used by Escom for the production of hydro-electric power. I think I have already replied to the hon. member’s reservations about afforestation.

*The hon. member for Maitland is a person who takes a special interest in environmental conservation. I want to thank him for that. He also mentioned what had already been achieved this year regarding the addition to the Addo Elephant Park, the addition at Mkuzi, the Magaliesberg Area, the Table Mountain area, and Sandy Bay. The hon. member congratulated me in connection with Sandy Bay, but I do not know whether I should accept those congratulations. I shudder to think what a dominee would say about Sandy Bay when one considers what has been said of late about Ministers and Satanism. [Interjections.] However, I thank the hon. member for his view and his contribution in this connection.

The hon. member for Sundays River basically spoke about supplementing water supplies by means of purification and recycling and also referred to the purification of diluted sewage on the Cape Flats. As far as this is concerned, he is quite right. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister said recently, at the opening of the beautiful Riviersonderend Berg River project that the Palmiet River scheme, on which work is now commencing, is virtually the last source of water which can be developed for the Cape metropolis. After that we shall have to proceed to the supply of water from non-conventional sources, including the purification of diluted sewage, and I hope we shall also have made a start with the desalination of water by then.

† The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had reservations in regard to our efforts with the conservation of Table Mountain. It is true that a report from Dr. Douglas Hey in this regard was published about four years ago. After that Dr. Hey was appointed chairman of the Interim Management Committee for Table Mountain and the Southern Peninsula Mountain Chain, in the first instance more or less to determine the exact boundaries of the area to be declared a natural area. As the hon. member has said, that was published during January of this year in Cape Town newspapers with a view to getting public comment. A certain period of time was allowed for comment, and various opinions were expressed in this regard. This comment was referred to that same committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Hey. According to my information, that committee has evaluated all comment received, and has more or less reached the stage where it can come to a final conclusion in regard to the boundaries of the area to be declared a natural area stretching across Table Mountain and the southern mountain range.

I have said before in this House that Table Mountain will not be managed from Pretoria. I have given that assurance, and I want to reiterate today that Table Mountain will be managed from as near the top of Adderley Street as possible. I have approached the Administrator with a view to discussing with him the constitution of the body that will eventually control Table Mountain. After we have had that discussion, and after discussing the matter with Dr. Hey, we will come to a decision in regard to the body that will be in charge of the control of Table Mountain. However, I undertake today that, although the State will be in control, conservation of Table Mountain will not be done from Pretoria but from Cape Town.

As far as Noordhoek is concerned, the report by Farrell and Van Riet on their environmental impact study, was also referred to the Interim Management Committee. It was also referred to the Department of Environment Affairs for its comment. We are awaiting the comments. After that it will be transmitted to the Office of the Prime Minister. It is in their hands and in the hands of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to decide. They have to decide and we will advise and give our comment. If it is placed within the natural area of Cape Town—I do not know whether it will be done and I cannot tell at this stage—it will from then on be under the guardianship of the Department of Environment Affairs. Hon. members know that once an area has been declared a natural area, nobody will be allowed to do anything with any possession within the boundaries of that area other than what they did before the date of proclamation, without the permission of the Minister.

”Therefore I think that progress is being made with regard to Table Mountain and the southern mountain range. I believe that a great task will be performed here eventually. I must say, though, that it is not a question of nothing being done in the meantime. The Forestry Directorate, the Cape Town city council, the Cape Divisional Council and people employed by them are still applying conservation techniques. Of course undesirable things do happen. We quite realize that. We must have final control over that. As far as fires are concerned, we realize that these are a great problem. The Forestry Directorate is quite able to cope with ordinary fires. The fire which broke out on Table Mountain recently, with the circumstances that prevailed—the very strong wind which was blowing—was tackled with great determination, but this was not enough to bring it under control in time. For years, the Forestry Directorate investigated the use of helicopters, for example, in fire-fighting. These are extremely expensive processes. A lot of capital is required. It was found that this form of fire-fighting was not suitable for mountain areas.

I want to say to the hon. member for Malmesbury that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said about the provision of funds for the acquisition of land for parks. As chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and as a member of the Parks Board he is probably just as close to the fire as I am. He is also chairman of the committee which has to investigate the fringe benefits. Perhaps he can slip in a little benefit somewhere … [Interjections.] … so that we can help the Parks Board. He will always have my sympathy, and looking at the hon. the Prime Minister’s smile, it seems to me that he is not going to raise any objections either. [Interjections.] We realize—and I agree wholeheartedly—that what we do not conserve now, what we do not succeed in conserving during the ’eighties, we shall not be able to conserve in the future. I think this is the last decade in which we shall be able to reserve land for the National Parks Board and for other conservation purposes. After that we shall not be able to expand any further and we shall only have to conserve what we have demarcated up to that stage.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will, now or perhaps later on in the debate, comment on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation with particular reference to the legislation which it is proposed should flow from it? Does he think that legislation will still come before us during this session?

I am able to say that that matter is under discussion. The proposed legislation has already been approved by the Cabinet and will be introduced in Parliament as soon as we get it from the law advisers. We may have it in a week’s time so that it may still be passed during this session.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. the Minister whose Vote is being discussed at the moment. The hon. the Minister gave a few replies that were very gratifying to hear. As far as city-dwellers are concerned, I believe that they will increasingly come to realize the need for water. I believe that there are many people who are coming to realize it more and more, especially during the dry years, when the watering of gardens is prohibited, for example. In this way everyone becomes more aware of the fact that water is not something which is automatically there and that its availability cannot always be taken for granted. Dry years help to remind people of this.

I should like to thank the department for the excellent report for the year 1980-’81, especially the people who helped to produce it. I also want to convey my thanks to Mr. Sonntag and his successor. Mr. Sonntag did very good work and we trust that his successor will be very happy in his new post.

Since 1652, when the first Europeans arrived in this country, up to 1982, i.e. over a period of 330 years, the development in many spheres in South Africa has been enormous. This includes the sphere which the hon. the Minister administers for us today. There is no other country in Africa which is developing as rapidly as our fatherland. That is why the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, as it used to be known, is of the utmost importance. This department will never complete its work. As long as there are people and as long as there is development in South Africa, the department will have to expand its services because the need for these services will increase. Therefore we greatly appreciate what has been done.

Water is life. Without water, the earth would have been like many of the planets and like the moon, on which man has already set foot, places surrounded by a vacuum, where there is no water vapour and no life. That is why we must increasingly emphasize the importance of water. As our country grows and prospers, fresh water will become increasingly important. Therefore we shall have to concentrate more and more on this in the future. Some years we have good rains and some years the rainfall is poor. In the years when we have good rains, we must make sure that our reservoirs are filled. We are not assured of good rains every year. However, we know that we shall have to give more and more attention to this in the future. I regret the fact that we do not have enough funds to carry out all the expansions.

The capacity of the Vaal Dam, which has already been mentioned by hon. members— including the hon. member for Meyerton— and by the hon. the Minister, is being considerably increased by the raising of the dam wall. This is reassuring, and we are pleased to see that the work on the dam wall is coming along well. One thing is certain, however. That is that this step, too, will be only a temporary measure, as the area there keeps developing. Therefore I want to urge that we should give attention to the tributaries of the Vaal and the Wilge Rivers in particular. This can be done with a view to building smaller dams in the tributaries, so that in case of problems, in times of war, for example, and in case of any other problems with regard to the storage of water in the Vaal Dam—such as damage to the dam wall—we may still have dams higher up, which may continue to feed the reservoir. I could quote quite a number of tributaries as examples, but for the purposes of my argument I want to refer only to the Blesbok River and the Suikerbosrand River, two rivers which I know the Director-General is very well acquainted with, because he worked in that region for several years when he was still city engineer. I believe that we should seriously consider building dams in those tributaries. I am convinced that the water flowing down that area will be even more than that which flows down the Harts River to feed the dam at Schweizer-Reneke. In this respect I am referring specifically to the area known as Blue Valley, between Nigel and Heidelberg. I am convinced that this would be a good source from which the Vaal Dam could be fed if any problems were to arise.

In the same way, there are other areas in the Wilge River area and elsewhere, I believe, where similar projects would be possible. Of course, we know that these things cannot be done overnight. However, they will be of great importance in the future. I do not believe there is a single hon. member in this House who would disagree with me when I say that water pumped over from the Tugela to the Vaal Dam will not be sufficient to supply the area, which depends on the Vaal Dam for its water. It is true. It will help enormously, but it will not be sufficient in times of difficulty. Close liaison between this department and the planning section is essential. It is just possible that we may try to build dams at a later stage at places where there are underground minerals which have to be kept in mind, or perhaps even very good agricultural land.

For the sake of water conservation in South Africa I want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister—it comes from the bottom of my heart—that he should give urgent attention to the request I have put to him. I believe he will agree with me when I ask for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the safeguarding of the upper reaches of the Vaal River and the Wilge River.

The purification of water is also very important, and as the hon. member for Paarl rightly said, there is a ceiling with regard to this matter as well. Therefore I also want to urge that bursaries be made available to young people in the future for them to be trained in the technique of water purification. In this respect I am thinking specifically of the chemical and biochemical industries. Chemists and biochemists have become absolutely essential in South Africa. For the purpose of water purification, it is essential that we have well-trained people, and in sufficient numbers.

In the report we have also read about the pollution which occurs; pollution of our beaches, and even of our oceans. This is a distressing phenomenon. In this respect I should like to pay tribute to local authorities for what they are doing in this connection, especially for what they are doing in the field of water purification.

The Kruger National Park has also been referred to in the course of the debate. In this respect I should like to endorse the words of the hon. member for Malmesbury, who made a very serious plea here. I believe and trust that if the hon. member can find the formula which the hon. the Minister has asked him for, it would do much to help us to buy tracks of open land, in order to enlarge the Kruger National Park. Certain rumours also go around from time to time. Those rumours were recently squashed, but in spite of that, there are too many people who are still under the impression that certain minerals may be mined within the borders of the Kruger National Park. The sooner that idea is ruled out, the better. The Kruger National Park is probably the biggest game reserve in the world. It is one of the greatest tourist attractions in the world. It is a most valuable asset for South Africa, and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to squash the rumours in this connection as far as this is humanly possible and to say to those people once and for all: Leave the Kruger National Park alone. If we disfigure the Kruger National Park, we shall be dis figuring the face of South Africa. I cannot emphasize this enough.

I should like to convey my thanks to all in this House who are so unanimous in respect of this very important subject. This proves that hon. members in this House take the question of water and nature conservation seriously and are not only paying lip service to it. I also wish to convey my thanks to all the officials, from the most junior to the most senior, for the work they do in this connection, as well as for the things they do to conserve nature and our water resources which are precious to the people of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the thanks and appreciation expressed by the hon. member for Nigel to the Department, as well as with his congratulations on the extremely successful report which reached us recently. Secondly, I share his view on the more effective utilization of our water resources and closer liaison with the Physical Planning Division.

† Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a number of matters which I think are of some importance. The first of these concerns noise pollution. I am sure the hon. the Minister is as aware as I am of the increase in the number of motor cycles using our public roads. It is understandable that people have taken to the motor cycle because of the high fuel costs. However, many young people drive motor cycles without silencers with the result that there is the most appalling noise in the streets of our cities. In addition to that they are defiling and desecrating the quieter areas, the rural areas around the Cape Peninsula and in the near Boland. They have developed a new hobby called scrambling. Scrambling is simply using highpowered motor cycles in a special way. They find the most convenient sand dune along the coast or perhaps a quiet road into the mountains and then ride wherever they please, on or off the track. Not only is there noise pollution but there is also the question of erosion, as well as the inevitable litter in the form of beer cans and plastic containers discarded by these people in hitherto deserted areas. I think that this is a matter that must engage the attention of the department. It is becoming an absolute pestilence here in the Peninsula and in the near Boland areas.

I referred last year to the question of the pollution of False Bay but I have not yet had an authoritative view from the department on whether there is extensive pollution in that bay or not. In his reply to me the hon. the Minister did say that the matter was being investigated, but I have not as yet received any authoritative view from the department and I would appreciate such a view very much indeed.

However, having mentioned the question of pollution through rivers flowing into a bay like False Bay, I want to raise the question of the pollution of the rivers themselves here in the Peninsula. In this regard I think particularly of the Salt River and the Liesbeek River. I can remember when I was a child the Liesbeek River was a beautiful river. It was stocked with trout and there were no cement canals along the riverbed as there are today which are filled with builders’ rubble, plastic containers, tins and similar litter. The character of the area of Claremont and Rondebosch mountainsides through which that river used to flow freely, has been destroyed. That is one example to which I wanted to refer.

The second example to which I want to refer that conglomeration of small rivers and rivulets which flow out over the beach at Salt River. I think we will find that they are called the Salt River itself. However, it is at the extension of the railway marshalling yards that one sees that river at its very worst. One sees this from the Black River Parkway which is one of the main access roads into the city. That Black River is an absolute disgrace. It is heavily polluted. One can see oil, and muck on that beautiful stretch of river and one sees testimony to the quality of the pollution in the presence of so many hundreds and hundreds of seagulls. I do think the department must compel the local authority to do something about that Black River Parkway area and more particularly the Liesbeek River.

Water is coming in from the Cape Flats area, from the townships, and as far as I can see it is also polluted with sewerage, because there is a strong smell. Every time one goes to the airport there is a strong smell along Settler’s Way that comes directly from those sewerage plants, and those sewerage plants lead into the rivers to which I am referring. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to that.

I then want to raise the question of some other rivers running into the sea and the resultant wastage of water. The hon. the Minister recently travelled with me over the Silvermine plateau and I pointed out to him the Silvermine waterfall and how the river runs down the valley into the sea at Fish Hoek being known as the Silvermine River. That water runs to waste. I wonder whether the department can perhaps look at the possibility of a portion of the lower Silvermine valley above Smit’s Farm being dammed. I think it is a most natural beautiful area that could possibly be dammed without very much trouble. I can visualize a dam at the bottom of that valley, and I think it would be an enormous amenity for the people who use the Silvermine Reserve. I commend it to the hon. the Minister for investigation. There is already a reservoir on the top of the mountain, called the old Silvermine Reservoir. It was built in the time of the old Kalk Bay/Muizenberg municipality and it has a vast amount of water in storage. I think if the dam that I should like to see built cannot always be filled by the waterfall that would feed it, a lot of water in the Silvermine Reservoir could be pumped into that projected Silvermine dam.

I am sure that all hon. members on both sides of the House would welcome the hon. the Minister’s statement about a new administration for Table Mountain and the South Peninsula Mountain Chain and that the head office of that administration would be here in Cape Town where it should be. I want to make the point that there have been divided authorities in control of Table Mountain and the South Peninsula Mountain Chain. They have been pulling in different directions. There is also an organization called the Cape Peninsula Fire Protection Committee— goodness knows what it does. We seem to have an enormous amount of fires, and this protecting body seems to do singularly little about it, although I notice that its secretary is subsidized by the Government. There are too many authorities involved, and that is why it will be widely welcomed if there is going to be one single authority with control over all of those mountains, including fire protection.

I have referred to the fact that there is river pollution. I referred last year to the fact that there is sea pollution. One also has mountain pollution. If one walks along the Table Mountain tracks or along the tracks on the South Peninsula Mountains after a weekend, one sees a disgusting state in which they have been left with beer cans, plastic containers and worse, deposited there by a public which does not seem to care and because there does not seem to be proper supervision of the public. I would suggest that that also receives the attention of the department or the new administration that will come into being.

If I were to commend an area for its beautiful paths and the way in which its mountain trails are kept, I would commend the Hermanus municipality. If one walks above Hermanus along those mountain trails, one can have nothing but praise and applause for the way in which the municipality of Hermanus keeps its mountain tracks.

There is another point to which I think the department must give attention—the question of privately-owned land. There is of course the attempt by the department—I fully support it—to declare nature areas, but not only in the Cape Peninsula area; also outside. On Table Mountain and on the South Peninsula Mountain Chain, however, there are people who have had mountainside property for years and years. Apparently no regulation exists that compels those people to keep the hakea and the Port Jackson down. There are vast stretches of these mountains where there is infestation by hakea and Port Jackson which must be as bad as one can get anywhere else in South Africa. I think it is high time that those people who for private reasons, or for reasons perhaps of capital appreciation, have kept those stretches of land in private ownership for such a long time should be compelled, through an increase of rates perhaps or a special levy, to keep those properties up and the alien vegetation down.

Lastly, I am sure the hon. the Minister would not like me to end without saying something about the need to have sea reserves. There has been talk by my friend the hon. member for Uitenhage in another debate about the need to expand the boundaries of the Tsitsikamma Reserve. I am not asking for any boundaries to be extended. All I am asking is for the hon. the Minister to look at Walker Bay and False Bay to see whether the time has not at long last arrived for an imaginary line to be drawn between the points of the two bays within which purseseine netting should not be allowed. If this is not done now, then our marine resources have had it. May I just remind the hon. the Minister that False Bay, for example, has been open to these netters since 1956 and it is exactly since 1956 that all the marine resources of the bay have gone to pieces. There was nothing like that before. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to speak after the hon. member for Simonstown. He is known to be a person who takes a great interest in the conservation of the environment. Therefore he speaks on this subject with authority.

The hon. member for Nigel referred to mining activities in the Kruger National Park and I can assure the hon. member that no one who listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech during the discussion of his Vote last year could give any credence to the rumours. I ask the hon. member not to repeat the rumours and to refrain from lending them credibility by the continual repetition of these rumours. I believe this is an extremely important matter and we should rather leave it in the able hands of the hon. the Minister.

I should like to congratulate the Water Research Commission on their annual report. It is a fine publication, the various statistics are presented in a concise manner and the index is very useful and easy to consult.

I should like to single out one aspect of research, namely rainfall stimulation. The Lowveld Co-operative of Nelspruit embarked upon a commercial weather modification project in 1972, the purpose of which was hail suppression on a commercial basis. As from 1978, a three-year contract was entered into with the Water Research Commission, by means of which the rainfall stimulation component was added. In this way, the commission was able to collect valuable basic information at a fairly low cost. The co-operative discontinued its project in 1981, simultaneously with the termination of the agreement with the commission, mainly because it was impossible for such a commercial project to be financed by a single body. A great deal of information was collected which merited further processing. The infrastructure, equipment and staff were of a high standard.

† I want to quote Prof. Shangnon, Chief Illinois State Water Survey, also member of the U.S. President’s Advisory Committee on Weather Modification. He says—

I may just mention that for the target area the annual loss due to hail is considered to be in the region of R20 million. I do not wish to support hail suppression, but I want to point out that forestry as such is also susceptible to hail damage. I quote further—

As I have said I wish to compliment the commission for not missing the opportunity to monitor the work already done and to proceed on an experimental basis with research on rainfall implementation. The latest part of the equipment to monitor cloud-forming is quite exciting, that is for cloud volume screening. The radar can now be set in and can take the volume of a cloud progressively in three dimensions. This can be transferred to a videotape and the whole cloud, its formation and metamorphosis as it goes along or how it reacts to seeding over a period of 24 hours, can be played back on a television screen from the videotape in three or four minutes. In other words, one can see the whole evolution of a cloud over a period of 24 hours reduced to four minutes.

*Since existing catchment areas and dam sites are already being exploited, and in the light of increased water requirements, which so many speakers have referred to today, I believe that investment in this project of rainfall stimulation and research will yield us very good dividends in future.

The commission’s report of last year contained some very interesting information. According to the preliminary estimate, the accuracy of which remains to be proved, only 5% of the moisture in the atmosphere above South Africa will reach the ground in the form of rain. Of this, as is said in chapter X, about 8,6% ends up in streams as run-off, and of this, 60% can be profitably utilized. This means that only 0,26% of the moisture which moves over South Africa every year can be utilized as a stable source of water. If the amount of moisture in the air which reaches the ground could be increased by 20%, i.e. from 5% to 6%, of the total amount moving around in the atmosphere, and if this increase could be satisfactorily controlled, this would increase our exploitable water resources fourfold.

The report goes on to say that we cannot expect to achieve such a great increase in practice. But these figures do illustrate the great potential if moisture, over and above the natural precipitation from the atmosphere, could be removed in a controlled manner. Rainfall stimulation is one of the possible methods of utilizing more of our atmospheric moisture.

I want to conclude by congratulating the commission on its vision in proceeding with this imaginative experimental component which could yield such good results if it is successful, and I wish them every success with it in the future. I know that they have the necessary skills, and if it can be done successfully anywhere in the world, it will be in South Africa that such a breakthrough will be made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow directly on the speech made by the hon. member for Nelspruit although I did find it extremely interesting. That sort of research and concern about the rainfall requirements of our country always reminds me of Prof. Schwarz’s scheme for the flooding of the Makarikari Plains which at one stage held great promise for the development of an inland source of water which would bring about a great deal more humidity and the presence of that desirable quality in our upper atmosphere inland. Of course, since those days international boundaries have changed and we do not have a situation where we can co-operate quite so well with the neighbouring countries in bringing about schemes of this nature. This all points to the fact that the NRP’s real confederation is going to play a big part in meeting the challenge in respect of water on this subcontinent and in creating the possibility that we can all work together and make maximum use of the resources that we are going to have to share. This has all to do with power-sharing through water-sharing.

I should now like to refer to a minor point that I have already discussed with the hon. the Minister but which I think is worth mentioning again since we now have the report before us. In passing, may I also express my appreciation to the department for the excellent statistics and the presentation of a great deal of valuable information in their annual report. The point I want to mention again is the non-availability of drilling services and the fact that we seem to be falling into arrears. In discussing this matter with the hon. the Minister he mentioned to me that the areas which had been declared drought-stricken areas would receive priority and that they would not in fact have a problem. However, I just have the nasty feeling that that is really playing with fire. When one looks at the cycle of the weather pattern that this country has gone through, with the exception of the North-Western Cape which has had a very bad time, one sees that recent years have been good to the farmers of South Africa in terms of rain. We are now definitely going into a dry cycle and it is not a nice feeling to be going into a dry cycle when we already have a backlog as far as drilling is concerned. If one looks at the figures in the annual report it appears that the exact backlog is equivalent to one year’s drilling which is equivalent to the amount budgeted for this year. Therefore if South Africa experiences a really bad drought and if speedy action is required, I should just like to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention on this occasion that we would like his department to be primed for the possibility of having to bring about a far better situation and that any “tortoise” element in his department does not have anything to do with this increased effort. One experiences a dreadful feeling during a drought. If grazing or roughage is scarce, that is one thing and one can make a plan, but when one gets to the stage of being short of water and one has to cart water, it is a most depressing and back-breaking task which one should avoid, at all costs if one possibly can by making sufficient provision in advance. The situation that we are now getting into does not really allow for that. We seem to be getting ourselves into a corner where we are all going to have to wait until there is an emergency situation before we can provide.

The other point I should like to make in passing also relates to the report. I refer to the very small amount allowed in the budget for publicity services by the department. I think the hon. the Minister and his staff belong to a department which, as I have said before, is, together with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the ecology in general, going to be one of the most important departments in the years that lie ahead. There is no question about that. I think South Africans by and large are very much aware of the necessity to conserve nature and are lovers of the countryside, of the veld and trees, although one would not think so after hearing the hon. member for Simon’s Town’s description of some of the problems down here.

Hon. members are, however, in my view not giving sufficient attention, nor is enough money being allocated to launch a real concerted programme of publicity and education in this regard. In last year’s budget only R277 000 was allocated for this purpose and this year it has been increased to R298 000, which, unless these are some hidden amounts in various other programmes that are rather difficult to pick up, is an absolute pittance in respect of the sort of thing one visualizes. In my view we should be entering a phase where high-class films are being made of forestry affairs, water schemes and the direction in which our future planning should lie. These films could point out exactly where people can assist in this regard, also in relation to the conservation of wild flowers, indeed everything to do with the ecology. During the National Education Vote the hon. member for Durban North pointed out that once a film had been made, it can very easily be reproduced and shown in schools and all sorts of institutions at very little cost. I should therefore like to see this department moving in that direction so that really first-class education and at the same time acceptable entertainment films can be made in regard to forestry, water and irrigation schemes and of mountain ranges, for instance Table Mountain. This could indeed be a tremendously exciting and challenging campaign for the department, one which, I am sure, will bring about extremely positive results. Our TV coverage has some wonderful nature films.

*The Afrikaans service in particular has, in my opinion, better programmes on nature conservation.

† I believe, however, that film-makers have been concentrating on animals, birds, etc., and have not paid sufficient attention to the challenge to be met in the future by this department.

A last point I wish to raise is in connection with the tabling of the White Paper in regard to the proposed Amatola regional water scheme. According to the statistics only 2% of this water is available for irrigation, while 98% is industrially orientated. It is of tremendous importance that industrialization takes place in order to boost that area and to provide employment opportunities. We would therefore like to see the schemes envisaged in this regard tackled on the dates mentioned, and not be put off again, as industrialization of that area will rely almost entirely on that scheme. Should excessive industrialization take place without that scheme being introduced we will find ourselves in trouble in a very dry year.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He put certain questions to the hon. the Minister and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to them.

The population in South Africa is expected to double and reach a massive 56 million people by the year 2005, and the destruction of natural areas and the dying out of certain species is unavoidable. There is no doubt that the population explosion is the greatest threat to the improvement of the current quality of the environment in South Africa. Unless drastic steps are taken to halt the rate of increased or to rationalize the provision of housing, food and employee facilities, all other facets of the strategy will serve no purpose. Unless the conservation effort acquires political identity and the leaders of the country develop an obligation towards the country’s conservation needs, the strategy will fail. At present there are at least 14 Government and statutory bodies consisting of no less than 50 organizations which are responsible for environmental conservation. This leads to considerable duplication and at times confusion arises with regard to the definition and the implementation of policy. Environmental awareness and related concepts of environmental education, conservation awareness and conservation education are relatively new to South Africa and were largely unknown five years ago. A significant development in South Africa was the 1967 symposium on Conservation and Education in Southern Africa which was organized by Sarccus, and the 1976 symposium on Conservation Education which was held by the Wildlife Society at Skukuza. The present state of environmental awareness of the general South African public has not yet been accurately determined, but it is obvious that it varies greatly across the spectrum of cultures, races, socio-economic circumstances and professions. Attempts have been made to improve the situation. Generally this was done on a piecemeal and sporadic basis with the least effort aimed at the lower socio-economic majority of all races and cultural groups. There is also concern about the fact that the level of awareness among certain professional groups who are able to change conservation values, for example, town planners, engineers and teachers, is much lower than is desirable. Projects and attempts to arouse environmental awareness were frequently confined to specific regions. I should like to mention a few examples of attempts made in this connection. There was the African Conservation Education Programme of KwaZulu in terms of which, to date, more than 600 Black teachers have attended conservation awareness courses. Then there is the Umgeni Valley project under which, to date, over 18 000 pupils and 2 000 teachers have attended a variety of conservation awareness courses. The South African Exploration Society’s School in the Wilderness near Villiersdorp in the south-western Cape has offered classes in conservation education to over 8 000 children and 200 teachers. Television, radio and the Press can play a very important part by bringing the importance of environmental conservation to the attention of the public. Recently this has been extremely well done by the Press, radio and television and I should like to congratulate the media on their efforts.

The time has also come for everyone in this country to realize the importance of environmental education. Certain significant attempts have been made and are being expanded in some cases. I shall give a few examples. Circulation figures of African Wild Life now exceed 20 000 while the circulation figures for Custos are 30 000 per edition. Over 25 000 copies of the Wildlife Society’s Antelope of Southern Africa have been sold during the past five years. The national hiking trail at present consists of over 700 km of officially declared hiking trails. On this stretch alone approximately 57 000 man-nights were spent during the period March 1978 to February 1979. It is therefore necessary to inform people of environmental matters and their interrelatedness and to make them realize that man is an integral of the environment. Environmental considerations form a very important facet of any planning and development process. Environmental education must be an ongoing process which starts before the child goes to school and continues throughout the individual’s career. It is best to stimulate environmental awareness while the child is still very young because then it is at its most receptive. The approach could also be that wherever possible every subject should be linked to the environment. The environment is not a separate entity. It is a total concept which must be approached on a multi-disciplinary level. Every individual is responsible and must realize his personal responsibility so that we can strive for a harmonious interaction between man and his environment. Education must lead to positive contributions and interaction, and not to passive spectatorship. The individual must realize that his continued existence depends on an ordered environment and the judicial use of natural resources. He must be educated to accept environmental ethics which can serve him as a guideline and which he can also implement in a responsible way while engaged in his profession. There is a great need for well-trained environmentalists in this country. Steps must be taken up to tertiary level to give adequately specialized training, because environmentalists are absolutely essential. There is also a great need for purposeful audio-visual and other information material, not only for school-going children of all population groups, but also for adults. The monthly magazine Environment RSA and the children’s magazine Skipper RSA and many environment-orientated brochures, pamphlets and posters of the Environmental Conservation Branch of the Department of Environment Affairs, only partially meet this need and will have to be expanded considerably.

Legislation to establish a statutory board for the environment is being planned. This board will, inter alia, have a committee which will see to the proper co-ordination of all environment educational programmes in the country and try to take care of the interests of all bodies involved, including the actions of voluntary conservation organizations. I want to express my sincere thanks for the reply the hon. Minister gave in connection with the draft legislation that has already been accepted by the Cabinet. I certainly hope that this legislation will still be passed during the present session.

Mr. Chairman, I agree totally with what the hon. member for Ladybrand said in connection with the education of the individual in environmental conservation. However, I should like to concentrate on certain specific areas, namely the forestry areas of George, Knysna and Humansdorp, known as the Southern Cape and Tsitsikamma Forest Regions. Although these areas are small, the timber industry is invaluable to the people living there. We want to express our appreciation to the old Department of Forestry which contributed a great deal to the development of these areas. The existing infrastructure in these areas is due virtually exclusively to the Department of Forestry. These areas have a relatively high rainfall and have three main assets: Their agricultural potential, their forestry potential and their recreational possibilities.

We are aware that the department is already making virtually optimum use of the land under its jurisdiction and we are very grateful for this, but the same cannot be said of the private sector. We have appreciation for those private owners of land who do use their properties scientifically and productively, but there are too many landowners who merely sit on their land and do not use it productively. Perhaps the department could do more to motivate these people. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister that if we only take our percentage return into consideration we shall really not make much progress in this country of ours.

The region’s indigenous timber species are unique, and some are much sought-after throughout the country, particularly in the form of furniture. If hon. members who are sitting in this House feeling so frustrated, only look up at the beautiful woodwork in this unique Chamber, and see how lavishly it has been used, it will give them some idea of how plentiful stinkwood was in the days when this building was erected. I am told that this Chamber was built in 1910. and the stinkwood used here must have come from the forest regions of the Southern Cape and the Tsitsikamma. Today, a mere 72 years later, stinkwood and yellowwood are so scarce and so expensive that the felling and processing of these trees is under the strict control of the State.

Let us just consider the value of these species of timber. In this beautiful annual report we have at our disposal, it is said that the maximum price of prime stinkwood is already R9 500 per cubic metre. The maximum price for prime yellowwood is already R1 150 per cubic metre, and that for blackwood—which is an alien species—is already R730 per cubic metre, and that of kalander wood is also R1 150 per cubic metre. If we add up the 1980 figures for indigenous timber species which were processed and came from the State forests in these two regions— this includes blackwood, which constitutes about 50% of this amount—we arrive at a total of 3 860 cubic metres, valued at almost R1,5 million. This gives us some idea of the value of this timber.

I have been told that the present average price for prime stinkwood is approximately R4 000 per cubic metre. This is stinkwood in log form. This means that in processed form it will cost R10 000 per cubic metre. If we were to estimate the value of the beautiful stinkwood around us here, no one could accuse me of lying if I said it was worth about R1 million. It is therefore obvious that the furniture industry is compelled to have recourse to other sources, for example planted pine and hardwood species which grow more rapidly. That is why we also find that blackwood has to a great extent become a substitute for yellowwood and stinkwood. We are also grateful to hear that the department intends to plant this type of wood everywhere possible up to an estimated maximum of approximately 1 000 hectares, in the region in question.

In addition, pinewood of good quality is also available in sufficient quantities for the furniture industry.

However, the fact remains that too much furniture wood still leaves this area in plank form. For this reason I want to make an appeal for the furniture industry to be stimulated in this area, for example, by creating conditions which will make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to process their timber in that region. It must also be seen to that adequate supplies of timber will always be available to the industry, and even though the surface area is limited, I still want to make an appeal for larger areas to be made available for the cultivation of furniture timber, and for other rapid-growing hardwood species also to be tested in the area.

We also appreciate the fertilizer tests carried out in those areas and in the Transvaal, and their effect on the growth rate and the yield, particularly with a view to meeting the increased demand for timber in the future. Results obtained through the application of phosphate look very encouraging. The stabilizing of the furniture industry in that area is of the utmost importance to the people who live there.

The Cape is relatively poor in forest areas, and it is for this very reason that it is important that we make optimum use of what is available.

Then, too, I should like to refer to the recreational potential of that area. The untouched natural beauty of the coastline, the forests and the mountains form a wonderful combination of unique and incomparable beauty. This is a wilderness area in the fullest sense of the word, and if it is of national importance then it is certainly of international importance. For this reason we want to express our thanks and appreciation to the department for their conservation efforts and the wonderful example they set with regard to the vegetation in the form of natural forests and plantations and their maintenance, as well as the conservation activities relating to the protection of the marine life in the form of the Tsitsikamma Marine Reserve which extends for 72 kilometres from Nature’s Valley to Oubos.

Unfortunately we cannot make the same favourable comments about the private sector. Too frequently this natural beauty is marred by unsightly buildings, litter and poor and untidy planning in general along our main roads which pass through this beautiful region, the so-called Garden Route, which is travelled by thousands of visitors, including overseas visitors. I think the officials working there can also make a positive contribution by bringing home to the residents in a polite way that they have a duty and a responsibility towards the region in which they live. I agree fully with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Uitenhage in connection with the extension of this park at least five kilometres seawards. We heard a great deal about this last week and I do not want to go into this matter again. However, I just want to point out that the residents of this region were extremely unwilling to give up their right to fish along this coast. Their fishing places were within walking distance and hon. members must remember that the people living there are not well off. However, when the park was established they were denied this right. Some of these people still complain about this and one can understand that they find it unacceptable to stand on the shore and watch other people exploiting their fishing area from fishing boats lying 800 metres off shore. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp touched on a subject which I must confess is very close to my own heart, namely the indigenous wood that is used in the manufacture of wonderful furniture in this country. He made certain pleas in this regard and I should like to back him 100% in what he said. I think he made a good contribution to this debate. I myself have planted yellowwood trees in suitable areas and if all of us who live in areas suitable for the planting of stinkwood and yellowwood trees were to plant some of these trees ourselves we could also make a contribution in this regard.

Unfortunately, a Standing Committee is sitting in the old Senate Chamber and I have had to spend most of my time there this afternoon. As I have to return to that committee, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to pardon me if I am not here when he replies. I understand too that the hon. member for Sundays River has addressed this House on the subject which I wish to discuss, namely the Sundays River Valley. As I did not hear what he had to say, if I cut across or repeat anything he had to say, I apologize.

I should like at the outset to say a few words about the Orange River scheme particularly as it affects the Sundays River Valley which is such a wonderful citrus-growing area. The original idea of this scheme was a canal at Klipfontein which was going to divert water into Lake Mentz and thus to the Sundays River. I understand that this canal would have carried something of the order of 350 cusecs. However, this portion of the scheme was not carried out and a diversion was made elsewhere. Instead of this particular scheme, water is being pumped across to give a supply of approximately 100 cusecs. The valley itself is periodically troubled by high salinity problems. This has happened on several occasions in the past and certainly can happen again in the future. There is a measure of concern in that the department seems to be working on an acceptable figure of 250 parts per million whereas it seems to be generally acknowledged by citrus farmers that one can have an absolute maximum of 220 parts per million which can be considered safe in respect of the growing of citrus.

Secondly, as compared with the original scheme, some 10 000 morgen of land, to use the old figures, have been discheduled for lack of water. The latest plan appears to be, as far as I can ascertain—I should like the hon. the Minister please to confirm this— that three phases are going to be carried out. Firstly, there will be a weir in the Little Fish River which will feed Lake Mentz. As a result of this it will be possible to put an additional 4 000 ha under irrigation in the valley and it will cost something like R8 million. There appears to be a phase 2 which will bring an additional 6 000 ha in the Sunday’s River Valley, plus a further 7 000 ha in the Kinkelbos area, and that will cost R105 million. The third phase will bring water to Port Elizabeth, approximately before the turn of the century. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is in fact a correct setting out of what the plans are. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that one hectare of citrus brings in approximately R2 000 in the way of foreign earnings. The figure is probably in excess of R2 000, because I am working on the figure I got last year. Thus, phase 1 of this plan would bring in an additional R8 million per annum in foreign earnings if 4 000 ha are put under citrus. This additional income is obviously very important for South Africa, and particularly the R8 million income for the Eastern Cape. It will be particularly welcome and would create employment opportunities in that area which is a vital necessity in an area with a very high unemployment figure. I would urge the hon. the Minister to implement phases 1 and 2 as soon as possible. We do not have a de-concentration point, but the speeding up of this plan could provide a partial substitute.

My questions to the hon. the Minister therefore are: Is the planning plus minus as I have indicated? Secondly, when will the phases be implemented? Thirdly, will this be or can this be speeded up? In addition I want to urge the hon. the Minister to step up the priority of this scheme because it is very important for the Eastern Cape area.

The second subject I want to touch upon in respect of the valley itself, relates to the Addo National Park. This park last year was 50 years old and at the outset there were only 11 Addo elephants left. This elephant herd has a history of crisis as they are the sole survivors of an enormous herd. They came in conflict with the settlers in the area and were constantly shot. A certain gentleman by the name of Trollope drove the survivors into the particular area where the Addo National Park now exists, but he could not keep them there. It was only when the Armstrong fence was erected that the problem was resolved and the population started growing. The problem, of course, has now gone a full circle in that the present number of elephants in this area is 119—as far as one can ascertain—and this is very close to the capacity, despite the recent increase in the size of the park, that the park can in fact keep. We obviously do not want to see the elephants shot, particularly elephants which are a distinct sub-species which could still become extinct. The area itself has a lot of extremely valuable flora and fauna. It is spekboom veld, which is one of the richest natural plant communities in South Africa in terms of the bio-mass it can support. It is the home of the last Cape Buffalo, the only Black Rhino’s in the Cape Province are there and it is the sanctuary for a number of different species such as the flightless dung-beetle, Tasmans girdled lizard, the dwarf chameleon, etc. There are a number of insects which are indigenous to this area. The main problem, however, is obviously the elephant. 119 is not a viable population for a sub-specie; 500 is the minimum which is reckoned to be a number to guarantee the continuity of the species. To have 500 we would need 40 000 ha whereas Addo is currently only 8 595 ha. 850 ha have recently been added, predominantly as a result of funds collected by private enterprise. I believe that the Government should play its part in extending the size of this wonderful park. It is either that or ultimately, may be this year, maybe next year one will have to start shooting. Shooting can be delayed for at least 25 years if we could get the additional land. The suggestion has been made in certain quarters that one way in which this can be done is to link the Addo Park to the forestry reserves of Zuurberg. There are very big forest in the Zuurberg area. With the purchase of a relatively small area of land one could link this forest reserve to the Addo National Park. Then, obviously, one would have to have a fence. This would be very, very expensive. The forest belongs to the State anyway. It will therefore not cost the State funds in order to purchase huge tracts of land to expand the Addo National Park. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this his very serious consideration. I believe that the Addo National Park is a wonderful facility for the Eastern Cape. It is a facility that obviously must continue in the long term. We are short in that part of the country of national parks by comparison for instance with Natal, the Transvaal and the Northern Cape. If we therefore could have the facility of having those forests added to Addo to make it that much bigger, it would be greatly appreciated in the area.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central put various questions to the hon. the Minister, and the Minister will undoubtedly reply to him about the problem in connection with the mineralization of the water in the Sundays River area and the problems being experienced in the Addo Elephant Park.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister, the Department, the engineering group, the planners and the construction workers on a unique achievement, because the department recently received the award for the best civil engineering achievement of 1980 for the Riviersonderend-Berg River project. This project was judged against all other civil engineering projects in the country. This award is of world standard and is in world class. Our sincere congratulations on this achievement.

I also want to congratulate the forestry faculty of the University of Stellenbosch, which is 50 years old this year. I have before me a forestry magazine, Die Bosbounuus with a photograph of the first graduates in 1934 on the front cover. There are several people in this photograph who later made unique contributions in the department: Mr. J. H. van Wyk, who became Director of Research; Mr. Immelman, Chief Director of Wood Utilization; Mr. P. C. de Villiers, who later became a professor at Stellenbosch; Mr. D. P. Ackerman, a former Secretary of Forestry, Mr. H. L. Malherbe, also a former Secretary of Forestry; and Mr. A. Juriaanse, Chief of Research: Tree Improvement in the Department of Forestry. Mr. Juriaanse was a very colourful character. He is now retired and lives in Pretoria. At one stage he was working for the department at the forest improvement station near Sabie, De Wet Station. This area is particularly plagued by lightning and so on. He wrote in a letter to his secretary in this regard saying: “Die terrein is baie geskik en die bome groei baie goed, maar dit is ’n bebliksemde plek, want die weerlig slaan kortkort daar”. These are colourful people of high calibre. We congratulate this faculty which has provided the department with so many able and dedicated people.

In the third place I want to express a further word of congratulations. In this same journal, Die Bosbounuus, a photograph was published last year of a pioneer by the name of E. B. Glaezer. In 1915 this pioneer planted specific trees, also in the vicinity of Sabie, in the Graskop State Forest. One of the trees he planted there is still standing today. This tree was selected for seed improvement. Mr. Glaezer is still alive today. He is now 92 and lives on the Natal coast. This specific tree is over 40 metres tall. I feel there is a message in this because this tree is an embodiment of the task of someone who plants a tree. I think it is a living monument to that first pioneer in the then Forestry Department. This year is the year of the coral tree, which is a very attractive name. The coral tree’s other name, which we have now changed, is the Kafferboom. It is interesting that the name has been changed to coral tree. Its berries are known as lucky beans; that is where the attractive name coral tree comes from. We therefore want to encourage our people to plant trees. It is worth while.

I now come to another aspect and want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Ladybrand said about environmental conservation. I may also throw some light on other aspects. There is one rule we should remember, namely “dirt is soil out of place”. We can apply this wherever we like; but it remains true.

In spite of all the research, reports and commissions of inquiry, and all the research and work on littering and pollution, and all the laws applicable to industries to prevent air pollution—here I have in mind in particular laws applying to power stations regarding the emission of smoke, gases and ash, and the laws applicable to an industry like Sasol in the Highveld and the apparatus it must provide to purify those gases and fumes— and all the campaigns by city and town councils to keep the cities and towns clean, and the educational programmes launched by the Directorate of Environment Affairs, and the literature, posters and magazines, and attempts by other bodies and private organizations to bring these matters home to people, we shall have to change our attitude.

Here I might just mention the Eastern Transvaal. After all, it is a beautiful place. We have a unique co-operative there, the Eastern Transvaal Co-operative. Every year the co-operative holds essay competitions in this connection, and there are wonderful entries. Last year the theme was “Water control, its importance and utilization on the Eastern Transvaal Highveld”. Our children on the Highveld participate enthusiastically in this competition and in this regard I want to read a few sentences from an essay by one of the winners—

In spite of these programmes we must take a look at the reserve strips along our roads. We must see how tins, cartons and other litter are thrown out of motor-cars. We should take a look at our show-grounds and our parks after the public have been there or see what our pavilions look like after a sports meeting. In spite of all these programmes, we must take note of all these things in order to get back to the truth. We stand accused in the face of these things.

What are we seeking? We want our people to be considerate and tidy and to try to maintain good order.

If we are to achieve this, there are three aspects to consider, and the hon. member for Ladybrand drew attention to one of these aspects, namely the educational aspect, and emphasized that we must play on people’s consciences through education. It must be part of man’s attitude to life that he wants to care for and protect his environment.

In the second place we must make facilities available for our people. Residents of cities and towns sometimes need to escape their urban environment. When they leave the city they want to see other horizons, want to breathe clean air and see mountains. They want to see the grass of the beautiful Highveld and experience the Karoo at night. I was not born in the Karoo, but I have stopped in the Karoo at night and there, in the wide open spaces, one becomes aware of eternity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after a speech such as that of the hon. member for Standerton, hon. members must pardon me if I take the opportunity to thank him personally. The hon. member has the ability to carry one away, and particularly when he is discussing the subject of teaching our people to be tidy and to preserve our beautiful South Africa, he speaks from the heart, and I want to thank him for doing so. I believe that that is the essence of conservation in South Africa. The hon. member said “Dirt is soil out of place”. That reminds me of an old story I was told about a little boy who heard a clergyman say at a funeral: “For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The young fellow did not quite understand these things, so he asked his mother: “Mother, were we really dust and do we really return to dust?” His mother explained carefully to him that this was really the case, but he still did not quite understand. A few days later, while playing in a corner behind the piano which had not been cleaned very thoroughly, he called to his mother: “Mother, somebody has either come or gone behind the piano.” [Interjections.] With all the environmental pollution and all the accusations the hon. member made of littering at places where people have gathered, one can only say: “Someone either came or went here.” I want to thank the hon. member sincerely for his contribution.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central apologized for not being able to be present. His speech was about Kirkwood and Addo. The hon. member for Sundays River recently led a deputation to me and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in connection with the problem of Kirkwood. I have undertaken to pay a visit to Kirkwood later this year. The facts he mentioned are basically correct, but the figures he quoted are not at present at my disposal. Basically, the issue concerns the supply of additional water to the Kirkwood region. This has to be done by the building of a canal there. This is a matter of priorities that have to be determined and funds that have to be provided, and all that I can say at this stage is that Kirkwood and the supply of water there are one of our higher priorities.

The hon. member also referred to Addo and the Addo elephants. He regrets that some of the elephants will have to be shot. Few of us like to shoot elephants. There are people who shoot them but as far as I personally am concerned—rather not. Nevertheless, the fact is that we shall indeed reach the stage when those elephants will have to be culled. I grant him that at present there are too few of them, and that one would prefer not to do so at this stage. Moreover, we have been approached by the Parks Board with virtually the same request, viz. whether we cannot extend the area of the Addo Elephant Park. We are looking into this and we hope we shall be able to do so.

The hon. member for Humansdorp discussed his part of the world, the Tsitsikamma Forest and the production of stinkwood, yellowwood and blackwood in that region. As far as yellowwood and stinkwood are concerned, I do not believe that at present there is the potential to produce more per annum than in the past. In answer to the question whether more stinkwood and yellowwood should be planted, I think one should leave it to the natural forest to recover where one has felled. Stinkwood and yellowwood only grow in specific areas. The blackwood to which the hon. member referred was planted there many years ago when the stinkwood had been eradicated on a large scale. Where large open areas in the forest developed, blackwood was planted, and it thrived there. Blackwood is not a South African timber, but this alien species of timber thrives in that region. Blackwood is still being planted for the furniture industry, but the areas where it can be planted are on the edge of the natural forest and there are not many areas suitable for doing so. The department is planting the maximum amount, but unfortunately we are in the position that the area where it can be planted is not very large.

I have sympathy for the hon. member’s plea for the furniture industry in that regard. I tend to agree with him that one must consider whether one cannot make provision for the future of the manufacturers of stinkwood and yellowwood furniture in that area. These are people who have established themselves in that region and who established the industry there. Apart from the industry and the work it provides, I believe nevertheless that it remains one of the biggest attractions in that area. No-one passes through Knysna without looking at the stinkwood. Therefore I think that in some respects one must make provision for these people. We are looking into this too.

The hon. member went on to speak about the extension of the sea area that falls within the Coastal Reserve. I can tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Uitenhage discussed this matter last year. On that occasion I undertook to negotiate about the matter with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I did negotiate with him in this regard, but every time I did so, he made matters difficult by asking me: “Do you not want all the fisheries?” When I replied “No thank you”, our negotiations broke down more or less at that point. However, I am still convinced that it is necessary for us to extend further seawards the marine area administered by the Parks Board. I agree with what the hon. member said in this regard. I myself would be bitter if I could no longer fish from the coast while a few hundred yards from the shore, fellows in boats were dragging nets.

Hear, hear! That is the right attitude.

I shall again see whether I can take it further.

The hon. member for Ladybrand discussed environmental conservation and education. I can tell him that I am convinced that education is the crux of the matter: Education of our children, education of the adults and education of the professional people. If we can get the professional people, the architects and engineers and all the developers to the point where every time they tackle a project, they ask themselves what its impact will be on the environment, then we shall have made a great progress. We shall have to give serious consideration to this and I thank the hon. member for that speech.

† The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about water from the Makarikari Pans and suggested that a confederation in real terms, as he more or less called it, would solve the water problems of Southern Africa. If it is possible for us to reach that stage, I do agree with him that there are huge sources of water that can be used in Southern Africa and that can vastly assist Bophuthatswana as well.

He also spoke about the backlog in drilling. The position is that previously it was necessary for the department to do all the drilling itself. At present, however, there are many private drilling contractors who can do the job. We are back-pedalling at this stage, but we realize that there are certain areas where the private contractor is not inclined to go drilling. That is why we are doing it there.

As regards the Amatola water scheme, I quite agree with him. The White Paper on this has already been tabled to enable us to act immediately because we want to be in the position where, once development reaches King William’s Town and East London in the Eastern Cape, the supply of water will not be a factor hindering the development in that area. I quite agree with his remarks in this regard and I shall see to it that we remain on schedule in that area.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nigel spoke in general terms about two matters. One of them was the exploitation of minerals in the Kruger National Park. I shall merely reiterate the standpoint adopted here last year, which is that only in the case of really extreme need—and I do not want to say under no circumstances—will we allow any form of exploitation of minerals to take place in the game reserve. I have every hope that we shall manage and that Iscor will be assisted without its ever being necessary to take such a step. This will only be done in the interests of South Africa, and then only if we are absolutely convinced that there is no other way and no other possibility.

Then, too, the hon. member for Nigel pointed out the possibility of the building of further dams in the river above the Suikerbosrand River, and on the other rivers nearby, for example the Wilge River, above the Vaal Dam, in order to store additional water. We do not think that that is desirable. The department is constantly investigating those matters. To store additional water there which would simply stand there and evaporate would not help us at all. Provision is being made for the storage of water that is pumped over the watershed between the Tugela and the Vaal River and which is stored in the Sterkfontein Dam, a dam which is at present being enlarged and which will eventually have a storage capacity equal to that of the Vaal Dam. That dam can then serve as a reservoir, and its evaporation will be approximately 2% per annum; an absolutely minimal evaporation rate compared with that of the Vaal Dam. This means, therefore that we can in any event already channel the upper reaches of the Wilge River and the Vaal River.

I now come to the hon. member for Simon’s Town. Allow me to say, right from the outset, that I am very pleased that I do not work for the hon. member for Simon’s Town. A man who can issue so many orders in a mere 10 minutes must be a terrible person to work for. [Interjections.] In the first place, the hon. member complained about the motorcycles that make such a noise. I share the hon. member’s concern about this problem. The Director-General of the department is particularly concerned about this noise pollution. We shall see what can be done about the matter as soon as the proposed legislation relating to environmental conservation is accepted by Parliament.

† The hon. member for Simon’s Town continued by addressing himself to the problem of the pollution of False Bay, and also referred to representations made in this respect last year. In connection with the pleas lodged by the hon. member last year, I can inform him that the matter has been investigated by the pollution control division of the Directorate of Water Affairs. They have undertaken an extensive investigation. Their report has only recently been completed with the result that the hon. member could not be advised of their findings at an earlier stage. The results of the investigation will be made available to him, however, as soon as possible.

As far as the second point raised by the hon. member is concerned—the pollution of the rivers in the vicinity of the Cape Peninsula, for example the Liesbeeck and the Black River—I should also tell the hon. member that that is a matter that we shall look into. The pollution of the Western Cape mountains by alien vegetation on privately owned land has been recognized by the Interim Management Committee for Table Mountain and the Southern Peninsula Mountain Chaim as a matter deserving of urgent attention. In connection with the marine reserves, I have had discussions with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I shall pursue the matter further.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit discussed weather modification. The hon. member is particularly interested in weather modification and made an interesting speech on the subject. As far as weather modification is concerned, one must not think in terms of the poem about the wheat farmer who shot into the clouds, after which his haystack caught fire. This is an extremely complex matter. Two experiments were in progress in this regard. One was carried out in a highly scientific manner by the Lowveld Tobacco Corporation, and the other was carried out at Bethlehem, with the support of the Water Research Commission, by the Department of Transport Affairs. The problem is how to assess the progress made in this regard. When the local Tobacco Corporation ceased to support the experiment, the Water Research Commission undertook to support it temporarily until such time as it could be properly evaluated. In co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Transport Affairs, my department had two independent specialist firms from overseas make two independent evaluations of both of the experiments that were in progress. Because we were not sure that the people we had to evaluate the matter would be able to do so to the satisfaction of all the departments, we obtained these independent firms to evaluate the matter. Only after we have received that evaluation will further discussions take place between my department and the department of my colleagues of Agriculture and Fisheries and Transport Affairs to decide whether we think it will be worthwhile and that we shall achieve the results necessary to continue with these experiments. That is basically how the situation stands. At present we are of the opinion that the scientific facilities in the form of instruments and aircraft available at Nelspruit, plus the data already collected, are too valuable to be allowed simply to come to nothing without a proper evaluation. We are awaiting that evaluation, and when we receive it we shall decide on the matter further.

Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I have a few things I should like to say about irrigation water, and irrigation water tariffs in particular. It is well known that the Republic of South Africa has only about 4% high-potential land. It is also well known that over the past five years, 133 000 hectares of land has been lost, much of which formed part of this 4%. The fact is that while our land is dwindling, Four population is increasing, and in order to feed those people we must produce more food. I also believe that we must export more in order to earn money on the foreign market. This means that the farmers of our country must operate more intensively. They must irrigate better and more intensively and must obtain more irrigation water at a reasonable tariff. I believe that the State has certainly done its share in this regard by establishing the various irrigation schemes and Government water schemes. It is also true that some of these water schemes were low on the list of priorities, and accordingly they now cost a great deal of money. It is also true that further schemes will probably be tackled in the future which will cost even more money. Accordingly, I believe that we must determine a water tariff which consists of two components. In the first instance, I think it is quite correct to say that it must be possible to recover in full the operating costs of such a scheme from the irrigation farmers. I believe that this can be done by progressively increasing the water tariff over the years. I also believe that there will indeed be exceptions to this rule where socio-economic reasons require it. The second component I believe is wrong, namely, that part of the interest and capital of such a water scheme, viz. the dam itself and the main canal system, should be recovered from the farmer. I believe that the capital cost of a Government water scheme must be for the State’s account, and I should like to motivate this. Irrigation prevents depopulation, whatever part of the country is involved. If we want to succeed in our policy of de-concentration, then I believe that irrigation is an integral part of it, because in many of those regions agriculture will be the starting point of such development. The infrastructures created for agriculture and established by means of agriculture will also assist in the deconcentration of industries. This kind of irrigation development in any event creates a basis for the development of secondary and tertiary development. If it is the task of the State to create infrastructures such as roads, electricity, schools, post offices, etc., then I believe it is also the task of the State to create the necessary infrastructure for irrigation farming. I believe that a Government water scheme entails all the benefits necessary to play an exceptional role in the socio-economic development of our country. This is also in line with the opinion of the S.A. Agricultural Union, as expressed on page 13 of the February 1982 edition of Die Boer.

The argument has been advanced that when an irrigation scheme is established, land values immediately rise and that accordingly there should be a right of recovery on the land. I cannot endorse that standpoint, because the line that differentiates that land from adjacent land is not always clear. In any event, the expense of investment in what one wants to do on the land requires so much capital that eventually the land value becomes almost lost in the total cost structure of what is planted on the land. I believe—and I am now referring in particular to the Western Cape—that by making water available at a reasonable tariff, the farmers can produce more export products. If it is expected of the farmer to produce export products so that foreign exchange may be earned, then I believe it is unfair that an excessively high water tariff should be recovered from the farmer. In 1980 export products to the value of R215 million were produced in the Western Cape. The total amount for fruit was R326 million. This is no small amount for a small part of the country.

Irrigation water in the Western Cape, and in other areas as well, creates job opportunities, and job opportunities in turn assist in the solution of our socio-economic problems, particularly with regard to the lower-paid groups. A region which receives irrigation water at a reasonable tariff can eventually be more productive, and this in turn leads to higher wages, the provision of better housing, etc.

In the Western Cape the manufacturing industry has experienced a relative decline, and this trend is continuing. The manufacturing industry or industrial development is largely based on agricultural development.

A recent study has indicated that the cost of irrigation, even when the water costs nothing, amounts to approximately 15,8% of the total cost. A second finding was that the total cost under intensive irrigation, excluding the cost of water, was 56% higher than in the case of dry land. These two facts in reality contradict the statement that there ought to be a right of recovery for lands which come under irrigation. Against this background of costs it comes as no surprise that the study indicated that given the prevailing real unit production, it was clear that heavy demands were made on the utilization of irrigation water as regards productivity.

Against this whole background, a committee of inquiry into water tariffs has been appointed, and I believe that they are going to submit their report shortly. However, I fear that if we do not uphold the principle that the State is responsible for the capital cost of such a scheme, all kinds of fine formulas—I am tempted to say magic formulas—and clever plans will be put forward which do not really take the overall situation in a specific region into account. What I want—and I am asking for this—is that we take the socioeconomic development of such a rural area into account. My plea is that we also consider what we can earn in terms of foreign exchange. I ask that we do not see water tariffs in isolation. I want to make the plea, the really earnest plea, that we forget about formulas, about clever plans. I believe that by the use of formulas an injustice will eventually be committed. Today it is the Western Cape, but tomorrow it could be another region in South Africa. I believe that the clever plans we are going to make will ultimately be to our detriment. I want to make a very earnest plea that we should recognize that an irrigation scheme, a Government water scheme, with its main canal, must be for the account of the State.

Mr. Chairman, I like to follow the hon. member for Wellington, because we are both involved in agriculture. It may seem as if we discussed our speeches in advance. When I discussed my speech I thought I should be the only man to thank the hon. the Minister this evening, but I found this afternoon that many of the hon. members did the same. However, the hon. the Minister will probably not regard it as superfluous if I reiterate. On behalf of my constituency I wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his staff for the able way in which they have performed this major task. When this fine report was put on my table, I was justly proud of it. This department is in fact made up of three components, viz. water affairs, forestry and environmental conservation. In addition, we also have the National Parks Board, the Lakes Area Development Board and the National Botanical Gardens. Each of these components could almost be regarded as a separate department. Although this may be a repetition of what has already been said, I think it is as well that by way of this debate we place on record the highest appreciation of the entire country.

The primary requirement for development, of whatever nature, is water. Our country is not very rich in water, and although there is still water that flows away unutilized, when one looks at the overall picture one has to be grateful for what has already been achieved.

For many years, water conservation in general was chiefly devoted to the needs of agriculture, but with the tremendous industrial development that has occurred over the past few decades the emphasis has necessarily shifted, and at present we are not only experiencing a need for more water for industries, but are also finding ourselves in the position that we shall have to waste no time in planning far ahead for the steadily increasing demand for water that will occur. As an agriculturist I hope that in spite of the shift in emphasis that I have mentioned, our hon. Minister and his department will never—I say never—neglect the farmers, however strong the pressure exerted by other sectors. I have no hesitation in saying this because I believe that agriculture is the most important foundation for any industrial development. The industrialist who ignores the role of agriculture has lost the battle before it has even begun.

In conjunction with this I should also like to felicitate the hon. the Minister and his department on the tremendous efforts being made to allow the water supply to keep pace with the increasing needs of the entire country, industrial and otherwise. I have before me reports relating to seven major water schemes, reports which have been tabled over the past few weeks. These are apart from the 14 White Papers mentioned in the report and other smaller schemes, because in terms of the Act—as hon. members will know—the White Paper need not be tabled in respect of a water scheme costing less than R1 million. The annual report indicates that 38 older projects are still in progress, apart from the maintenance of existing projects, despite a shortage of 171 technical staff. On behalf of my constituency—and I know that the hon. members for East London and the hon. member for King William’s Town will associate themselves with me in this regard—I should like to express our thanks for the Amatola region water supply scheme. This is a scheme which, it is calculated at present, will ultimately cost approximately R230 million. This major scheme provides for the additional water requirements of the priority growth points of East London and the Berlin/King William’s Town complex, and will also supplement the enormous water requirements of a developing Ciskei.

While I am full of praise for the achievements of the hon. the Minister and his department, I nevertheless have a few requests to make. In the first place, I want to ask the hon. the Minister that the Gubu dam in the Stutterheim district, which will supplement the Amatola project, be used more effectively for agriculture in the upper Kubusi region, and also for the town of Stutterheim. Not only is Stutterheim a town with major potential, but we must also take into account the fact that 40 000 Black people live in and around Stutterheim, and considerable efforts will have to be made in regard to the provision of jobs before the unemployment problem in this region really gets out of hand.

I also ask that the Forestry Directorate give very sympathetic consideration to the tremendous possibilities of Stutterheim as far as the timber industry is concerned. However, that is another matter.

My second request concerns Queenstown itself. The city council of Queenstown set aside 131 hectares of land for the first phase of industrial development. These plots have been surveyed and supplied with water and electricity, and a firm of industrial developers has been employed to sell the sites. As hon. members are aware, Queenstown is a declared priority growth point, and in view of the attractive concessions available, this project is making very good progress. The written assurance I have received from the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. that the corridor to East London will remain a White area, had a very positive effect on potential investors in this region after I had given it publicity.

The most important sources of water for Queenstown, with its 7 000 White and 80 000 Black inhabitants, is the Waterdown dam. This dam’s supply is not unlimited, and in accordance with an existing agreement it supplies water proportionally to Ciskei, Transkei and Queenstown. In my office hangs a map of the future planning of Ciskei, and on it I see that no fewer than 10 major cities are being planned around the old Whittlesea, as we knew it. This is apart from the agricultural development between the cities.

With a view to the circumstances I am sketching here, there are now fears that within the foreseeable future there will not be sufficient water available for Queenstown and Ciskei. My request is therefore that in spite of his limited funds—a factor which is evident from the report—the hon. the Minister give urgent consideration to the possibility of the Klaassmits River, for example. Queenstown is a district which has had to forfeit a tremendous amount of valuable agricultural land due to the consolidation of the Black homelands. It is my contention that it must be possible to derive the maximum yield from the land that remains in White hands in order to meet our food requirements. Accordingly I urgently request that consideration be given to the Klaassmits River project, which would be an indispensable asset for the agriculture in that region as well.

Mr. Chairman, in my expression of thanks I have also touched on a few of the needs of my constituency, and I wish to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister: “Thank you very much and carry on with the good work.”

Mr. Chairman, it was, once again, a pleasure to be able to listen to the hon. member for Queenstown enthusiastically stating the case of the South African farmer to the hon. the Minister of the Environment. That hon. member has been involved in organized agriculture for so many years that one actually expects him to state the case of the farmer on every occasion.

Each time that I have been privileged to visit the farmers of the North-Western Transvaal with the hon. the Minister of the Environment as well as with the former Minister of Water Affairs, I have always been struck by the fact that every group of farmers, wherever one set foot, made the same request to the Minister: “Mr. Minister, why does the department not build more dams for us? Why do you not build a dam for us across the Marico River and another dam across the Limpopo, the Crocodile and the Matlabas River?” Wherever one meets farmers, it is repeatedly stated in every conversation. Moreover, the same arguments and motives are advanced by all farmers: “Mr. Minister, all this precious water is flowing away to the sea; we could produce far more food if we could utilize all that water; we need that water so urgently, etc.” That is what every group of farmers, wherever we go, says to the Minister. Thus, there is a dire need for more water among farmers all over the country, but the need is very great among two categories in particular, viz. the irrigation and livestock farmers. Therefore, these are the farmers who are continually urging that more attention be given to research on the exploitation of our underground water resources or, as the experts call it, our ground-water resources.

Consequently I want to begin by asking the hon. the Minister, to do everything possible, through the Directorate of Water Affairs, to afford the research programme in that field, viz. the exploitation of our ground-water, the highest priority.

In the annual report of the Water Research Commission reference is made to the preparation of a master research plan for ground-water research, and I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister can give us more information on the objectives of this master plan. There are also two very interesting statements in this annual report, and one of them has already been referred to this afternoon, viz. that approximately 90% of the total amount of water consumed in South Africa is obtained from the runoff into rivers and streams. The second important statement is that the contribution of ground-water to the total water supply in European countries is often as high as 80%, while in South Africa it so far amounts to a mere 10%. The report further explains that this is primarily the case because of the fact that South Africa is not well endowed with suitable aquifers (spongy areas) and that most boreholes, therefore, have to be drilled through hard rock. For that reason one takes another look at the statement in the annual report that approximately 90% of the total amount of water used in South Africa is obtained from the runoff into rivers and streams. The report also states that this runoff amounts to approximately 53 milliard cubic metres per annum, which represents more or less 9% of the rainfall. However, less than 60% of this runoff can be made available for use by means of storage facilities.

If this is taken in conjunction with the fact that the contribution of ground-water is merely 10% of our country’s total water supply, it is very clear that two things are very urgently required. Firstly, storage facilities will have to be made available on a considerable scale in order to obtain better control of the runoff water in rivers and streams. Secondly, ground-water will have to make a far greater contribution to the water supply in our country.

It is also clear that many, many milliards of cubic metres of subterranean water has accumulated in underground compartments all over our country and is waiting to be abstracted and utilized more profitably by South Africa’s farmers, as well as by its cities and industries. I daresay that the South African farmer has the strongest claim to this ground-water. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will admit it, but if he does, he will be even more popular with our farming community.

There is another matter which I want to touch upon. It concerns one section in the annual report which deals with our boring division. It has been referred to this afternoon, and the hon. the Minister has already identified certain problems which were raised. It may be necessary to state that there really is a need in our farming community. When one looks at the annual report, one realizes that the department is definitely required to consider purchasing more drills. There are only 23 steel rig drills and 48 air pressure drills, or rather pneumatic drills, as stated in the report, available to serve the farmers of South Africa as Government drills. In view of this, I believe that we have to go into this matter and that the department will definitely have to try to obtain more drills.

When I say this, I am obviously also aware of the fact, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, that many of our farmers have their drilling done by private contractors who to a large extent are subsidized by the State. It is also necessary to say that the department does not only drill for farmers with a view to finding water; many holes are drilled for research purposes. Holes for other State departments are being drilled on a considerable scale. I believe approximately 450 holes have been drilled by private contractors which cost the Government R325 301. Nevertheless we want to ask the hon. the Minister to look into this matter.

Quite often the annual report does not mention other special services which are being rendered by the department. In this regard I should like to mention one. That is that the department recently assisted in a wonderful way and after many years of struggle and drilling succeeded in drilling 15 holes at the border post at Kopfontein—that is the gateway between the Republic and Botswana, and very near to the spot where the Manila Tree conference was held. We now have the wonderful result that a borehole has been drilled there which supplies 8 000 gallons of water per hour to that border post through which 900 people pass daily from the Republic to Botswana. I want to thank the department very sincerely for that, because in that way a great service has been rendered to our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is noteworthy, and this is meant as a joke, that the hon. member Mr. L. M. Theunissen, who used to be our companion along sparkling rivers, is at present searching for subterranean sources. [Interjections.] I do not want to cross swords with him. I meant what I said as a joke. We hope that this is not actually true as regards his future political career.

The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs officially opened the pumping scheme of the Cogmanskloof Irrigation Board on 16 April 1982, a scheme started and developed over the years in conjunction with the department for which I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department most sincerely this evening. The scheme makes provision for the pumping of water from the Breede River to meet the needs of 102 farms with a scheduled surface area of approximately 200 ha. In addition the scheme serves the municipality of Ashton which is supplied with 270 000 cubic metres of water annually. According to White Paper W.P.S.-’81, a maximum quantity of 15, 15 million cubic metres of water will be abstracted at a constant rate from the Breede River annually, and when the river’s flow is too low, water can be released into the river for this purpose from the Greater Brandvlei Dam. The water is pumped over a distance of 39 kilometres and the total length of pipeline, including branch lines, etc., is approximately 125 kilometres. The total costs after completion will amount to approximately R9,5 million. The original estimate, based on 1978 prices, amounted to R6 374 000. In other words, there has been a cost increase of R3 126 000, inter alia, due to construction work having commenced two years later. The floods of January 1981 had a direct as well as an indirect effect on the cost of the scheme. Because of the floods consulting engineers deemed it necessary to cover the pipes in the vicinity of the Cogmanskloof River with concrete in an attempt to avoid future flood damage. Indirectly the floods caused a lot of additional work for contractors in that area, as a result of which contractors’ prices in the region increased in accordance with the normal law of supply and demand. Moreover, it was discovered that the water to be pumped was fairly acid. As a result more expensive bitumen-dipped pipes had to be purchased. In order to facilitate the operation of the scheme more dams were constructed, also at a considerable cost. It was also necessary to expedite the scheme. Consequently consulting engineers had to be appointed. This, too, pushed up the costs by approximately R450 000. It has been estimated that if the scheme had been constructed over a period of three years, as originally planned, the escalation of costs and other factors would have caused the scheme to cost more than R12 million instead of R9 million. So this had meant a saving of R2,5 million, largely attributable to the fact that the scheme was completed within a period of 18 months, a remarkable achievement indeed, and one for which we should like to extend our sincere thanks to the irrigation board and the engineering firm that did the work.

The Cogmanskloof Pumping Scheme is probably the largest and most expensive scheme of its kind in the Republic. Water rates are levied on a differentiated basis in five wards and vary from R450 in the lower lying areas to R1 200 in the highest areas. Consequently this inevitably is a very expensive scheme for the water consumer as well. Periodic droughts and a lack of irrigation water not only caused this area to suffer a setback but also prevented it from undertaking the necessary development to enable it to keep abreast of the spiral of cost increases. The choice faced by the farmers concerned was gradual ruin or expensive water.

The challenge which they are facing at the moment is to utilize expensive water so economically, or, shall we say, so advantageously that they will be able to derive a profit therefrom. This scheme is probably a precursor of the virtually unavoidable high cost irrigation water schemes of the future. To me it is clear that if this scheme succeeds economically, it will be the initiator of the utilization of an enormous agricultural potential based on irrigation in areas surrounding our dams and rivers. I believe that it is in the interests of agriculture and of the State that something be done to render possible the use of expensive water for agricultural purposes. The only question is what we are to do.

When we read the report of Mr. D. S. Van der Merwe, senior adviser to the Water Research Commission, it is evident that approximately 30% of the gross agricultural product is produced under irrigation in South Africa on 10% of the arable land. The water required for this is supplied by 330 State and irrigation schemes. In addition we read that it is generally accepted that the standard of irrigation in South Africa is not high. Seen from an irrigation point of view these standards must be improved. Therefore optimum production must be obtained per unit of irrigation water used. Consequently this is the basic premise of the Water Research Commission in the allocation of funds for irrigation research.

This affords us one opportunity of which we can avail ourselves to assist in expensive water being more effectively utilized. What I am referring to is the adaptation of irrigation systems to new methods which will save water. In order to achieve the objective of high efficiency in water consumption in agriculture, unnecessary losses of water must be identified. In the categories in which losses occur, losses during the reticulation of water and losses resulting from injudicious irrigation are the most important ones. Three factors in particular play a role in this entire irrigation set-up. These factors relate to crops, to the kind of crops grown, because different kinds of crops need different quantities of water. The moisture-sensitive growing stages of crops are also involved. Experiments have been conducted in order to ascertain at what stage a plant survives more readily without water and at what stage the plant must be given water so as to guarantee satisfactory production.

In addition there are soil factors determining the quantity of available water as well as climatological factors—rainfall, temperature, wind, etc. All of these play a role in the exact quantity of water required by plants in order to yield a crop. To people engaged in research of this kind, one should like to address a very serious appeal to ensure that research will be undertaken at schemes, for example, the Cogmanskloof Pumping Scheme— extremely expensive water schemes—in the areas in which the water is to be used. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Swellendam. The hon. member showed us once again that he has extensive knowledge of water and the technical aspects involved. I trust, however, that the hon. member will pardon me if I do not follow up any further on what he said in this regard.

Last year, during the discussion of this Vote, I made a plea for the further creation of marine reserves, inter alia, the expansion and consolidation of the Tsitsikamma coastal reserve. In that debate the hon. the Minister undertook to make representations in this regard to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on behalf of the Parks Board, and he did so again here this evening. I just want to say to the House that the hon. the Minister has indeed taken a great deal of trouble in this connection, and that I am very grateful for what he has already achieved in this regard. However, as far as this matter is concerned, it does not seem as if the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is inclined to comply with these requests. As far as I am concerned, the reasons advanced for the refusal of this request are shortsighted in the extreme, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will continue to exert pressure on the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in this connection.

Today I should like to discuss a matter which concerns the preservation of marine resources, but also has wider implications for conservation. Although a reasonably large area of the Republic is subject to State controlled conservation, it is still far too little, according to the norms laid down by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. This influential and authoritative international conservation body accepts that 10% of the surface area of a country ought to be utilized as conservation area. In the Republic at present, only 5,4% of our surface area is utilized for this purpose. Comparable figures from African countries are the following: Botswana, 17,6%; Malawi, 8,6%, Zambia, 8,1%; and Zimbabwe, 6,9%. However, reliable information as to the effectiveness with which conservation is implemented in these countries is not as readily available. In contrast, one can proudly maintain that South Africa is internationally recognized as a country which controls and manages our conservation areas with the utmost efficiency. We in South Africa bear a heavy conservation burden because we have such a wide variety of ecosystems, each with its own unique character, giving rise to unique problems. For example, we have a very long coastline of almost 3 000 km facing two oceans, with many islands. These two coastlines and the two oceans differ drastically from one another ecologically. Moreover, there are several river mouths, and here we can also include the lake areas, each with its own unique population of plants and animals in a delicate natural balance which in turn, requires very specific conservation action. Internally, we are in the fortunate position that we have both summer and winter rainfall regions with a wide variety of types of veld carrying a rich diversity of fauna. The winter rainfall region is a vegetable kingdom on its own which accommodates the largest variety of plants species for its surface area in the world. There are only six of these areas in the world. This great diversity of ecosystems, if they are to be effectively protected, demand large areas, but this will be of no avail if our conservation effort is not supported by an organization which, at both research and managerial level, is specifically oriented towards this diversity. In practice, what we have is the following. Firstly, we have a variety of bodies involved in conservation. They are at the first, second and third levels of government. I think the hon. member for Ladybrand also spoke about this. The formulation of a central conservation policy is therefore difficult, since often there is no or extremely poor liaison between the various bodies. Therefore, although there is diversification of organizations, this bears no relation to the diversity of the ecosystem, and in fact only has a restrictive effect. I wish to point out one example in this regard. We have a Lakes Area Development Board for the Wilderness-Knysna region, but with minor statutory and organizational adjustments this region could be controlled by the Parks Board, because only a stone’s throw from there the Parks Board already controls an extensive marine reserve. The benefits of such a step ought to be very clear to everyone.

Looking further at the allocation of land for conservation, it is clear that it is totally dominated by the Kruger National Park and the Kalahari Gemsbok Park. These regions comprise more than half of the total area under conservation. Only six recognized types of veld, out of approximately 70, enjoy protection in these reserves. The fact that these two reserves are so large is perhaps the reason why the decision-makers in the Republic have thus far had a false sense of security about the state of conservation in the Republic. The Kruger National Park is constantly being compared with the size of several smaller countries elsewhere in the world. Therefore we already have a major imbalance as regards the utilization of land for land conservation, and that is not to speak of the conservation of our coastline, marine resources and ecosystems. It is therefore an urgent necessity that we set aside a great deal more land for conservation.

Another aspect stemming from the nature of our conservation problems is of an organizatory nature. Although policy must be formulated centrally, the diversity of our ecosystems and the size of our country requires decentralization at the strategic and operational level. In this regard I should again like to take the Parks Board as an example. I agree that policy matters are formulated in Pretoria, but for the effective administration of the southern parks—the Addo, Bergkwagga, Karoo and Bontebok Parks, to mention only a few—it is definitely necessary that they be controlled from a nearby centre. In this regard I think George is an obvious choice for such an administrative centre for the Parks Board. The southern parks will only come into their own if they are managed more directly and with a view to local needs.

† Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I should like to associate myself very strongly with the appeal by the hon. member for Simon’s Town to preserve False Bay and Walker Bay. This may not directly fall within the ambit of the hon. the Minister’s authority, but his department has a vital interest in marine reserves and can therefore make itself heard in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I like to speak after the hon. member for Uitenhage. Actually, he reminded me of a problem I have encountered in this debate throughout the afternoon.

You always have problems.

The hon. member is right; I do have many problems. It was clear to me from the debate this afternoon that while we were debating on matters which were the direct responsibility of the hon. the Minister, reference was often made in the course of the debate to matters which in fact fall under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I often wondered—I say this in all politeness, and I note that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is present—whether it would not be in the interests of the debate for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or his Deputy to be present to hear what the debate is about.

But the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is in the House at present.

Yes, I know he is present now, but he was not present earlier this afternoon. I should have liked the hon. the Minister or his Deputy to be present in the House so that they could have heard what the debate was about and perhaps have made a contribution themselves. In fact, there is a strong link between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Environment Affairs. Water Affairs cannot be put into a water-tight compartment. Earlier this year I asked the hon. the Minister whether the Claassens Committee had completed its investigation into the determining of the price of water. I also asked whether the report was to be published, and in February, when I asked the question, the reply was that the investigation had already been completed, but that the report would only be completed in April. The hon. the Minister went on to say that the report would not be published, but that the government would submit a White Paper to Parliament in regard to those recommendations that were accepted. I had really hoped that we would be able to see that White Paper before this debate. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how far he has progressed with that White Paper and whether he could not elucidate the recommendations in regard to tariff determinations here, even if the White Paper has not yet been completed. Even if it is not final, we should like to have an indication of what is going on in the hon. the Minister’s head. Looking at the present policy for the determining of water tariffs, we see that the older schemes, those in use before 1970, are operated on an entirely different basis to the new schemes. To a large extent I feel that the way in which the old schemes were and are operated gives those producers of agricultural products an excessive advantage over those that have to make use of water from the new schemes. In terms of the new schemes, water tariffs are so determined that the full operating costs, as well as a reasonable percentage of the capital repayment and interest, is recovered. In the case of the older schemes, the tariffs have to be increased at least to cover the operating costs of those schemes. If one takes into account that in many cases the same products are cultivated, but the one community has to pay far more for the water than the other, the majority of members will agree with me that as far as policy is concerned, there is something here that is not quite fair. I wonder to what ex tent the committee which dealt with these matters took this aspect into account in the recommendations they are supposed to have made. I hope that in his consideration of the decisions of that committee, if they did consider this, the hon. the Minister will give far more sympathetic consideration than in the past to the difference between the water tariffs in the various regions. This is the one point of my argument.

In the second instance—and in fact this is linked to what I have already said—I want to refer to the Theewaterskloof Scheme. A number of members have already referred to this. The hon. member for Wellington in particular discussed certain aspects relating to tariffs earlier this evening. The scheme has not yet been completed, but there is a section of the agricultural community that has been waiting for a reply for several years now. The answer is not what the price of water is going to be. We know that the water is going to cost a great deal. The answer they are waiting for, is the answer to the question: When is a start going to be made on the Simonsberg canal, and when is it to be completed?

As soon as you become a Nationalist. [Interjections.]

Must I take it, Mr. Chairman, that this will never happen? [Interjections.] In this instance details of that part of the scheme were included in the White Paper. Everyone expects that the Simonsberg canal or pipeline will be completed at some stage. However, it passes through some of the best agricultural land in the Western Cape. You know, Sir—and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is present—that if one is going to use water, particularly expensive water, one has to plan far in advance. Every year, when it is asked when this scheme is to be completed, the reply is: “When the funds are available”. However, we cannot simply continue to get the same answer year after year. I do expect the hon. the Minister to be able to say within a reasonable period that he is planning to begin at a certain time, or that we must provisionally forget about a scheme of this nature, if the hon. the Minister feels that way.

Earlier today a certain hon. member—I cannot remember who it was now—asked whether it would not be possible, in cases where, due to a shortage of finance, the department does not see its way clear to completing part of a scheme, to call that community together in order to establish a body which could itself obtain the funds to complete the scheme. It is true that this is an enormous scheme and therefore I do not know whether it would be possible to make such a plan in this case. However, I think that consideration should be given to this. I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this problem. I cannot speak on behalf of all the farmers in that community, because some of them fall within the Stellenbosch constituency, others in the Paarl constituency, and others in the Helderberg constituency, although they all, of course, support me in this regard. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will react to this.

There is one further aspect relating to this matter to which I want to refer, viz. the job opportunities that can be provided if that scheme can be completed. One of the problems in the Western Cape is the creation of job opportunities. I think that when the hon. the Minister, the Cabinet, decide on priorities, this matter should enjoy their attention. For every farm which will be provided with water in order to yield additional production, new labour opportunities will certainly be provided overnight for thousands of Coloured workers. This is important, because the alternative is that those people must leave agriculture and land up in the cities, where there is no housing, schools and so on for them. When any decision is taken, the hon. the Minister must not think only in terms of water and the costs involved. He must please also consider the other benefits that will stem from that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg put certain specific questions to the hon. the Minister and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to them. As regards the problem the hon. member had in connection with the difference between the schemes prior to 1970 and those after 1970, it is, after all, a well-known fact that prior to 1970 schemes were drawn up for socio-economic reasons. Those considerations no longer apply to the post-1970 schemes.

Yes, but those people progressed and have now made up the leeway.

Yes, and fortunately they are all still Nationalists! The hon. member will forgive me if I do not react further to his speech because there are a few matters regarding my own constituency that I should like to take this opportunity to discuss.

This afternoon several speakers reiterated that our water supply in South Africa is extremely limited and that as the need for water becomes greater, careful attention will have to be given to ways of conserving water. And he who conserves water will certainly receive recognition from the State and the community. In this connection I have in mind in particular, irrigation farmers in my constituency who have now begun to use the centre pivot irrigation system. By using this system, farmers find that they save between 40% and 50% of water while gaining between 50% and 100% on crops. The crop is therefore larger while the water consumption is lower. In view of this I therefore venture to ask that we give careful attention to the subsidy paid to farmers who want to apply this irrigation system. At the moment a subsidy of R7 500 is paid to these farmers when they start using this system. In reality we should view this subsidy as a form of water conservation, as an investment in the conservation of water. I therefore take the liberty to ask that this amount be increased. I ask that serious attention be given to this request, because as I have already mentioned, I consider this an investment in water conservation. As I said last year, we must also remember that this R7 500 subsidy which the farmer now receives, is calculated on a farming unit of 25 ha or 30 morgen. In addition, we must also remember that many of the farmers on the Vaalharts do not have 30 morgen units, but 120 morgen or 100 ha units and we shall therefore have to give careful consideration to the adjustment of this subsidy for farmers whose units now comprise four farms instead of one farm as was formerly the case. I therefore make an urgent appeal that we pay a higher subsidy to these farmers.

Another matter I want to raise once again is the question of servitudes, which I have discussed on previous occasions. On 15 January 1976 the then Minister of Water Affairs promised the Vaalharts farmers that they could have the servitudes, i.e. those strips of land bordering on the water canals, and that the conditions of allocation would be determined later. As far as I know, to this day a method has not yet been worked out in terms of which that land can be surveyed and transferred to the farmers. I realize there are many problems in this connection, for example, in connection with surveying. In many cases these pieces of land which adjoin the farmer’s land and the canal, may comprise a mere half ha in size. They must then be surveyed. This will push up the costs considerably, and for this reason I ask that this matter be cleared up once and for all and that these strips of land be allocated to the farmers for a nominal amount, i.e. that the land not be surveyed, because this will cost a great deal. Can we not merely allocate those pieces of land to each farmer for a nominal amount? I admit that some of these pieces of land adjoining the farms are larger than others, but perhaps we could allocate them on a sliding scale of, say, R1 per quarter ha and R2 per half ha.

We are very grateful that a little more money is to be made available to complete a few extra drainage canals. We appreciate this. However, we still want to ask for a few more rand to be made available to complete drainage canal 13. It is of the utmost importance that it be completed, because branch canals flow into it. [Interjections ]

In conclusion I should like to make an apeal concerning one further aspect. I wonder if the time has not come for us to give serious consideration to shifting the regional office from Kroonstad to Jan Kempdorp. [Interjections.] When I think of the area around Kroonstad and of the tremendous activities in the vicinity of Jan Kempdorp. I find that we have one of the largest irrigation schemes in the country in the vicinity of Jan Kempdorp. Now, the fact of the matter is that one of the largest irrigation schemes in the country is dependent on a regional office situated in an area where only a few morgen are under irrigation. That is why I venture to ask that serious consideration be given to moving the regional office. Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate on all the advantages of such a move. I really believe serious consideration should be given to moving the regional office from Kroonstad to Jan Kempdorp.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley North lives upsstream from me. [Interjections.] I am very grateful for the fertilizer he allows to flow down the river to me, but I do want to ask him to ensure that the water flowing in my direction is politically purified, because it seems to me as if the problems southwards from the northern regions. [Interjections.]

I want to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the Department of Environment Affairs in general and to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs in particular for the announcement that drinking water for stock will be provided in the Kalahari. In making this announcement the Government has proved to us that it means well by the farmers of South Africa and by the people in this distant, and region of our country, this Kalahari region where they say the bushes are occasionally to be seen chasing the dogs. [Interjections.] They also say that the Kalahari desert which was made for hunting, is vast and full of sand. If it had not been full of sand it would not have been a desert, and if it had not been so large, it would not have had so much sand. There is the Kuruman Kalahari which is full of rivers, and the rivers are full of sand. Then there is the Upington Kalahari, which is full of sand, teachers and police sergeants. [Interjections.] There is grass there, too, but the whole of the Kalahari is full of grass: It is used to stuff the radiators so that the water can boil more quickly. [Interjections.] It is in connection with this area that we want to convey a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister this evening.

I must also say that nowadays the Kalahari is a border area of our country, and this announcement has ensured that this area will remain inhabited in the future and that it will be defended to the last by the farmers who live there. In future they will also make their contribution by utilizing to the full potential for red meat production in the Kalahari area.

And they will also remain Nationalists!

I wish to express a few ideas on the productive use of water and its future storage. South Africa is a country relatively poor in water, but in spite of this, we do not have a chronic shortage of water for agriculture and industries. Shortages of water only occur periodically, but we expect this position to change totally over the next three decades. When such of our land as is irrigable has been developed to its full potential and when our industries and population have grown, we shall have the position that greater demands will be made on the water sources of our country.

It is most unlikely that our rainfall will change. Our sources of supply will therefore remain the same. For this specific reason the only way to meet this growing demand is, in the first place, to conserve and, in the second place, to store water. When we speak of conserving water, we must begin at home. They say it is estimated that in the course of a year, a dripping tap wastes enough water to meet the domestic needs of a family of four or five people for three months. That is why we must start at home. As far as our industries are concerned, we ask that they give attention to the re-use of water. We also ask city councils to create facilities to purify effluent and the agricultural sector to make greater use of sophisticated irrigation methods.

When we come to the storage of water we must first consider what we have. Our rainfall gives us an annual 610 000 million cubic metres of water. This sounds like a tremendous amount of water, but 87,2% of this water is lost to us through evaporation and transpiration. A further 4% seeps away and only 8,8% ends up in our rivers. At present our storage capacity is only 37,1% of the average flow off. This means that 62,9% or, expressed in volume, 330 748 million cubic metres of water, flows into the sea. This alone is four times our normal annual water consumption in the agricultural sector.

From these figures it is evident that there is sufficient water available to meet the needs of an enlargement of at least 30% in irrigation, while the rest is channelled to the industrial sector and other sectors. If we take the Orange River as a possible storage source, one calls to mind the Orange River scheme which was announced in the early sixties. Three large dams were then announced, viz. the Verwoerd Dam, the P. K. le Roux Dam and the Torquay Dam. The Verwoerd Dam and the P. K. le Roux Dam were built with great success and led to greater prosperity in our country, but the Torquay Dam had to be abandoned because tremendously long sections of dead canal had to be built to get the water to the relevant irrigation land. In view of the shortages in the future, in view of the fact that we have started transferring water from one river to another and in view of the long water conduit systems we are laying nowadays, we shall have to reconsider the Torquay Dam which was to have been downstream from the P. K. le Roux Dam.

Between Douglas and Prieska, at Kransfontein, there is another place where such a storage dam could be built. In addition, the diversion weirs downstream at Boegoeberg, Gifkloof and Neus could be raised to good effect, or new walls could be built there, because not only this could supply extra water, but by way of canals at higher levels, new land can also be irrigated. From Augrabies westwards there are also sites for large dams, but for that region we have in mind in particular smaller weirs where there is irrigation land which can be irrigated by means of pumping schemes. A method to which very little attention has probably been given is the storage of water outside streams. This means that by means of the canal system we take water to natural dam basins outside the streams and then store the water there. These can be used not only as storage dams, but also in order to balance the flow in the canal systems.

In conclusion, I want to say that everyone in South Africa must endeavour to treat water, which, next to land, is our most precious possession, as something precious, viz. sparingly and very judiciously. Water is the source of life, it is the symbol of beauty, it is the playground for rich and poor, and where there is water it stands as a symbol of the development of agriculture and industry in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, since we have now arrived at the end of this debate, you will permit me—in case I forget to do so later, when there may be little time—to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who participated in the discussion. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who paid a tribute to the department. I appreciate it. Since the officials cannot thank hon. members themselves, I should like to do so on their behalf. I also feel a need, on my own behalf, to thank the department very much indeed for what they are doing for South Africa. As hon. members said here at the beginning of the debate, officials of the department are working under a strain, owing to a major staff shortage, yet they are rendering an exceptional service for South Africa. I thank them all very sincerely.

The hon. member for Wellington discussed water tariffs and the hon. member for Wynberg then discussed the same subject. What I found significant was that the wine farmer from Wellington and the hon. member for Wynberg were so unanimous in their concern over the fee. I was almost afraid that they would eventually begin to complain to me about excise duty, which they might want abolished completely. Hon. members enquired about the Claassens Committee. The committee has now completed its work and the report was handed over to me only last week. However, the department has not yet had an opportunity to make an assessment of the report, and I think it is only correct that the findings contained in the report should be released in the form of a White Paper. The committee of enquiry had its origin in the fact that a certain policy was formulated for the determination of the price of irrigation water in particular by the then Water Plan Commission of 1970. That policy has been adopted ever since. It was felt that it might not be an entirely correct policy. Hence this investigation.

Now I can assure both the hon. member for Wynberg as well as the hon. member for Wellington that an extensive investigation has been instituted. Representations over a wide spectrum have been heard, and all the matters which the hon. members touched on here today have been considered by that committee and borne in mind in its recommendations. I myself have not yet been able to apply my mind to this matter. I have not yet had the time to do so. However, this will be done soon, and then the White Paper will be released to hon. members.

I must point out that the whole point of departure will be to determine water tariffs as fairly as possible. However, I must draw attention to the fact that we will simply have to realize—hon. members will simply have to convey this to their voters, particularly the farmers in their constituencies—that the days of cheap water have gone forever. There is no more cheap water in South Africa. Consequently we shall have to utilize water to the best effect under all circumstances.

I hope hon. members were listening to what the hon. member for Swellendam said about the farmers in Cogmanskloof, who established their own scheme. According to their own calculations—these are not the calculations of the department—the water tariff there will vary from R450 per hectare to R1 200 per hectare. Under those circumstances the farmers there established the scheme themselves. They are prepared to finance it themselves. As the hon. member for Swellendam said, we must realize that this matter will have to involve very special research and very special farming methods. I want to emphasize that we must never lose sight of these factors. Hon. members—inter alia, the hon. member for Wynberg—wanted to know what the attitude of the department would be if the interested parties among those farmers were to decide to accept certain works themselves. I think we shall find that it is the policy of the department to encourage the establishment of irrigation boards, and that the farmers then establish and operate these schemes themselves. The main factor as far as the department is concerned is a shortage of funds. The irrigation boards are in a position to borrow funds on the open market and utilize them. There may, therefore, be advantages to the farmers for doing things this way, for they can investigate the matter and then discuss it with the department.

When the hon. member questions me about the possibility of the Simonsberg canal, I do not wish to dash cold water over that scheme. The hon. member must realize, however, that a great deal of money is involved here, and I do not know whether it will be within the means of private bodies.

As far as the hon. member for Queenstown is concerned, I wish to thank him for his fine words which he addressed to the department, and I also wish to thank him for the compliments which he paid the department . The hon. member raised a few matters in connection with his constituency, and referred to the Gubu Dam. The Gubu Dam near Stutterheim is a very small dam, and all that I can tell him is that it will be utilized in the best way possible.

The hon. member also referred to afforestation activities in the Upper Kubusi area. I just wish to tell the hon. member that from the discussion which we have had here today, it became clearly apparent that the department is still looking for land for afforestation purposes. It must be suitable afforestation land and the department will be interested if such suitable afforestation land is available at a reasonable price.

As far as Queenstown is concerned, I just want to say that the department is aware of Queenstown’s possible water problem. We know that the Waterdown Dam is at present virtually the only water supply for Queenstown. In the nature of the case, if the Government declares Queenstown to be an industrial development growth point, it cannot but ensure that there is water if that development has to take place there. We shall therefore be compelled to look after Queenstown. I shall welcome Queenstown being declared to be such a growth point because it will then enable me to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance: You have declared this growth point, and now we must ensure that it has a water supply. It is basically a matter of finance. I also want to tell the hon. member that a deputation was informed some time ago that the department is constantly engaged in investigating these matters.

As far as the Klaassmits River is concerned, we are a little concerned about the building of a shallow dam, owing to the question of evaporation. The Klipplaat River, as well as the Swart Kei River are being investigated. However, the State is obliged to see to the water needs of Queenstown, and we shall also negotiate with Ciskei on this matter.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen basically discussed the storage of water. He told us how the farmers were all asking for water storage. I am pleased that I have this opportunity, because this request is frequently made to one. For example, people will say: “You have not yet seen how strongly this Marico River flows, and what amount of water flows past this point.” The days of building dams in a haphazard way are gone forever. The department is constantly undertaking hydrological surveys and collecting data for the building of dams, if they are necessary, as well as for the planning of South Africa’s water resources. In fact—I want to be honest with hon. members—the fact that our financial resources are limited this year and the fact that the appropriations for the planning division and the data collection division have been reduced, are what worry me the most. Hon. members will realize that this is the basis of all good future planning. It is frequently said that there is nothing more inflationary than bad engineering plans. For that reason, the issue is not merely the damming of water. It is not possible to supply more water from a river than is available in that river.

The hon. member referred, in addition, to ground-water resources. We are very alive to the possibilities of ground-water resources and intensive research into these resources is constantly being undertaken. At present the Water Research Commission, in co-operation with the University of the Orange Free State, is financing a project which entails intensive research into ground-water resources. Ground-water resources have in the past helped many towns and farmers. I wish to state that we are to a certain extent experiencing problems in convincing certain towns that their future lies in ground-water resources. They prefer a surface dam, because then it is quicker and easier for them to see when it is empty, something which is not as easy in the case of an underground dam. Because it is easier and quicker for people to see when a surface dam is empty, they can get to a member of Parliament or a Minister sooner to ask him to supply them with water.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Swellendam. The hon. member referred to the Cogmanskloof scheme. It was my privilege to open that particular scheme, and it was a splendid scheme to behold. The farmers involved in that scheme were very hopeful. If a farmer sees his way clear to increasing his production—particularly export grapes—by being prepared to pay R1 200 per hectare for water, he must have courage and initiative and be certain that he is going to succeed. For that reason I take off my hat to those farmers and wish them everything of the best.

The hon. member for Uitenhage referred to the Lake Areas Development Board, as well as to the Parks Board and Langebaan. I shall have to cause an investigation to be made to establish whether there is not a hidden microphone somewhere in my office, because my officials and I have discussed the aspects which the hon. member raised here today so frequently, and have discussed the possible methods of approaching this problem, that I suspect that the hon. member was perhaps listening in on our conversations. The hon. member referred to research and administration in respect of these natural areas, and I think we should add a third component. The component of restoration should also be added. If we are looking for natural areas—which are still entirely in their natural state—for future conservation, we may perhaps find that we are searching in vain. We shall therefore have to decide that the component of restoration will have to occupy a special position here. In the lake areas as well a considerable amount of restoration is necessary, and the same applied of course to the Langebaan lagoon. So much development, pollution and destruction has occurred that one will have to begin to think of restoration. I agree with the hon. member, and we are working in this direction. I have already replied to the argument of the hon. members for Wynberg and Kimberley North. I never knew that a former principal could be so astute.

Sir, the hon. member asked for a few things. In the first place he asked for an increased subsidy on irrigation equipment. He also told us that every farmer had previously had one piece of land, and that he now had up to four times more land. I hope the hon. member does not expect the subsidy to be four times greater than before. Mr. Chairman, we are constantly looking into the subsidization of these irrigation systems, for what is basically involved here is the better utilization of water. Some farmers already have old systems. Hon. members will understand that it is not possible for the department to subsidize a second system if the old system has not yet run its entire course. The reason for this is that the old system, which has to be moved by hand, requires more labour than the new system. Hon. members will realize, however, that it is not the task of this department to save labour. The task is to save water. I am not all that certain whether the new system will save more water than the old system.

Sir, in regard to the question of servitude land hon. members have now told me what my colleagues promised them before. I cannot be held responsible for that now. We shall look into these matters, and ascertain how far we can get with them. We shall then inform them subsequently. The hon. member will simply have to get in touch with me about this matter at a later stage. This brings me to the hon. member with his canal No. 13. Mr. Chairman, perhaps if he had given the canal another number, we could have dealt with this matter more easily. Cannot we begin with the fourteenth one?

Number him 122!

There are only 13.

Sir, the basic factor is money. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall go as far as possible with the money at our disposal. I do not think the chances of obtaining additional funds this year are very good.

I do want to say something at least about the transfer of the regional head office from the Free State to Jan Kempdorp. If the fellows in Kimberley were to return that piece of land which they grabbed from the Free State years ago, we can talk about this head office. [Interjections.] I just wish to draw the attention of hon. members to a document which came into my possession today. It is a forestry guide-plan for South Africa, the first such plan every prepared for South Africa by the planning committee of the Forestry Board and the Directorate of Forestry. It is of an exceptional standard, with wonderful maps, recommendations and guides for the planning of future afforestation in South Africa, and all kinds of directives. I wish to congratulate the department on this. I think it is an exceptional piece of work which ought to produce exceptional results in future, particularly in view of the fact that planning exists for timber resources and the future timber resources which will be required for South Africa in the region of the year 2000. This is a fundamental piece of work which, if it is utilized, is going to afford South Africa a great future. It was published in April 1982, and came into my possession today. I accept that it will soon be available to hon. members. Only the Afrikaans version is available. The English version is in the process of being translated.

I thank hon. members very much indeed for this debate. I wish them everything of the best in future. Before I conclude I must apologize for almost having forgotten the hon. member for Gordonia. I want to thank that hon. member very much indeed for the words which he addressed to us. He spoke about the increased storage of water in the Orange River. Whether we shall construct additional large dams along the lower reaches of the Orange River is a matter which is a little doubtful at this stage. The problem with South Africa is that the further west one goes, the greater the evaporation. I think that evaporation in that hon. member’s area is approximately two metres per year, which is an extremely high evaporation rate. However, the department is constantly engaged in considering further storage facilities in the Orange River. The hon. member can also accept that constant consideration is being given to the Boegoeberg Dam. The Gifkloof weir and the Neus weir, to which the hon. member also referred, are basically diversion weirs and balancing dams. The possibility has not been excluded that some of these dam walls may be raised in future so that the water can be used for more balanced purposes. I thank that hon. member as well for his contribution.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, when I discussed this legislation recently, I said that this clause was nothing but a political clause, since in point of fact it says nothing about nursing. In terms of constitutional principles, it is, in fact, an absurdity, and I do not think it is pleasant for this House to have to deal with such an absurdity. In my opinion it is a perversion of what the constitution is really about. If we are going to fiddle with the principle of what South Africa really is and which territories it includes, then in my opinion we are courting grave dangers.

However, I wish to consider how this legislation will apply to Natal in practice, as it does, in fact, concern Natal, although one could draw certain comparisons with Lebowa, Gazankulu, and so on. However, let us take as an example one piece of land which was previously part of KwaZulu, viz. the Driefontein area near Ladysmith. This area was excluded from KwaZulu in 1981, and therefore nurses who perhaps had clinics under their control there, had then immediately to sacrifice their membership of one of the nursing associations. Occurences of this nature are frequent, since the consolidation proposals in respect of KwaZulu are not yet complete. There are still bits and pieces of land everywhere, for example an area near Richmond in Natal, the Ndaleni area, which is to be reconsidered by the hon. the Minister’s department, and similar cases are going to occur with increasing frequency.

The chairman of the Consolidation Committee—the hon. member is not present at the moment—is well aware that the economic interests of areas could perhaps change the whole approach to consolidation, and as a result, the whole question of where KwaZulu is and where Natal is, will create even greater problems. Only last week the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development offered a large part of Natal, viz. the Natal game reserves, to KwaZulu. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I maintain that this issue is going to create problems, since we do not know where the borders are. A Black nurse who, for example, controls a clinic at Hluhluwe, an area which is now controlled by the officials of the Parks Board, at present falls under Natal. However, should that piece of land be handed over to KwaZulu, as is apparently being envisaged by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the clinic would fall under KwaZulu. Although this nurse would be looking after the same people in the same clinic, she would immediately have to change her membership of her nursing association. The reason I put it like this is that I wish to show how foolish it really is to come forward with this kind of legislation and to show that in point of fact it is really a political matter. It has nothing to do with health.

There is another aspect too. The hon. the Minister is very quick to say that they now have their own health department and that they should maintain their own discipline. The provincial councils have had their own health departments for a long time now, but their nurses do not have to establish a separate association in order to be members.

There is a further aspect affecting nursing in KwaZulu and Natal, and that is the status of a Black nurse in her community. For a Black woman to become a nurse is really an exceptional achievement at this stage in the development of the Black people. If a Black woman becomes a nurse and eventually a sister, it is truly a major achievement to them, and her husband and family are very, very proud of her. The nurses play a leading, important and influential role in the community life of the Black people in any area, including Natal. That is why, in my opinion, there is cause for concern about the effect this very clause is going to have on nursing and on the peaceful situation in the hospitals and health services in Natal and KwaZulu.

We are well aware that the Black people do not have satisfactory political institutions at the moment. The result is that any little thing that happens, could be compared with a small spark which could light up anything. It is just this that gives rise to concern on the part of the health department of KwaZulu in particular, because in future there is going to be a large group of influential women in the Black health services in Natal who are very dissatisfied and who will be aggrieved that the legislation was pushed through without taking their feelings into account. I do not believe that we can see this legislation in isolation from the status and the importance of the nurse in the community life of the Black people of Natal.

There is a final point I wish to raise. It concerns general health in Natal. We are continually reading about this in the newspapers, and the other day Prof. Retief of Medunsa said that we did not have enough medical doctors in South Africa. If we wish to continue training the same percentage of Black matriculants as doctors, we shall have to establish another three Black medical schools in the next ten years. Prof. Retief emphasized that the doctor will have to play the role of a director in future, in the sense that he will have to see that standards are maintained, while the nurse will have a larger role to play in practice. This is already the case in, for example, the primary medical care services which are now being launched, since in fact it is the policy of the hon. the Minister and his department not to consider the hospital as first resort, but rather that the clinics, mobile and otherwise, should be the basis of our health services. We accept this, since it is not only more effective, but cheaper as well. Accordingly the hospital in fact becomes the patient’s last resort, not his first. The nurse is going to have an important role to play in this set-up.

This has clearly come to the fore in Natal during the cholera problem we experienced there recently. What happened there? Many of our nurses had already been trained to deal with the cholera problem without having a doctor present, or he merely had to supervise now and then to ensure that the required standards were being maintained. Cholera has no respect for the dividing line of apartheid in Natal. Cholera germs cross streams with the greatest of ease, and those streams meander through Natal, through KwaZulu and then again through Natal.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The point is that the nurses have an indivisible responsibility for health in Natal. I believe that this legislation is bad health legislation. In any case, it is bad politics, but we are used to having politics imposed upon those who do not agree with apartheid. However, the problem is that this legislation is bad for our health. It is going to cause problems in Natal, where we are all intertwined into one community. Our health and our germs are no respecters of the standpoint of this hon. Minister. For this reason, we are very disappointed in this legislation. It is a political legislation and it is bad politics. It is going to cause trouble in respect of our health services in Natal as well. I believe that this is really a great pity.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to his Committee Stage speech of 6 May. In column 6290 of his Hansard we read the following—

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister who in the nursing profession requested him to establish order in the nursing profession, and what the reasons were for his acceding to the embodiment in legislation of the provisions of clause 1. In what way will these provisions establish order in the profession and in what sense is there disorder in the profession at present?

† In previous debates in the House the hon. the Minister pointed out two very significant facts. First of all, he stated that he is the political head of the Department of Health and Welfare. Secondly he has said quite often that, when one looks at a Bill, one must first decide how a certain amendment benefits the patient. This also applies when we speak of health in general. There is no doubt that a nursing association plays a very important part in the control and management of the nursing profession. It has a wide range of functions, educational, disciplinary and in setting high standards. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is introducing this amendment as the political head of his department or as the Minister caring for the well-being of the patient. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, unfortunately, this Bill has nothing to do with the welfare of the patient. I have spoken to many nurses and sisters in private and I cannot see in what way this Bill can improve the health of the people of KwaZulu. I should like the hon. the Minister, who is so perturbed about the health of the people, to tell the Committee in what way he sees this Bill improving the health of the people of KwaZulu.

Our conclusion is that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill only in his position as political head of the Department of Health and Welfare. We are rather unhappy and ashamed that he introduces a Bill in the health field only as a political measure and not for the health of the people.

“Baasskap!”

I want to assure the Committee that this Bill will not be to the benefit of the patient, because the isolation of a group of nurses—in this case the nurses of KwaZulu—from their parent body leads to a large number of problems. The hon. the Minister will know that isolation in medicine brings a drop in standards. South African medicine and South African nursing have a very high standard owing to our constant opportunity of associating with other medical services abroad and in South Africa.

While the hon. the Minister was speaking during Second Reading I asked him by way of interjection whether he was planning to introduce legislation in terms of which doctors in KwaZulu would be isolated in the same way in which nurses are being isolated in terms of the Bill now before the House. The hon. the Minister’s reply to that was that no one was compelled by law to become a member of any medical association, and that membership was completely voluntary whereas membership of a nursing association was compulsory. I do accept that argument although it is not a bright argument at all. To separate the nurses of KwaZulu, while the doctors of that national State still remain part of the medical association and part of the health services profession of the Republic of South Africa is to my mind a recognition of the fact that to keep the health services professions in both the Republic of South Africa and the national States together is indeed essential.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that this legislation is nothing but a political move, that it is in no way beneficial to either the patients or the nurses of KwaZulu.

You have already said that!

Anything that is important I shall keep on saying. If the hon. member Mr. Aronson does not want to listen to me he is free to do as he likes.

I switched off a long time ago; at the very moment when you began to speak! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is the political head of the department but he is also in charge of the welfare of the patients of South Africa. Therefore I put it to the hon. the Minister very frankly and very honestly that by bringing this Bill to the House he has failed his duty miserably, and he will be judged accordingly.

He will regret it! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown has just informed us that he has spoken to many nurses about the present legislation. Now, I just want to know whether he has also spoken to Prof. Charlotte Searle about this legislation.

No, I have not.

If the hon. member has not spoken to Prof. Charlotte Searle, he has not spoken to a representative of the Nursing Association. Prof. Searle would have told him that this matter we have now been arguing about repeatedly, is in the interests of the nurses of South Africa.

The hon. member for Parktown says that this means, among other things, that the nurses are now going to be isolated. We surely settled that matter during the Second Reading, and we clearly stated that an umbrella association has been established, a body which will give every nurse—regardless of the association or group to which she belongs—the opportunity to have a share in international congresses, publications, etc. I believe we should now go on to other matters. This is everything but a political game that is being played here. The hon. member for Parktown should talk to Prof. Charlotte Searle. She will tell him what this is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the speeches made during the past few days by hon. members in this debate. I want to begin with the hon. member for Brits, who said a few very important things.

He said, inter alia, that we could not single out one of the components forming part of a complex whole—i.e. the separate sovereign States as well as the self-governing national States—and subject the position of the one, in its totality, to the whole. I want to emphasize this again. Furthermore I want to point out that allegations were made here to the effect that I was playing a political game. The hon. member for Rustenburg asked the hon. member for Parktown a question. I am putting the same question to the hon. member for Parktown. Did he discuss this matter with Prof. Charlotte Searle, retired president of the S. A. Nursing Association?

These amendments to the Act were effected as far back as 1978. That was before I was the Minister concerned. Before I even held this portfolio the idea was that the nurses in the self-governing areas and in the independent States would each have their own association. That was even before I was the Minister concerned. So the hon. member for Parktown does not need to try and belittle me in this House now. Nor does he have to tell me that I failed to do my duty. I have it in writing that the Nursing Association requested me to effect these amendments to the Act but not one of the hon. members of the official Opposition acknowledges that the Nursing Association has the right to make such requests. Do those hon. members want to play a political game in the Nursing Association now? We have to live with these matters and one needs to have an intimate knowledge of these matters before one can rise in this House and start discussing them. I have mentioned this previously and I do not wish to go on repeating it because it does not really serve any purpose to preach to the unconverted but this legislation goes as far back as 1957 when the original Act was drawn up. No comparable legislation exists in respect of doctors. There is no Act governing the Medical Association. There is not a single Act in our Statute Book governing it. We cannot compare doctors and nurses. This legislation was drawn up when a contract was entered into with the self-governing States such as KwaZulu. KwaZulu is only one of the self-governing States and is only one of several self-governing States described in the 1978 Act. That contract was signed by, inter alia, the present Chief Minister of KwaZulu and in that contract clause 4 dealing with the establishment of the Nursing Association, stipulated that it did not apply to KwaZulu.

He requested that it be withdrawn.

It does not matter what he requested. What is important is that he signed the contract at a stage when that provision formed part of it. Then the association said that it was important that the self-governing areas and the other areas should each establish their own association. So the Ciskei and the others subsequently established their associations. Today the Ciskei has a flourishing association. The wife of the present President of the Ciskei is a nurse and she was the moving spirit in that association. She was responsible for the fact that that association is a real gem today. The sisters in the Ciskei belong to that association today.

The other areas held talks with the association and I do not wish to go into this to-night. What they discussed is their own affair. But the fact is, they did discuss the matter and this legislation was subsequently amended in my time. The amendments were effected at the request of the Nursing Association. So the point at issue is not the Minister and whether he is hopeless or not. The question is not whether he failed to do his duty. The point at issue is not whether he is bringing political issues into this. The point at issue at this stage is not the patient who is going to suffer so badly. How can the patient suffer if another section of the Nursing Association is now about to be established? Surely it could only create a feeling of solidarity when people who belong together are united in one association. The hon. member for Brits raised an important point. This legislation is merely concerned with the question of who can belong to which association. It was directly requested by the Nursing Association. What would the reaction of the hon. member for Parktown have been if I had ignored the Nursing Association and told them that I was not going to take any notice of their request that these amendments should be effected to this legislation? Surely this is their legislation. Except for two minor matters which emerged last year, all matters are now in the hands of the nurses themselves. What more can we do than afford them the opportunity to arrange their affairs in an orderly manner? Must I say to them: I am very sorry, I am not taking any notice of you? Must I say: Professor Searle, I do not think you people amount to anything; I am the head of this department and I am telling you that I am not going to accept those amendments of yours? That would have been very odd. It would have been irresponsible. I do, however, have a responsibility towards this Parliament and towards the State, which hon. members of the official Opposisition do not have. They merely talk; they merely try to belittle people and to make people seem odd to the public out there. They do not accept the responsibility it entails. The hon. member for Brits made the matter very clear. He dealt with it briefly in his speech and I do not want to repeat the whole story. Hon. members on the opposite side who listened to him will know that he dealt with most of the matters raised up to that stage. In the last part of his speech the hon. member said that it was very important to take note of the fact that with this amendment Bill the nursing profession is being brought into line with the professions of the doctor and the pharmacist. He pointed that out. He said that although no legislation existed in respect of doctors, we were dealing here with a wonderful effort to bring the various health services into line with one another. There is no politics involved in this matter, but the PFP’s problem is that they see politics behind every bush and that they try to make petty political capital out of everything. Moreover, the PFP is engaged in a dangerous game in that they are inciting our Black nations in the country against the Government and its bodies. This is a dangerous game for which the PFP will suffer, and it will happen sooner than they think.

† The hon. member for Umbilo said that he could not support the Bill because rights were being taken away which these people actually possessed before, but that is not correct. The rights had already been removed in principle—I also said this to the hon. member for Parktown—in 1978 before I became the responsible Minister. These rights were decided on by the Nursing Association and they asked me in writing to do it. It is therefore not a matter that the Minister is now suddenly taking rights away from people. What they decided to do was to have the area for membership defined. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North seeks to give the impression in the House that nobody really knows which part is KwaZulu and which part is Natal. That is absolute nonsence. He need only ask any Zulu what is part of KwaZulu and he will know. He just has to go around and ask them. To come and say that a certain part has not been consolidated yet but another part has been consolidated is totally irrelevant.

I want to point out to the hon. member that an agreement was signed by the Chief Minister of KwaZulu on behalf of the KwaZulu self-governing body, accepting the fact that clause 4 of the 1957 Act, which deals with the formation of the Nursing Association, was left out. In the self-government law of 1971 which provided for self-government for areas like KwaZulu, it was stated that they would be able to run their own health department. What health department can have a nursing association of another area in its area?

The same situation applies in all four provinces.

I have explained this so often. How can one have the South African group, which is defined in the legislation, having their nurses working in KwaZulu and then being ordered to strike because they want higher wages?

Very easily, I will tell you now.

They order them to strike and they ask for higher wages. Who do we deal with then? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umbilo does not have to support this measure. I did not ask him for his support. It is simply a matter of supporting it because the nurses have asked for it. The Nursing Association was under the impression—as I was at that stage—that the contract between the South African Government and the KwaZulu self-governing body was actually law. However, it is not law, and that is why we have to write it into the Act.

The hon. member also referred to membership costs, but this is a very weak argument. He said a nurse would now have to pay to belong to both associations but that will not be the case. They will not pay to belong to two associations; a nurse will only belong to one association, namely either the KwaZulu Nursing Association or the S.A. Nursing Association, whichever the case may be. Those hon. members keep on talking about KwaZulu, but this does not only affect KwaZulu. KwaZulu is only one of the units being affected. Why has any hon. member not stood up and said this, that or the other about any of the other self-governing areas and that he has been asked to speak on their behalf?

*Not one hon. member referred to the other areas, but they keep on talking about KwaZulu ad nauseam. KwaZulu is not the only self-governing area that is affected, is it?

† Membership of the Nursing Association depends on where the nurse works. There is not one person in Natal who does not know whether he or she is working for the KwaZulu Administration or for the Natal Provincial Administration, because they receive their cheques from the different administrations. There can be no confusion about whom the people are working for in Natal, because they know from whom they get their pay cheques. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke about the problems concerning the treatment of cholera. KwaZulu has a health service for the treatment of cholera which operates with the aid and advice of our liaison committee. There are other clinics run by the Department of Health. There are areas run by the Provincial Administration of Natal and local authorities. There is nobody in the nursing field who is confused not knowing for whom they work. Nurses of KwaZulu are paid by KwaZulu’s health department. That is the difference. The hon. member for Middelburg explained the question of nursing and where the nurses are. If they are White nurses who are seconded to the KwaZulu health department, they obviously are members of the South African Nursing Association. Once the KwaZulu health department and the kwaZulu Government have established their own nursing associations they can lay down any terms they want to for people joining their service. Surely there is nothing wrong with that. I want to leave the hon. member’s arguments there. It is possibly a question of him not quite appreciating what the Bill is all about. I say this not in a nasty sense. The fact is that there is no nurse in KwaZulu today who does not know for whom she is working. It is as clear as daylight. She is either working for the KwaZulu department of health or for the Natal Provincial Administration or for a local authority. There is no doubt about whom she is working for.

I will come back to that during the Third Reading.

The hon. member can return to that during the Third Reading, but why not make it more clear during the Committee Stage? Why does he have to wait for the Third Reading?

*The hon. member for Middelburg, who cannot be present and asked to be excused, spoke about the whole issue of where the nurses work and about serving their own groups. The legislation stipulates that the place where a member comes from is the place where he or she has to be belong to the association. What could be clearer than that? The self-governing area is different from the area from which the Nursing Association of South Africa draws its members. I think the hon. member for Middelburg hit the nail on the head when he pointed out how the official Opposition interfered with other population groups. However, I do not wish to go into that now. He said that the sooner they stopped doing it the sooner we would be able to find a solution and the sooner co-operation would take place. I fully agree with the hon. member. There are too many people here who speak on behalf of people whom they do not represent. Another important point which the hon. Member raised was that this legislation did not excise anything from South Africa. It is stated very clearly in this clause that the aim of this legislation is to determine where a nurse should belong to an association. This is being done on request of the Nursing Association. I think the hon. member for Middelburg made this very clear.

The other afternoon the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North again made the allegation that this was a way of forcing independence on KwaZulu. I have already replied to that. Surely it would be ridiculous to come with such a minor piece of legislation if one wanted to force independence on people. The Government was bound by previous Prime Ministers to the concept that an area had a channel to work through if it wanted to become independent. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North says KwaZulu will never accept independence. But Sir, it is still echoing through this House that the official Opposition said that the Ciskei would never accept independence. So they could not understand why the Ciskei did accept independence. They must be careful the same thing does not happen in the case of KwaZulu. [Interjections.] In any event, whether KwaZulu feels like it or not, is a matter they have to settle with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Hon. members can rest assured that it will not be clandestinely written into the legislation dealing with nursing that they have to become independent. I have already indicated to the hon. member that the reason why this provision is included here is that the Nursing Association requested it. So the hon. member did not really raise a new argument tonight. He referred to the status of the nurse, but that is totally irrelevant. The status of a nurse depends on the nurse herself and cannot be prescribed in legislation. Similarly, how the patient will be effected has nothing to do with this Bill. What nurse will neglect her patient because she does not belong to this or that association?

I have already replied to the question about KwaZulu having its own nursing clinics and teams where all of them know exactly where they work. So there can be no confusion. I have already replied to the hon. member for Parktown’s question about who requested it perhaps he should now ask himself the question of what he would have done if he were the Minister and the Nursing Association had requested it. Would he have chased them away saying: I am sorry, but I am not going to talk to you nurses? This is a matter which the Minister has to decide. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what that side of the House would have said if the Minister had not complied with the request of the Nursing Association? Then those hon. members would have been on the other side. Then they would have sided with the Nursing Association against the Minister.

The hon. member kept talking about a political ploy. I want to say in this House to-night that there is not a grain of truth in that allegation. It was requested by the Nursing Association. The hon. member for Rustenburg hit the nail on the head when he asked whether they had talked to Prof. Searle or to the other members of the executive. It was asserted here that the nurses in Natal do not want this amendment. If that is so, surely they must work through their association. They should have told their association that they do not want it and the association should then have voted on the issue. However, the request was made to me in the interests of the nurses as a whole. Surely the reasons I gave here and the fact that the Nursing Association requested this clause and also requested that we should define it at some stage proves that they do want it. They requested us on a previous occasion as well to define the extent of their field of activity. That is why I am amending the legislation now. The principle has been accepted twice in this House already. We are amending the legislation for the simple reason that there would be no problems in regard to the definition of that area.

Sir, I do not think that there is any other member who made a contribution to the debate to whom I have not replied.

Mr. Chairman, maybe the hon. the Minister misunderstood what I was saying about the boundaries of KwaZulu. The point is that a nurse can work for example in a hospital in Umlazi, which is in KwaZulu, and can live 1 000 metres away in Lamontville, which is a White area. She might change her job to go and work at the King Edward VIII Hospital. In that case she has to change her association membership.

So what!

That hon. Deputy Minister says: “So what!” The point is that she may have to change her membership constantly. She would have to do this even when moving between hospitals which may be only three or four kilometres apart…

What does that matter?

… simply to satisfy the political ideology and “bekrompenheid” of that hon. Deputy Minister. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why must the viewpoint of Charlotte Searle’s nursing executive be dictated to KwaZulu? The Minister of Health of KwaZulu, Dr. Madide, discussed this very point in his speech in his own legislative assembly last year because, in a spirit of consultation, they asked to see the hon. the Deputy Minister and also the hon. the Minister of Health with a view of discussing the principle that we are at the moment considering. This is what Dr. Madide said—

that is the one the hon. the Minister has just been quoting from—

I also have a copy of the agreement that the hon. the Minister is always telling us about, and clause 13 of this agreement reads—

This is therefore not a cast-iron agreement. An essential clause states that the agreement can be amended. In view of this, because KwaZulu did not want Chapter IV excluded, they asked that the agreement be changed. They did so because they realized that they were not in favour of it. [Interjections.] I think that should be made quite clear, Sir.

1977 was a bad year.

The hon. the Minister raised the question of secondment and said that we could second people to KwaZulu. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question, and I think the House should take note of this. If a White doctor graduates from the University of Cape Town or the University of Stellenbosch and he wants to take up an appointment in KwaZulu as a member of the KwaZulu medical staff, is he able to do so?

Yes.

Sir, I am not putting the question to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs because he does not know anything about this matter at all.

He does not know whether he is coming or going.

As I understand it—and the hon. the Minister must clarify this point—no White person may become a member of the KwaZulu Department of Health unless he is seconded from the Department of Health and Welfare because the KwaZulu pension fund excludes Whites. Every White man can therefore only go to KwaZulu via the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order must give his approval. So it takes about 12 months for a man to take up an appointment.

The point that I want to place on record is that it is quite clear that this Bill is designed to meet the ideology of apartheid or separate development. [Interjections.] It has nothing whatsoever to do with health matters.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is opposed in principle to the establishment of the Lenasa association. If he were to reply that he had no objections in principle to the establishment of that association, I should like to put a further question to him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must ask a question.

What does the abbreviation “Lenasa” stand for?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.