I move—

In the main this Bill contains two proposals in regard to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa which are being submitted for consideration by this House at the request of the Administrator and other interested parties of that territory.

The first proposal contained in Clause 1 has to do with a principle which is also embodied in the Constitution of the Republic in respect of the Senate, the House of Assembly and the four Provincial Councils (Sections 53 and 71), namely that during the period from the date of dissolution up to and including the day before the date of the general election following upon that dissolution, members of the said dissolved councils remain members of those councils, and those councils may be summoned and may perform their functions as if they had not been dissolved. In this way it has been ensured that the legislative bodies of the Republic and the provinces will always be available to consider any important matters which may crop up during that period.

For the same reason it is now being proposed that this principle should also be made applicable in respect of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. All that is being proposed in this respect, therefore, is that the same right enjoyed by the other councils of the Republic which I have mentioned should also be conferred upon this territory.

The second proposal is contained in Clause 2 and is the real reason why this Bill is before you to-day. In other words, the proposal which I have already dealt with was included in this Bill because a good reason had arisen for an amendment to the said Act being deemed necessary.

The South-West Africa Constitution Act, 1925, provides in Section 14 that the duration of the Legislative Assembly shall be five years from the date of its first meeting after each general election and that it cannot be dissolved except by effluxion of time. The present Legislative Assembly will dissolve by effluxion of time on 16 March 1966. In terms of Section 13 of the same Act, the provisions of the Electoral Act apply to the election of the said members. Section 35 of the Electoral Act provides that nomination day shall not be less than 14 days or more than 21 days after proclamation day, and that polling day shall not be less than 28 or more than 35 days after nomination day. It is clear, therefore, that in terms of the present provisions it will not be possible for the general election of members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa to take place on the same day as the general election of members of the House of Assembly on 30 March 1966. The voters will, therefore, have to go to the polls twice in rapid succession, with a short interval in between.

I do not think it is necessary for me to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, with your knowledge of affairs, how undesirable such a state of affairs is for everybody, particularly in a territory where large distances have to be covered in order to reach voters, and where voters have to cover large distances to get to the polls.

The proposal contained in Clause 2 of this Bill is, therefore, designed to make it possible for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and of members of the House of Assembly to take place on the same day, in order to save the voters unnecessary expense and trouble.

I may just add that I intend introducing the following amendment in the Committee Stage, which the law advisers now think will give better effect to my intention—

What is intended here is simply to make the meaning of the Act quite clear.

It would appear from the records that both parties in this House have always tried to reach agreement on matters pertaining to South West Africa, and we do not intend in this case to drag in things which have gone before us, and we agree with this measure. I want to make one or two observations, however, and the first one is that in the original Act of 1925 provision was made for the dissolution or prorogation of the Assembly before its time by the Governor-General in special circumstances, but for some reason which I cannot determine, that was taken out of the Act when it was amended in 1949, and this existing sub-section (1) of Section 14 was substituted.

It was to bring it into line with the provincial councils.

I could find no argument for or against it in the record. We are now more or less putting back the right to do that, but in a different way—a way with which I agree, because it does bring the position into line with certain Acts which have been passed here in the Republic regarding the Assembly and the Provincial Council. But the one interesting thing that I find about this Act is this: Certain discussions took place last year, as the hon. the Minister will remember, in which the suggestion was made that here in the Republic provincial council elections and elections for the Assembly should, perhaps, take place on the same day. There were a number of snags attached to that, one of them being that in Natal and the Free State the provincial and the parliamentary seats were not the same, and I think that is quite a big snag. Now we have the position here that, for this election at any rate (because Clause 2 only provides for the coming election on 30 March), we will virtually have just such a thing happening in practice; in other words, an election for the Assembly seats covering six seats and an election for the South-West Assembly where some 18 seats will be involved. I look forward with great interest to the actual, practical working of such an election where you have constituencies which, of course, will not correcpond; they cannot possibly correspond in view of the different number of members, and I would like the Minister’s comments on this.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us in his reply whether he has thought of this perhaps in the nature of a trial run or of initiating further discussions in the future to bring provincial council and parliamentary elections together in the Republic.

May I explain to the hon. member who has just sat down that in 1950 we had an election for the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and for Parliament on the same day and it worked very well. Three Legislative Assembly constituencies constitute a Parliamentary constituency, so it is easy for us in South West Africa to have an election on the same day. As I have said it worked very well in 1950 and I can assure the hon. member that his protest is unfounded. We can have an election on the same day again. It is not possible in the Republic because the constituencies are divided differently but in South West Africa we can do it every time. It saves a lot of expense to both parties concerned and I would appeal to those hon. members to vote for this Legislation.

This will be the second time elections for the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and the House of Assembly are held simultaneously. On the first occasion it worked very well and we support the principle whole-heartedly. The only flaw in the Bill is that the hon. Minister is making it an ad hoc arrangement. I think the general desire is that it should be a permanent arrangement, and I want to express the hope that the successor to this Government will give this matter its serious attention so that we shall always have elections for the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and for the provinces coinciding with those for the House of Assembly.

What has been proposed by the hon. member who has just sat down is not so easy to carry into effect. The Act provides that this Parliament may be dissolved at any time, while the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and the Provincial Councils cannot be dissolved inside of five years.

Change the Act then.

If it were changed the result would be that each time a general election for the House of Assembly took place, a general election for the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and for the Provincial Councils would also have to take place.

That is how it should be.

It is unnecessary as these are two separate bodies. Besides, we in South West Africa would not want an election for the Legislative Assembly to be held as a matter of necessity each time an election for the House of Assembly is held; it is quite unnecessary. In this case the elections happen to coincide. Because the previous election took place in 1961—actually it was a special election—it resulted in this general election for the House of Assembly falling in the same year as the election for the Legislative Assembly. If they had not fallen in the same year we would not have asked that the elections be held on the same day.

I just want to reply briefly to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I think the other questions have been replied to effectively. Personally I am very much in favour of having simultaneous elections where possible, but in point of fact it presents one with major delimitation problems. Hon. members know that in the case of the two smaller provinces, the Free State and Natal, a commission of inquiry made attempts to see whether the provincial and Parliamentary constituencies could not be delimited in such a way that, as in South West Africa for example, two constituencies, say. formed one Parliamentary constituency. Then that would be possible, but where you have this difference between provincial and Parliamentary constituencies in the smaller provinces it presents one with a delimitation problem. You cut across the boundaries of certain constituencies, and in some cases in the smaller provinces you find that a provincial constituency cuts across three or four other constituencies. That is the one problem.

Then it must be changed.

The second problem, which is encountered in the densely populated areas such as the Witwatersrand, is to find the necessary accommodation. It is not so easy to make arrangements for polling-booths there and to hold a double election, as everything has to be done in duplicate. Now that a Parliamentary election is imminent an attempt is going to be made to hold a by-election for the Provincial Council simultaneously with the Parliamentary election in one constituency where the boundaries have not been changed, namely the new Hottentots-Holland constituency, the new Caledon constituency. That election has to take place on another Voters’ Roll entirely, but the delimitation remains the same. We had the same thing in Wakkerstroom in 1952, and it worked magnificently. I have nothing against it in principle, but to make it possible we shall have to make radical changes in our Electoral Act, as well as in our methods of delimitation. For the time being, of course, it cannot be done.

I wish to move an amendment to this clause. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister that it was not possible to give him notice of this amendment until this morning. The object of the amendment I want to move is to try to achieve the main object the Minister has in mind with this Bill and at the same time perhaps to help him to meet some of the major objections to the Bill. What the Minister wants to achieve, as I understand the position, is to prevent a repetition of past experience where companies go insolvent, motorists are left stranded without insurance and have to take special measures, with all the disruption and unhappiness that it causes, and at the same time to try to maintain premiums at a reasonable level. Sir, the thing that causes us trouble is the creation of a monopoly. In order therefore to try to assist the Minister to achieve the objects of establishing the pool and insuring motorists against the failure of companies and to facilitate it for motorists to get their insurance, I wish to move an amendment, to which I hope the Minister will give his very serious attention. It is my sincere conviction that this is an answer to the problems that we all share with the Minister in this House. I want to move—

I think the Minister will see that all this does is to make it possible for him to avoid the creation of a limited monopoly, but all the principles which the Minister wishes to achieve are safeguarded, and in particular the interests of motorists and of the public will be safeguarded.

I will have to consider the amendment to see whether it is in order.

In the circumstances I move—

My object in moving this is to give the Chair an opportunity of considering the amendment to see whether or not it is in order.

I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with Item 374, “refreshment Rooms and Book Stalls: Provisions, Liquors, Publications, etc.”. An additional amount of R428,786 is being asked for here. I shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will explain to the Committee what the reason for this increase is. We know that the Administration recently handed over the management of most of the refreshment roms and book stalls to private entrepreneurs, and in view of that we are rather curious to know why this increase is still continuing and what the expectations for the future are in this regard.

The reason for the increase is that it was originally expected that the refreshment rooms would be handed over to private enterprise much more rapidly. For that reason the full amount was not estimated for the new year. Then delays were experienced in handing over the refreshment rooms to private enterprise, with the result that we had to keep the refreshment rooms for a longer period, which, of course, increased the costs for that period. Practically all of them have now been handed over.

Would it be in order to ask the Minister whether we could get an interim report on the success of the handing over of these refreshment rooms?

No, the hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure,—Railways”, R1,849,000,

I should like to refer to Item 534 (B), “Exchange on Remittances to the Ambassador, London”. The original estimate was R8.000, and we are now being asked to vote for a revised estimate of R60,000. That represents an increase of 750 per cent, which is something unusual and almost unprecedented even in Additional Estimates. We shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will explain to us why this item, which only represents the exchange on remittances, has increased by 750 per cent.

Of course, so much more money has been sent overseas for purchases which are made there, and that is why these exchange charges have to be paid. That is why the amount has increased to such an extent.

Head put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works

On Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, R2,335,100.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the additional amount of R2,200,000 covers expenditure on work completed during the previous financial year, strictly in accordance with the Select Committee’s request, or does it also cover additional work involved in the preparation of the tanker berth and lay-up basin at the Table Bay Docks? Would any of the additional costs be occasioned by the difficulties which are being encountered as a result of the removal of hard rock which has reduced the depth of the water in the basin and approach channel? Will the hon. the Minister please clarify that point.

The reason for the increased provision is that the work was slowed down as a result of the presence of exceptionally hard rock which was encountered in the approach channel. That, of course, increased the expenditure because it was slowing down the work. This amount is required to cover the additional expenditure.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the statement which I saw in this morning’s paper that in view of the exceptionally hard rock encountered, the work has had to be suspended and the depth of the water in the basin will now be less than was originally intended, is correct or not?

I have not seen the statement referred to so I cannot reply to it, but this has to do with the approach channel; not with the basin.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 6—“Airways”, R32,200.

Will the hon. the Minister explain the reason for the additional amount of R200 in connection with item 117. It seems so extraordinary in the light of the fact that the planes were bought for nearly R7,000,000?

Two additional Boeing aircraft have been ordered but, of course, there will be no immediate payments. In the meantime, however, provision must be made for this item on the Additional Estimates.

I move—

The Bill I am introducing contains no new principles, merely a very necessary improvement of the wording of Section 8 in both the Afrikaans and English versions in order to eliminate any loopholes in the application of that section.

As a result of this amendment the long title of the Act must also be altered.

Section 8 is aimed at preventing the disfiguration of our country’s roads by placing a prohibition on motor-car wrecks or parts thereof, or any other form of rubbish or refuse which is visible within a distance of 200 yards from the centre line of a public road outside an urban area.

I am certain that on some occasion or other hon. members have come across these so-called “rubbish-dumps” and “motor car graveyards” along our roads.

This phenomenon can, to a large extent, be attributed to a loophole in the Act. which, as it reads at present, provides inter alia that no person shall “deposit” the said articles or materials on or near a road. The corresponding word used in the Afrikaans version is “weggooi” (throw away.)

In the application of the provision, in the courts of law in particular, offenders usually invoke the Afrikaans version of the Act, which is the one that was signed, and plead that they had not relinquished their interest in the articles or materials and had consequently not “thrown them away”. The result is that the onus rests on the State to prove whether or not the articles or materials had in fact been “thrown away”.

Clause 1 only substitutes the words, “plaas of laat”, “geplaas of gelaat” and “te geplaas of te gelaat”. wherever they occur in the Afrikaans version, for the words, “weggooi”, “weggegooi” and “weg te gooi”.

This amendment will ensure effective application of the prohibition.

In order to bring the English version into line with the Afrikaans version, the words “or leave”, “or to have left” “or has left” and “or leaving” are inserted after the words “deposit” and “deposited”, respectively, wherever the latter words occur.

Clause 2 contains the amendment to the long title of the Act which is necessitated by the amendments under Clause 1.

In view of the fact that this Bill really amounts to a tyding-up process, we have no objection to it.

I move—

The provisions of this Bill amend various Railway Acts and the implications of each Clause are fully explained in the Explanatory Memorandum tabled on 24th January, 1966. The matters dealt with are not contentious and my remarks will consequently be brief.

Clause 1 enables the Minister, where he deems it necessary, to empower any local authority to apply its by-laws to land or premises leased from the Administration for use by the public.

Hon. members probably know that the deck over the platform area of the new Cape Town station has recently been completed. An agreement has been entered into with the City Council whereby the deck, which is being used as a pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare as well as a parking area, will be controlled by the City Council. The deck is, of course, situated on Railway property, and it is essential that the Council should have fixed statutory powers to exercise proper control over its use, that is, by application of its by-laws to the leased area.

Since the Railway Administration does not, at present, have statutory power to transfer control of the deck to the City Council in an effective manner, it is necessary that suitable provision be made whereby such action would be possible.

The purpose of Clause 2 is to amend the amounts reflected in the Third Schedule to the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act, 1957, concerning the Administration’s liability in respect of the loss, destruction or deterioration of live animals or birds, other than pedigree stock or birds, entrusted to the Administration for conveyance by rail. The amounts presently provided for were introduced during 1949; the adjustments now proposed will be on a basis more directly related to present-day values, and have been assessed in consultation with the Department of Agriculture Economics and Marketing.

Clause 3 raises the maximum retiring age of all pilots in South African Airways from 53 to 55; it also permits of their retirement at any time after attaining the age of 50 years if they so desire. This amendment is being introduced at the request of the staff concerned.

Pilots have gained a wealth of experience by the time they reach the age of 53 years and generally are still physically fit to continue with flying duties. Having regard to the dearth of trained pilots on the type of aircraft in use by South African Airways, it is essential that the services of suitable officers be retained as long as possible. As will be noted from the Explanatory Memorandum, a number of large airlines apply a retiring age of 55 years or higher for pilots and there is no sound reason, from a medical point of view, why pilots in South African Airways should not be able efficiently to continue with their flying duties should they remain in the Service beyond the age of 53 years.

Pilots who joined the Service before 1st January, 1959, can at present exercise the option to retire at the age of 50 years, whereas such officers appointed on or after that date are required, subject to medical requirements, to serve until the age of 53 years. Provision is now made for all pilots to exercise the option of giving at least six months notice to retire at 50 years or at any time thereafter up to their attaining the age of 55 years.

Concerning Clauses 4 and 5, extant legislation provides for the institution and award of decorations and medals to members of the South African Police; also for the framing of regulations in respect of the design, award and use thereof. These provisions do not, however, apply to members of the South African Railway Police Force and Clauses 4 and 5 are being introduced in order that decorations and medals may also be awarded to them.

Clauses 6 to 11 are of a consequential nature and follow the amendment proposed in Clause 3 relative to the higher retiring age of pilots.

Clause 12 provides for the confirmation of certain improved conditions of service for the staff introduced with retrospective effect.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has said, this Bill amends quite a number of Acts which are already on the Statute Book and it is very difficult to discuss it as one principle. For this reason we of the Opposition would like to suggest to the Minister that we should rather tackle the discussion of the Bill in the Committee Stage to-morrow.

I move—

The Bill which I propose is designed to extend the scope of the principal Act in certain instances and to overcome difficulties experienced in the application of the Act.

Hon. members have already had the benefit of an explanatory memorandum and it is consequently not necessary for me to deal in detail with the proposed amendments.

Paragraph (a) of Clause One is an amendment necessitated by malpractices on the part of certain operators of road transportation services which have been brought to the attention of my Department. In bona fide instances no difficulties arise in the application of the subparagraph in question as worded in the principal Act. It has, however, become apparent that certain unscrupulous operators undertake unauthorized conveyance of persons or goods on the basis that when charged for such an offence, they simply claim protection under the existing subparagraph in submitting that such conveyance was undertaken as a result of another vehicle having become defective. Prosecutions for unauthorized conveyance have as a result been unsuccessful. Apart from unauthorized conveyance of this nature the existing subparagraph enables the conveyance of persons or goods to be undertaken from the place where a vehicle has become defective to any other place by means of another motor vehicle without having to obtain authority under the Act for the latter vehicle even when the conveyance by means of the vehicle which became defective was in the first instance unauthorized.

As regards paragraph (b) of Clause One, subparagraph (g) of the definition of “motor carrier transportation” in section 1 of the principal Act was primarily designed to exempt the activities, e.g. of general agents in conveying clients by means of vehicles such as ordinary motor cars, in the course of their business, where no reward is received for such conveyance, from the control measures in terms of the Act. As distinct from the conveyance of persons for reward e.g. by taxis, control of the purely ancillary function of agents in conveying clients was not regarded as necessary in the application of the Act, bearing in mind the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 9 and subsections (2) and (3) of section 13 thereof. The subparagraph in question is, however, wide in its scope and permits e.g. a general dealer to convey without charge and without authority under the Act, prospective customers to and from his place of business. Representations made to me and my Department in this regard are to the effect that—

1. (i) such conveyance is undertaken with a view to increasing trade to the detriment of other traders as the customers may otherwise have patronized dealers trading in the immediate vicinity of their place of residence
2. (ii)this practice is particularly prevalent in the case of traders carrying on business on reserved trading stands on mining ground;
3. (iii)traders on mining ground are subject to a certain measure of supervision and control by the Department of Mines and their shops are designed to cater specially for the non-White trade;
4. (iv)trading on mining ground is a special privilege and concessionaries have to erect shop buildings in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Mines;
5. (v) in addition to initial capital outlay, traders on mining ground are required to pay rentals to the Government calculated on business turnover; and
6. (vi)certain traders not privileged to trade on mining ground will go to extreme lengths in order to entice customers away from privileged traders.

It must, however, be emphasized that with the proposed amendment of the relevant subparagraph it is not the intention to extend the scope of the Act to include the ancillary function of agencies and other similar types of business in conveying clients without charge by means of vehicles of the type described in the subparagraph in question.

Paragraph (h) of Clause Two will extend the requirement that motor vehicles to which certificates or exemptions relate shall bear in a conspicuous place certain particulars relating to the operators concerned to include in the case of certificates issued for the conveyance of only one class of persons, a notice specifying such class of persons. The proposed amendment is necessary in the interest of control and proper segregation of races in public passenger vehicles. Difficulty in this regard has been experienced in the case of taxis certificated for the conveyance of non-White persons only. For the purpose of facilitating unauthorized conveyance of White persons by such taxis, the holders of the relative certificates are reluctant to indicate on the vehicles concerned a notice specifying the class of taxis in service. They maintain that in accordance with the subparagraph as worded in the principal Act the requirement that the “nature of the business” be indicated on the vehicles can be enforced, but not an indication as to the class of persons for which the business is conducted. This state of affairs is particularly prevalent in the Cape Province and experience has shown that a taxi merely indicated as such without a reference to the class of persons authorized to be conveyed therein, is used by Whites under the misapprehension that it is in fact a taxi service authorized to convey White persons.

Clause 3 provides for a short title.

This Bill is also a hotchpotch. There are several features which we should like to discuss and we feel that it could be done more appropriately in the Committee Stage.

I intend to deal in the main with Clause 2 of the Bill which, as the hon. the Minister indicated, deals with the question of taxis and taxi requirements. The whole question of taxis and taxi apartheid has caused so much confusion and hardship to the Coloured taxidriver that I regret very much indeed that the hon. the Minister has brought in this amendment which will make it even harder for these people. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. Just by the way I want to say that I believe he is a sympathetic Minister because the hon. the Minister knows that he and I have discussed the question of taxi apartheid. Will the hon. the Minister tell me, by way of interjection or in his reply, whether in fact the position does not exist in the towns to-day that Coloured taxi-drivers carry White passengers?

This has nothing to do with that.

That is correct. That is because the ownership of the taxis is in the hands of White people and because they cannot obtain sufficient White drivers, they can employ Coloured drivers. As soon as such a taxi is owned by a Coloured person the very same driver who has driven for the White owner, has no right to carry White passengers.

This amendment does not affect that position.

It does not but the hon. the Minister now wants the taxi-driver to stipulate on his vehicle that it carries Whites only or Coloureds only. I am going to show the Minister in just a few words how difficult it will be to implement that and what hardship it is going to create, not only for the taxi-drivers and taxi-owners but for the users of taxis.

I want to relate two little stories to illustrate my point. I am not going to mention names but I have had two incidents reported to me, one by a person who is or was a member of the Government side. I am not prepared to say whether he is still a member or not. This is what he told me: “I came down from the country for the session and I brought with me my Bantu servant. I was told that I cannot use the same taxi that conveys me and my family to my flat for the conveyance of my Bantu servant. I have to have a second taxi for my Bantu servant.” He said that he refused to do so. If that taxi is for White people only, all the people that come from the country with their servants have to hire additional taxis. That is what happened to a certain member this Session. When he came down here with his family and Bantu or Coloured servant, he had to take two taxis because of this law. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the hon. the Minister not to proceed with this amendment. The law is quite clear to-day. The Minister knows that he does not have to introduce this legislation. What happens when a person who travels by taxi finds in a taxi rank a taxi carrying Coloureds only, and there is no other taxi available? This often happens. The Minister knows that it often happens. Where is that person going to find a taxi which he may need urgently? I know, and the Minister knows that there have been Coloured owners of taxis who have had contracts for years to carry people who work at hospitals to their homes. Coloured taxi owners have had these contracts for years to carry business men from their business to their homes. The use of certain taxis is being narrowed down merely because the owners are Coloured men. Not because the driver is a Coloured man, but because the owner is a Coloured man. Where in the world, Mr. Speaker, do you get this absurd position?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is attacking the principle of the Act, and must come back to the Bill before the House.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In the Bill it says that in the case of a taxi which is licensed to carry a certain class of person, there must be a notice specifying the class of person. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does not the certificate itself already indicate the class of person which that taxi may carry? I feel that the Minister should not proceed with this until the whole question has been resolved. This amendment is going to make the position much more difficult. It will cause great confusion and further hardship. In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot take the matter much further except to say to the hon. the Minister that it would be to the detriment of taxi conveyance and what it offers to the public if this amendment goes through. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not proceed with it.

I said by way of interjection that this amendment has nothing to do with the matter raised by the hon. member. That is the law. That law has been passed by Parliament. The hon. member should know that the Local Road Transportation Board has been very accommodating in this matter. I have told the National Transport Commission that I think it is ridiculous that because the owner of a particular vehicle belongs to one race, he should not carry people belonging to another race. That is being done. We have had no complaints recently. But we have to contend with human nature. It happens that when people have to get into a taxi which has recently conveyed Bantus or other non-Europeans, they do not like it. The taxi owners have a certificate to convey a certain class of person. All that is being done now is to ensure that that is prominently displayed. What the hon. member wants is that they should continue to be allowed to break the law. The certificate states precisely what race may be conveyed. These people are evading and breaking the law, and now the hon. member is asking that that should continue.

No.

Yes of course. That is the hon. member’s whole contention, namely that that should continue. All that this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that it should be prominently displayed whether a taxi is for Whites or non-Whites only. I do not see what justification there is for a non-White taxi owner who has been issued with a certificate to convey non-White persons, to convey White persons as well. This is of course not only applicable to taxis, but to all public conveyances.

Will this then apply to the buses of Cape Town as well?

Where buses are exclusively for the use of non-Whites, a notice to that effect must be displayed. If the bus is exclusively for the use of Whites, a notice must also be displayed. But the hon. member knows perfectly well what the position is in regard to the buses in Cape Town. They carry both races. However, as I have said, all this bill does is to prevent people from evading the law and contravening the regulations which have been laid down by providing that they must show what passengers are to be conveyed, whether they are White or non-White. I do not see any harm in that.

I move—

This Bill deals with judges’ salaries and allowances. Hon. members who are interested in this matter will remember that judges’ salaries remained absolutely constant from 1910 to 1934. Notwithstanding the fact that there had been a rise in the cost of living, no changes were made to the salaries of judges throughout that entire period of twenty-four years Subsequent to that the cost of living and standards of living went up again, but in spite of that no increases were made in judges’ salaries for the next fourteen years, i.e. up to 1948. In 1952 and again in 1958 salary increases were granted to the judges. On each occasion it was a matter of R1,000. A further increase of R1,500 was granted to judges in 1963. We now are coming forward with this Bill. Hon. members will remember that judges’ salaries can only be changed by Parliament. It is something which cannot be done administratively, and the reason for that is obvious. We laid down the salaries for judges in 1963, but the Cabinet feels that in addition to those salaries of 1963 each judge should now be granted an allowance of R1,500.

This allowance is, of course, non-pensionable as well as non-taxable. When we have approved this measure, I feel that we shall have done justice to the judiciary, because I believe that in doing so we shall have placed the salaries of judges on a sound basis. Hon. members will recall that we have already, on a previous occasion, increased widows’ pensions to the satisfaction of judges. It will also be recalled that, out of a fund to which they made no contributions, we increased judges’ pensions from the small amount it had been at one stage in the past, to a certain percentage of a judge’s salary. Tn other words, that means that it will no longer be necessary for us to introduce legislation in connection with judges’ pensions, because the pensions bear a fixed relation to the salaries of the judges.

In doing that I think we placed the entire basis of judges’ salaries on a sound footing. As far as this Bill is concerned. I believe that it will meet with the approval of both sides of the House. I maintain that no matter what our personal political convictions may be, we are all very proud of the way our judges carry out their function.

Hear, hear!

It does one good, not only to see and experience it for oneself, but also to hear it from outsiders and to see how highly the integrity of our judiciary is esteemed in the world. I also think that all of us are anxious that the manner in which our judiciary carries out its functions should be protected at all times. In this connection it is as well that I should inform the House in passing that when I heard that one of our Eastern Cape judges had been libelled in a certain British publication. I immediately instructed the State Attorney to intervene and to institute a libel action in Britain. That was done and all of us read the outcome in the papers. Not only did the British Court award substantial damages to the judge concerned, but in addition the newspaper in question made a very sincere apology to the judge. All of us therefore adopt the attitude that we want to protect the status of our judiciary and the integrity of our judges jealously at all times, and because that is so I believe that this measure will receive the whole-hearted support of all the members of this House.

It is my intention to insert the word “expressly” after the word “Parliament” in line 23 at the Committee Stage. My object in doing that is to make quite sure that the concession granted in terms of this Bill, namely that this allowance will be exempt from tax, cannot, in some roundabout way, be interpreted as being taxable in terms of any other taxation legislation. Hence my intention to insert those words at the Committee Stage. That will mean that it will only be possible to change the position by means of an amendment to this measure itself, and not in terms of any other Act or interpretation by a Government official.

As I have said, I have every reason to believe not only that this Bill will be accepted by both sides of this House, but also that the judges themselves will be very grateful for it. Judges cannot speak for themselves.. neither can they, as in the case of other organizations, make representations.

We on this side of the House welcome this measure and support it. At the same time I think there will be no objection to the amendment which the hon. the Minister intends moving in the Committee Stage. It is true. I think, to say that all of us in South Africa are tremendously proud of the high standard of our judiciary. South Africa’s judges have played a very important part in this country, having given us a very high standing amongst the countries of the world in so far as this aspect of our administration is concerned. This has always been the case and I am sure it is the hope of both sides of this House that that will always be so.

There was a substantial adjustment in the salaries of judges not so very long ago but we all agree that this Parliament should always be careful to see that the salaries and allowances. the remuneration, of our judges are entirely adequate. We must remember that in the overwhelming number of cases persons who are appointed judges suffer a serious diminution in their income by accepting the honour of going onto the Bench. It is only right that they should be fully protected. There is another factor necessitating a change. There has been a great expansion in the number of judges in South Africa and corollary of this is that that proportion of judges who have spent the biggest portion of their lives in private practice, and have become wealthy men is lessening. All experienced a tremendous drop in their income. That is inevitable.The responsibilities of judges becomes greater. We should, ensure, not only for judges who have had a distinguished career at the Bar and have in consequence become wealthy men, but also for younger men who are appointed, will not to be prejudiced unduly by their appointment to the Bench so far as their income is concerned. Accordingly, the step which the han. the Minister is now taking, is welcomed. The proposed use of the term “allowances and remuneration” constitutes an improvement. Also to this we do not raise any objection. The fact that this allowance will be non-taxable appears to be reasonable. All the provisions of this legislation are designed to maintain the status of our Bench, an institution which we have always regarded as one of the kingpins of South African society. Consequently we welcome this measure and will support it through all its stages.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has come forward with this Bill. I know quite a number of younger judges, and it is true what the hon. member for Germiston (District) said that many of them used to be senior advocates at the Bar and as such earned two to three times the salary they receive as judges on the Bench.

Provision is being made for the allowance which judges are being granted in terms of this measure not to be taxable. The thought now occurs to me whether it would not be desirable for the whole of a judge’s salary to be exempted from tax. Judges are also required to pass judgment in cases dealing with income-tax. In many cases judges have private incomes. Consequently it sometimes happens that queries are raised in connection with the income of judges and that a judge may then have to go to the revenue office to put his case there. I therefore feel that, since our judiciary is held in such high esteem and seeing that under the present set-up our judges are already excluded from full participation in social life to some extent, it should not be necessary for them to go to the Receiver of Revenue to put their case to him. If the whole of a judge’s salary is exempted from income-tax it will mean that our judiciary will be completely unassailable. However, I thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. It was certainly necessary. I have heard from quite a few judges that they are very grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet for the concession which is now being granted.

As I anticipated in my second reading speech, I should like to move the following amendment here—

I move—

This is a simple Bill and as such it should receive the support of all sides of the House. In terms of the existing Factories Act, there are five paid public holidays, viz. New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Day of the Covenant an Christmas Day. Repeated representations have been made during the past five years from various quarters, including all the trade union federations that Republic Day, owing to its historic and sentimental significance, should be a paid public holiday for all workers.

After serious consideration of the matter including the economic factors and in keeping with the policy of holding national festivities on this day every five years, the Government decided to introduce legislation in terms of which Republic Day will be a paid public holiday under the Factories Act every five years commencing on the 31st May, 1966.

In terms of Clause one of the Bill, Republic Day is, therefore, added as a paid holiday to the existing five. Hon. members will, however, note from the Act that no prohibition has been placed on work on these days, but if an employee works on any of these days, his employer must pay him remuneration at a rate not less than his ordinary rate of remuneration in respect of the total period worked on such day, in addition to the remuneration to which he would have been entitled had he not so worked. In other words, if he works on this day he gets double pay. It is perhaps necessary to mention here there are certain employers’ organizations, which although they appeared to appreciate the historic and sentimental character of Republic Day, consistently objected to the proposal to declare an additional holiday. Their objection was that this extra paid holiday would mean an all round increase in labour costs and necessarily bring out increased living costs. Employees feel that these objections on the part of these employers’ organizations have unduly exaggerated, particularly in view of the fact that in 37 industrial council agreements, out of a total of 108, provision is made that Republic Day must be observed as a paid public holiday.

Every year?

Yes. In other words, as far as these 37 agreements are concerned Republic Day is a paid public holiday every year.

When Ascension Day was introduced as an additional paid public holiday in 1960, the employers also objected on the ground that the estimated additional cost to industry would be in the region of R6,000,000 per annum. The cost will of course be far less in the case of Republic Day if the matter is dealt with on the basis of a five-year period as proposed in the Bill.

Hon. members will recall that a provision on the lines of Clause 1 of this Bill was incorporated in the Mines and Works Act passed last session.

Then I come to Clause 2 of the Bill. In terms of section 22 of the Factories Act, the Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare the hours of work, overtime, public holiday and Sunday work provisions of, inter alia, a wage determination made under the Wage Act or an industrial council agreement to be not less favourable to the employees covered thereby than the corresponding provisions of the Factories Act. In practice it means that once such a notice has been published, the relevant provisions of the Factories Act are suspended and employers will not be bound by those provisions of the Act.

At present there are still in operation wage regulating measures previously introduced, which do not provide for Republic Day as a paid holiday and in respect of which notices, such as I have just mentioned, have been published. When the amending legislation becomes effective, employers who are bound by the provisions of such wage regulating measures will, therefore, not be obliged to grant Republic Day as a paid public holiday. Clause 2 is, therefore, designed to rectify the position in so far as such wage regulating measures are concerned and Republic Day will have to be observed as a paid public holiday despite the fact that such measures do not specifically provide for Republic Day.

This is, in short, the provisions of this Bill, which I commend to the House.

We on this side are prepared to support this Bill but in doing so we should like to remind the House what happened last year when a similar bill was introduced dealing with the Mines and Works Act. You will remember, Sir, that on that occasion the reason why the Minister of Mines was not prepared to consider making Republic Day a public holiday every year was that the Bill did not provide that Republic Day would be a paid public holiday for workers on the mines. It was stated that it was a matter of negotiation between the relevant employees on the mines and their employers. Now, however, the position will be once this Bill has been promulgated, that Republic Day will be a paid public holiday every five years. That means that no negotiations between employees and employers are necessary in respect of this particular day declared as a public holiday in this Bill. Once this measure has become an Act of Parliament, it is automatic that Republic Day will be a paid public holiday every five years for all those falling under the Factories Act. We will now have the position where the cost of that holiday will not be borne by the State but by the employers who in this case is not a large industry like the gold-mining industry. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that a number of employers have objected to Republic Day being a paid public holiday as provided for in this Bill. The Minister has also mentioned that in 37 industrial agreements out of a total of 108 a provision has been included declaring Republic Day as a paid public holiday every year. I think it would be of interest if the Minister could give us an indication of the total number of employees who are going to be beneficially affected by the provisions of the Bill we are dealing with now. In other words, if 37 out of a total of 108 industrial council agreements already provide for Republic Day to be a paid holiday every year it means that if this Bill is passed there will be an additional number of workers, falling outside these 37 agreements who may now enjoy an extra paid holiday every 5 years. At present I do not know how many employees are going to be beneficially affected by the provisions of this Bill. If the hon. the Minister could give this information to us in his reply to this debate we would be able to form a realization of what the cost would be of this measure, as far as employers are concerned, if we were to go a step further and provide that Republic Day be a paid holiday every year instead of every five years. Such a step would bring the position into line with the position existing under the 37 agreements the Minister has referred to.

You, Mr. Speaker, would of course, rule me out of order if I were to propose an increased financial burden. In this case, however, it is not the Government, it is not the State, that is involved but individual employers. Accordingly, I submit, the necessity for such a ruling will not arise. Hence it would be of interest to learn what the number of employees are that are going to be beneficially affected by the provisions of this Bill.

Another point that should be remembered is that there would not have been a Republic Day had there not been a Union Day preceding it. Therefore we should not forget that we are in actual fact celebrating two occasions, i.e. Union Day as well as Republic Day. In view of the number of industrial council agreements already providing for Republic Day to be a paid holiday every year I fail to see why the Minister should now only want to declare Republic Day a paid holiday once every five years. From what I know, I can state that it is generally desired that Republic Day should become a paid holiday every year, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on this score. We shall then be guided by his reply as to what our attitude will be during the Committee Stage. Meanwhile I think those workers who will be enjoying Republic Day as a paid holiday this year will be very grateful and in view of the fact that this side of the House is always keen to see the greatest majority of workers in a happy frame of mind, we shall raise no objection to this Bill being read for a second time.

We are grateful that so much progress has been made that we are able to deal with this measure to-day. Republic Day is certainly going to become one of the most important holidays in the life of our people. It is, in fact, our national day, a day on which our nation commemorates the achievement of full sovereignty and independence. I therefore think that as our Republic advances Republic Day will become our national day in the fullest sense of the word. I know that the feeling exists amongst the workers that they would like Republic Day to be a paid holiday every year. As the legislation now stands, it makes possible a period of adaptation and enables employers to adapt themselves to such a paid holiday. Up to a few years ago, only four out of the twelve public holidays were paid holidays. In 1961 the Government added Ascension Day, so that five of the twelve holidays are now paid holidays. I hope, therefore, that employers will gradually become less opposed to the idea of having Republic Day as a paid holiday every year, so that all of us will be able to celebrate Republic Day as our national day.

I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the information he asks for, that is how many workers not covered by the 37 agreements, and who would then fall under this legislation. I do not have that information.

Can you not get it?

I do not know whether I can get it either. I think it would be a colossal job to gather that information. But as the hon. member knows, there are many thousands of workers who are not covered by agreements which provide for Republic Day. There are also many workers who are not covered by any agreements at all. Of course they will now benefit by this legislation. I want to tell the hon. member, and the House, that I think I have made good progress because I have now reached the stage where a certain measure of agreement exists amongst employers that Republic Day every five years should be a paid public holiday. And I hope in the years that lie before us that with a little persuasion we may be able to come to the stage one day when every year Republic Day might be a paid public holiday. But it may take some time. No doubt a lot of persuasion will be needed. All I want to say is that I hope that in due course we may reach that stage.

I move—

The Council of the University of Stellenbosch has decided to amend the University of Stellenbosch Act, 1959, in three respects, and has requested me to introduce and pilot through the Amendment Bill as a public measure. The proposed amendments will facilitate the administration of the University’s affairs, and accordingly I gladly render this service to the University.

In the past there was a certain measure of doubt as to whether our universities were authorized by law to negotiate private loans over and above the loans granted them by the State. In 1959 general provision was therefore made in the Universities Act, 1955, at the instance of the Committee of University Principals, for the negotiation of private loans by universities. That provision was meant to tide universities over their difficulties until such time as they themselves could take the necessary steps. Stellenbosch is now providing for that in Section 4 of its University Act.

In addition, the Council of the University is being granted the right to delegate certain of its duties and powers to a committee appointed by it or to an officer of the Council. It is very clear that such a committee is desirable and general provision for such committees was made as far back as 1946. Now the University is coming forward with a specific provision in Section 8 of its Act, which is welcomed on all sides; and it is understood that other universities are contemplating similar legislation.

Finally it is provided in Section 19 that the alienation of hypothecation of immovable property is to approved by the Minister—and not the State President—and that in future such approval will not be required for the leasing of immovable property—as has been the case in the past. This principle is not a new one and there is no reason for objecting to it in the case of the University of Stellenbosch.

Since the Council of the University of Stellenbosch has asked for this legislation and this side of the House has no objection in principle to this measure, we shall support it. I nevertheless want to refer the hon. the Minister to, and ask for an explanation of, Clause 3 of the Bill, which relates to Section 19 of the Act. It provides that immovable property may now be leased without the Minister’s approval. On the face of it there does not seem to be any danger in this provision. But, as can in fact happen, a university may decide to lease immovable property for 99 years, and then that property would virtually be alienated. I therefore feel very strongly that a maximum period of five years should be stipulated for leasing without the Minister’s approval. If the period of lease is longer than five years, the Minister’s approval should be obtained. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider introducing an amendment in this regard. Apart from that this side has no objection and we support the measure.

With regard to the lease aspect I want to give the hon. member the following information as supplied to me. In addition to its immovable property which is used for academic purposes, the university also owns certain other immovable property, mainly a few dwelling-houses, which it has bought from time to time with a view to future expansion, or which it acquired by way of donations. The latter is the only property that is involved as far as the leasing of immovable property is concerned. I trust the hon. member will accept that as a reasonable concession. I do not think any serious problems will arise as far as the leasing of the dwelling houses is concerned.

I move—

As a result of representations made to the Department by the State Attorney to the effect that the Water Act, 1956 (Act No. 54 of 1956), should be amended in such a way that judges in a water court case will have the power to constitute a court with one or two lay assessors and/or an engineer assessor, instead of two lay assessors and an engineer assessor in certain cases and a lay assessor and an engineer assessor in other cases, it is deemed desirable to amend Sections 36 and 38 of the said Act, as explained below. It is understood that the said proposal is supported by the various Judges-President and that no objections will be raised by any legal bodies.

Further amendments which are contemplated affect Section 62 of the Water Act, 1956. As a result of technical flaws in sub-section (2)hisof Section 62, which was inserted in Section 62 of the Water Act, 1956, by Section 11 of Act No. 56 of 1961, major practical problems have cropped up in the application of Section 62 and the issuing of permits for the abstraction and use of water in Government water control areas. The result is that reasonable development is being retarded and cannot be allowed until such time as land surveys, surveys of irrigated and irrigable areas, the analysis of water resources, water requirements, etc., and determination and a formula for water allocations in the area concerned have been made in terms of the said sub-section (2)bis.

Sub-section (2) of Section 62, both before and after being amended, provided for the publication of a notice in the Government Gazette allow riparian owners to construct water works of a certain capacity for the abstraction of a fixed quantity of water in order that reasonable development would not be impeded or halted until such time as the actual water allocation which each owner and property can be allowed has been determined (and which, owing to the work involved, sometimes takes years).

As a result of the flaws mentioned it is not possible to make such water allocations, either by way of a permit or by notice in the Government Gazette, nor is it possible to make additional allocations to riparian properties from either flood or storage water, after the total quantity of water has been determined in terms of sub-section bis (a) (i).

It is therefore desirable that the necessary amendments, as indicated below, should be effected in order to remedy the position.

Amendment of Section 36: The amendment provides that a water court judge may constitute a court with one or two lay assessors and/ or an engineer assessor, instead of two lay assessors and an engineer assessor in certain cases and one lay assessor and an engineer assessor in other cases.

Amendment of Section 38: In consequence of the amendment of Section 36, and also to ensure that a water court judge has a casting vote in the case where four members constitute the court, sub-section (3) is being added to provide that if a court is constituted, and a majority decision cannot be reached, the judge’s decision on any matter of fact and his judgment will be the judgment of the court.

Amendment of Section 62: (i) Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) is being amended by the deletion of the words “but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)bis”. As a result it will be possible to issue permits and publish notices in respect of water abstraction without sub-section (2) bis first having to be applied.

(ii) Paragraph (b) of sub-section (2)bis is being amended by providing that the formula determined under sub-section (2)bis (a) (ii) shall provide that any apportionment of water shall be made with due regard to permits or allocations made by notice in the Government Gazette in terms of sub-section (2). As a result persons who have received interim water allocations will not benefit at the expense of those who only apply for a permit at a later stage.

(iii) Sub-section (2)bis is being further amended by adding paragraph (h).

The said paragraph authorizes the Minister, in his discretion, to make further allocations in terms of sub-section (2) in addition to the total quantity of normal flow, or normal flow plus storage water, which he has in terms of sub-section (2)bis allocated for abstraction and use by riparian owners, if he is of the opinion that additional water is or will be available as a result of floods, seepage, the construction of a storage dam, etc.

This last section is rather important. Owing to certain circumstances it may become necessary to proclaim a Government water control area. That means that all expansion, all new works in that area, will be made subject to restrictions and will be subject to the issuing of permits for the abstraction of water. Allowances will be made for all works which have already been commenced, and they can be proceeded with. But no changes are allowed to be made in such an area. It can easily happen that it may take several years to carry out all these extensive investigations before one is able to publish in the Government Gazettein terms of the Act as it reads at present, a formula on which the water allocations will be based. In the meantime there may be riparian owners who have not made full use of their water rights and who still want to abstract some of their water. Now they cannot receive an allocation without the formula first having been published.

There is also another aspect to this matter. In terms of the formula to be published, riparian owners will be dealt with principally on the basis of their legitimate use, a use which is to be determined, from the normal flow of a river. This measure provides—and it has, as it were, already become policy—that the State will have control over surplus water. If it wants to store the water it can build a dam and distribute some of that water to industries and riparian owners if it feels so inclined. Some of our larger rivers have been proclaimed Government water control areas. Those rivers contain surplus water, but as the Act reads at present, the State cannot, by means of a permit system, allocate, for development purposes, part of that surplus flow to riparian owners or irrigators along the river. In terms of the proposed Act something like that will in fact be possible.

This Bill is of a positive nature. The whole object is to retard development within Government water control areas as little as possible, but at the same time not to disregard the basic principles contained in the Act. For that reason it is provided that the ultimate allocation of water and permits—and I am not speaking about temporary permits now—shall be based on the formula and shall comply with the requirements of existing legislation.

Does it also afford private riparian owners within such an area the opportunity of storing additional flood water?

It affords them the opportunity of obtaining the flood water which would otherwise flow past them. If, in the light of information at its or his disposal, the State or the Minister is of the opinion that the flow of the river justifies making available some of the water to such a riparian owner before any of the water is stored, a permit to that effect will be issued to him. If such an owner feels that he cannot at that stage make profitable use of the water but would like to store it in a storage dam outside the river, he will be allowed to pump the water into the dam for subsequent use.

This short Bill contains four clauses. The first two clauses deal, as the hon. the Minister explained, with the composition of a water court in so far as, firstly, the position of lay assessors is concerned and, secondly, in so far as the weight of the decision of the judge against that of the assessors is concerned. One can well understand the reason for the inclusion of these two clauses after having heard the speech by the hon. the Minister. Clause 3 makes provisions for inter alia the use of flood waters. This is something which is desirable and which we desire to be brought within the provisions of the Water Act.

Clause 3 is a very difficult clause. I am sorry a White paper was not produced, if only to explain the import of the amendment contained in the clause. One has only to look at the debates which took place in this House when the 1961 amendment was under discussion, an amendment directly affecting Clause 3, to realize the complexity of the section now sought to be amended, namely section 62. There were days of discussion on that particular amendment. That section of the main Act covers this clause.

As I understand this Bill, the whole thing turns on the words in the first few lines of Clause 3, which stipulates that the words “but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)bisare to be removed from the Act. That is the key to the whole thing. I want to preface my remarks by saying that this is a most difficult clause, and it is not clear to me precisely what the import if this amendment is. As I understand the matter, section (2) bis was introduced to safeguard the rights of two categories of owners. The owners concerned are riparian owners who were existing irrigators, and riparian owners who were not existing irrigators at the time the area concerned was declared a Government water controlled area. As I understand it. section (2) bis made it obligatory upon the Minister, when exercising his discretion to use water from a particular river for any particular purpose, to apply his formula in such a way that riparian owners, both those who did use water and those who could but did not use water, had a right to demand that their interests as riparian owners be safeguarded by the hon. the Minister in the exercise of his discretion as to what other purposes he might use that water for.

Now, Clause 3 (a) of the Bill seeks to exclude the words “subject to the provisions of subsection (Tibis.” Therefore, Sir, it does appear that the hon. the Minister is taking away the right of riparian owners to demand their fair share of water. In other words, the Minister can consider it as one of the factors involved, but he does not have to set aside a certain amount of water for riparian owners who have not at that stage irrigated all their lands which they could have irrigated had they wanted to.

This aspect will, of course, be discussed further at the Committee Stage. But, Sir, because of the difficulty in fathoming exactly what this amendment means, it would be appreciated if the hon. the Minister in his reply could advise us whether that is in fact the aim of this amendment. Is the aim of this amendment to give the hon. the Minister a freer hand to allocate the water of any stream or river without necessarily having to consider the rights of existing riparian owners? Because, Mr. Speaker, if that is so, it is indeed a regrettable step. As hon. members well know, throughout our history until the 1956 Act was placed on our Statute Book, the paramount factor was that a man owned riparian land, and everything flowed from that. In 1956 a change was made in order to give greater powers to the Minister. One can understand, of course, that there are occasions when it is desirable that the Minister has great powers. But then these safeguards, if one calls them that, appear to have been re-inserted in the law in 1961. The Minister would have the right to decide in his discretion what use should be made of water in a river, but in terms of the formula he had to safeguard the rights of existing riparian owners.

I ask the hon. the Minister to indicate in his reply what is intended in that regard, because that does seem to be the whole crux of the amendment in Clause 3.

This side of the House have no difficulty with the other three clauses of the Bill for the reasons stated by me. As I said. Clause 3 will be subject to further discussion at the Committee Stage. Accordingly I do not oppose this measure.

When discussing water affairs one should adopt a very particular attitude, because our country’s water problems are of such a nature that no two places have the same type of problem. Only the guiding principles have been laid down in the Act. Consequently the hon. the Minister has to approach this House from time to time, either to grant him more powers or to enable him to give better effect to the spirit of the Act.

This measure effects a very important change in the existing legislation, because the Minister is being enabled to allocate water more effectively. particularly in this time of drought. In actual fact, the Water Act authorizes the Minister to exercise full powers in a Government water control area. We know that in such an area the Minister has the right to allocate water from one catchment area to another catchment area. If that were not the case, it would not have been possible for us in South Africa to distribute our water properly in order to promote the complex settlement of our country. In the past the Minister concentrated in particular on the apportionment of water which was stored in dams built by him, or of the normal flow. Hon. members will probably realize that no two rivers in this country have exactly the same normal flow.

It happens from time to time—and this aspect has now been emphasized as a result of the drought—that many of our rivers are in flood only at certain times of the year. It sometimes happens that a river is in flood for only a few days or perhaps a few weeks. That is what is happening at present. As a result, a large quantity of the water simply flows past, because the Minister is restricted to water that has been stored and to water representing the normal flow. In the past the hon. the Minister took care not to apportion these flood waters. All that is now being contemplated by the Minister is the following: When planning to build any particular dam in the future, he wants to give the riparian owners concerned the opportunity to use the flood waters in the meantime before the dam is built, if it is possible for them to do so. If they so wish, they can also divert the flood water from the catchment area to some other place, at their own expense. That is a very important point. In this regard, representations have been received from time to time in the past. Ever since becoming a member of this House I have received representations from persons in my constituency who panted to know why some of this flood water could not be utilized in the meantime. Last year the hon. the Minister provided an example of this. He went to the riparian owners along the Letaba River and said: “I have issued certain permits to you which are based on the normal flow in the river, but in the meantime five times as much water is flowing into the sea. That water may one day be stored in dams, but I want to tell you that until that happens I am prepared to issue further permits if it is possible for you to divert and use that water.” And they were very grateful for that. But the fact of the matter is that in our country, where the rivers are in flood only at certain times of the year, it will be possible for people to make better use of the flood water if the Minister makes this concession, and by doing that the Minister is making possible the utilization of water until such time as he may allocate it by way of permit in the future. I therefore think we should be grateful that the Minister is now prepared to take that step. But I just want to ask the Minister whether he could tell us this: When opportioning flood waters—and I assume he is going to do that—in the areas in which he hopes to dam the floodwaters one day, is the Minister prepared to give us an indication as to whether he intends to accept the issuing of these temporary permits for the utilization of flood water as a principle in the future, and whether he is prepared to give us an assurance at this stage and to say: “I cannot give riparian owners an absolute assurance that I shall in future store in dams all the water which is being diverted as flood water and that I shall accept and guarantee that as a principle, but I shall give them this assurance, that in future it will be a principle of the Department of Water Affairs to replace temporary permits by permanent ones as far as possible.” I know that my request may be an awkward one for the Minister to grant, but it will mean a great deal to us in South Africa if we can only get the assurance that the Minister will consider doing that in the future.

When I first came to this House our Water Act of 1965 was represented to me correctly as one of the finest water acts in the world. I believe that, but since that time we have started to make little inroads into that Act, and each of these inroads has created doubts and fears in my mind and in the minds of many people who are concerned with both the use and the conservation of water. Sir, you have heard doubts expressed from members on that side of the House this morning. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has dealt with the question of the allocation of floodwater, but that is already provided for in the Act. This Bill does not provide for the first time that the Minister can deal with floodwater. He has always been able to allocate excess water. This clause is just being re-enacted with one little addition. I refer to the new (h) which adds at the end of it the words “or any other cause.” You see, Sir, floodwater, seepage and the like have always been provided for in the Water Act and the Minister can deal with it. But this hon. member now gets up and makes a plea that in the new powers given to the Minister he shall not establish precedents and shall deal with it in a manner in which the Minister would like to do so. I want to deal mainly with the provision of Clause 3 and to express the fear that Clause 3 brings to my mind.

The first thing is that at the moment when an area is declared a water conservation area by the State President acting on the advice of the Minister, those people who are already usefully extracting water are entitled to permits for the amount of water they have been extracting, but the newcomers who have riparian rights must be allocated water. At the moment the Act provides that those people shall be given water according to a formula. The Minister has now put to us the fact that he has to gather the data and to work out the formula before he can allocate the water, and he says that holds up the granting of water, and I think the Minister particularly mentioned the case where there are new Government works being done in a water conservation area, which would hold up the use of that further water which he intends to impound. But let us face the facts. Surely the Minister and his Department can calculate how much extra water will be made available, and surely they would not embark upon such a scheme unless they wanted to impound a certain amount of water and make it available for certain purposes. Surely they can calculate the formula in advance. Does it really matter if the formula is not 100% accurate? It can surely be adjusted, as is being done now from time to time. Sir, I do not believe that this is in fact the case at all. I want to be quite honest now and say that if I were dealing with this Minister alone I would not have as many doubts as I have at the moment, but there are two other Ministers who are vitally concerned and who are concerned from time to time with the use and distribution of water. The one is the Minister of Economic Affairs and the other is the Minister of Bantu Administration, and I believe that these two Ministers to-day have a greater say in the use of our water than the Minister of Water Affairs. I accept that the Minister of Water Affairs in his use of water would obviously want to apply it first to the useful irrigation of lands in the production of more food for the community. I made a statement in this House which was reported in Hansard and has never been challenged in which I said I was told by the Department that the Minister of Economic Affairs just sent along for a permit for some new industry he wanted to open and that permit was automatically written out. I believe that to-day the Minister of Economic Affairs has a big say and that he is planning to use the water of the country for industry. That is fair enough so long as the water is not used to the detriment of the existing users and those who have riparian rights. I believe that those rights must be safeguarded. I believe that the removal of these words “but subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) bis” will remove the safeguard of those rights, and will remove the necessity for the Minister to allocate that water according to the formula; and as soon as that necessity is removed the user of the water, the man who has riparian rights, will in fact have lost his rights because then the Minister can give him no water at all. If there is no obligation to apply the formula then the Minister need not allocate any water to that man. This is my point. On what basis does that man now appeal to the Water Court? On what grounds does he go to the Water Court if the water no longer has to be allocated according to a formula but purely at the wish and the whim of the Minister? I contend that he has no grounds of appeal because the Minister’s decision becomes final. He might have an appeal to the Minister, but that will not be very satisfactory because it may be that the Minister says he cannot have any water at all. Is the Minister likely to change his mind? I do not think so.

The second point that worries me and increases my doubts are the words that I referred to before. The Minister is given the right here to deal with water, not only from floods and seepage, in other words, excess water, because he has always had that right, but also from “or any other cause.” In other words, excess water that becomes available in a conservation area—and this whole Bill applies only to a conservation area—for any other cause than floods, seepage or the like, can be dealt with by the Minister. Where is water likely to come from if it does not come from floods, seepage or rain? I have tried to think why these additional words are being added. This cannot refer to a few buckets of water; the water must necessarily come from somewhere in some quantity. The thought comes to my mind, and I want to ask the Minister this question very directly because I want an assurance from him. Is water not going to be transferred from one conservation area to another to the detriment of the first area? This is a distinct possibility, that the Minister can pump water from one area to another.

It will not be done to the detriment of the riparian owners.

Yes, but the formula has gone. I said specifically that these words, coupled with the removal of the necessity for the Minister to comply with the formula, worried me. The Minister agrees with that. Is he going to withdraw the Bill? Of course not, because he has been told it must go through, and that is what worries me. I want an assurance from the Minister that this is not the forerunner of a scheme to remove water from people, and it can well happen in terms of this wording, and to cut their allocation of water because he no longer has to comply with any formula whatever, and to transfer that water to other areas probably for industrial purposes. Under this Bill he may well be able to transfer water from an existing agricultural area to an area which might be entirely a Bantustan or an industrial area. These are the effects of this Bill as I see them, and if I am wrong I would like the Minister to tell me where I am wrong. In addition to that. I want the Minister to give us the assurances which are necessary to the farming industry and also to existing industries that their interests will not be detrimentally affected by the passing of this Bill.

I am as proud of the 1956 Act as any other member, because I served on that Select Committee myself. Even the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Lewis) said what good work we had done, but the hon. members are now beginning to chase up phantoms. This is a new adjustment which is a necessary one in the circumstances prevailing in South Africa. We are very jealous of the rights of the riparian owners, and I would be the last to try to deprive them of those rights. But still, there are times when a great deal of water flows by which cannot be used by the riparian owners. J think the Minister feels strongly on the point that very often three-quarters of the water flows away to the sea, and that it would be better to apportion that water, after provision has been made for the riparian owners, and to store it if necessary. That would stabilize our water supplies. But I agree with the hon. member that it would be very wrong if the riparian owners were deprived of their rights as a result of that being done. But I do not think that is the Minister’s idea. I think one could ask him that question and say: That is how I see it, and if that is to be done, I cannot support it. But since it is often the position that there is five times as much water in a river as can be used by the riparian owners, that water should be used by the Government, because our main difficulty in South Africa is water. I hope the time will come when we will be able to utilize all the water. In terms of the 1956 Act the Government also has the right to conserve all that water for the future. We are now coming forward with a scheme which will enable the Minister to give people the right to utilize that water in such cases, and not at the expense of the riparian owners or of industry. But in terms of the 1956 Act the Government does have the right to divert water from one catchment area to another.

When business was suspended, I was saying that in terms of the Act the Government has the right divert water from one place to another, as will be done with the water of the Orange River, foi example. We are all proud of the 1956 Act, and the powers of the Government are very clearly defined in that Act. As you will recall, Sir, that Act was passed to clear up the misunderstanding that existed concerning the Water Act; it was a consolidation of the water laws, and therefore we should not depart from it. That Act definitely affords protection to the riparian owners, and the Bill now before the House is not intended to prejudice the rights of the riparian owners or of the cities in any way but to protect them. If one reads Clause 3, one will see that the riparian owners are duly protected in terms of the Act. That is why I want to ask my hon. friends if they want to argue, to read Clause 3(b) very carefully. They will then see that in the times in which we are living, and since a great deal of our water has flowed away to sea, it is only the Minister who can take quick action to conserve the water for the future, because the problem is simply that we have too little water in this country. We should all help to conserve our water as far as possible. I think this Government has done so. That has been proved. If one reads the speech of the Prime Minister, one sees what is being planned for the future as fas as water conservation is concerned. That is why I ask the hon. members to be reasonable when we talk about water.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) relied on the original Act for the protection of the rights of riparian owners, but this is an amending Bill; it is to change those rights.

No.

Nobody will rely upon the original Act to protect those rights. The Minister changes that position. This clause proposes to change those rights. The provisions of this Bill when it becomes law will determine the rights of those owners. Under those circumstances it is entirely without any substance to suggest that the original Act will protect those rights; this Bill will deal with it.

Particularly at present in S.A. we are keenly attuned to anything dealing with water, because of the drought. I want to say that, as is the case in so many of these Bills, it is extremely difficult, unless you have legal training, to follow exactly what is proposed. The Minister interjected just now when the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) was speaking and he made it clear that in terms of Clause 3 the protection of certain rights of riparian owners is being affected; their protection is being taken away. The position then arises that we have to view this Bill not only from the standpoint of the drafters of the original Act and what the conditions were when the original Act of 1956 was passed, but we have to view this in the light of developments which have taken place in the industrial sphere in S.A. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us frankly whether pressure is being brought to bear on his Department in regard to industrial development where water is absolutely necessary for that development. We recognise the need for industrialization but what we say is that while we need industrialization the industry should be established where we can supply the water. We will view with the greatest alarm any suggestion that large quantities of water which cannot normally be provided in industrial areas should be dealt with by means of special legislation brought forward in this manner. Industries need water. We have already seen what is taking place in the Witwatersrand complex, where industries have to be served by the Vaal River. We have already had the warning, in spite of the fact that those wamines have been repeated ad nauseam. over the past sixteen years as to what the position would be. It is the pressure being brought to bear on the Minister which is the real reason underlying the provisions of this Bill, pressure from the Minister of Economic Affairs or from other agencies or authorities. We would like to know that and I hope the Minister will be quite frank with us.

The hon. member for Cradock and others have spoken about floodwater. I am sorry, but this clause does not deal with floodwater; it is specially excluded. Floodwater is dealt with in the original Act. When we dealt with the original Act we took it for granted that floodwater could not be apportioned. It was something entirely outside the normal flow, and we were dealing with the normal flow. Floodwater could not be dealt with because we never knew when we would have floodwater. But floodwater is already dealt with in the 1961 amendment and in this Bill here, in Clause 3(h) it says that “if in the opinion of the Minister water additional to such total quantity is or will become available for distribution and use as the result of floods, seepage, the construction of a Government water-works or any other cause. So floodwater is specifically dealt with, and what is “or any other cause”? What is any other cause apart from floodwater or seepage? What does the Minister have in mind? What is the other cause which is now referred to in such obscure language, which gives the Minister certain unfettered rights in regard to the disposal of that water? What quantity of water can arise from any other cause, of such volume that is necessitates the Minister taking powers to deal with it? As was pointed out by a previous speaker on this side, it cannot be a minimal amount; it cannot be a few buckets of water. It would not be put in the Bill in that form if that was so. This must be an appreciable amount of water. From what source? I hope the Minister will be frank with the House and tell us precisely where he anticipates the source of such water will be and what his proposals are in regard to the distribution of it. In the present circumstances in S.A. we view with the greatest alarm any suggestion that we are getting away from the basic principles enshrined in the original Act and that the rights of riparian owners, which were entrenched in that Act, will be diminished in any way. I therefore appeal to the Minister to tell us clearly. Is there an intention to deal with industrialization behind this Bill? Where does he propose that this additional water, in addition to floodwater and seepage, will come from, which is proposed to be dealt with in this clause at the Minister’s pleasure? I hope he will be frank about it.

I listened attentively to the criticisms and the objections, or the suspicions, which hon. members on the opposite side expressed in regard to this Clause. At the second reading of the Bill it is customary for one to confine oneself to the principles contained in the Bill. There appears to be unanimity as far as the first principle is concerned. Now, what principles are really contained in the amendment to Section 62? In the first instance, hon. members are quite wrong; they are reading things into the Bill which it does not contain at all. If they are going to say that the principle contained in this amendment is that fixed, established principles in the old Act are being thrown overboard and that the rights of riparian owners are being curtailed, they are quite wrong. That is not correct. The principle involved here is solely to grant the Minister more powers in order to implement, as circumstances require, abstractions timeously, sooner and quicker, even before he has laid down the formula, but subject, with a view to permanency, to the formula which is determined. That is put very clearly in Clause 3(b). I think it will be more fitting to discuss the meaning and the intention of this clause in the Committee Stage, but at this stage I want to reply to a few points raised by hon. members. Take the question of abstraction for example. If it were the case that this clause left it in the Minister’s discretion to determine what quantity of the normal flow riparian owners are entitled to abstract from the river, without a formula being laid down, then I could understand hon. member’s objections, but that is not the case. In principle I would have been against that myself. The fact of the matter is that in terms of the Act as it stands a riparian owner is entitled to abstract his fair share, due regard being had to various factors such as the size of his land and the extent of the irrigable surface area of his farm, but that right of abstraction cannot be conferred upon him by means of a permit in terms of a formula until such time as the investigations which are necessary in order to be able to make an equitable apportionment have been completed. I want to mention an example. We declared the catchment area of the Umgeni River, to be a Government water controlled area. I am using that example intentionally because the catchment area is in Natal and because three Natal members, the hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) spoke about this matter. As hon. members know it is a large area. There are people there who have practised irrigation on a small scale and there are other riparian owners who have not yet practised irrigation but who, being aware that the fact that they have not yet done so, has not deprived them of their riparian rights, want to exercise their riparian rights. Before the catchment area was declared to be a Government water control area one could risk —it was merely part of the normal development in the country abstracting water from the river, by means of a canal or by means of a pump installation, and if riparian owners lower down did not object that you were abstracting too much, with the result that their interests were being adversely affected, then everything was peaceful and you could do it. But once the area has been declared to be a Government water control area then, strictly speaking, if you have not irrigated before, you cannot irrigate without obtaining a permit from the Department of Water Affairs or from the Minister. I cannot issue that permit until such time as I have prescribed a formula, and that takes a long time. If I do not obtain the approval of the House for this amendment, then it means that, even if the person concerned were to suffer a personal loss or even if the development of the community in that area were to be retarded, I simply could not issue a permit for the abstraction of water until,such time as I was ready to prescribe the formula. All that I am asking for here is the right, a power which I do not have at the moment, to grant such a person a permit for abstracting water before I have prescribed a formula. It is principally intended for riparian owners. It is provided specifically in (b) that when a permit is so issued, due regard must be had to the formula as provided and prescribed in Section 62 (2)bis. In other words, that part remains. In other words, if, before you could make all the necessary investigations and calculations, you happened to give a riparian owner more than what you ought to have given him, it means that that permit could be altered without that riparian owner having any recourse against the State for damages. If you had given him too little then the quantity would have to be made up so as to fit in with the formula so that he could get his full and legitimate share. That is really what the section means. The hon. member for South Coast said quite rightly that the original Act had, as far as riparian owners were concerned, taken into account the normal flow and the rights of the riparian owners. The surplus water, in other words, the quantity in excess of the normal flow had not been touched. The original Act left it in the hands of the State for use and for utilization by storage or by means of whatever measure was in the best interests of the country. Let me mention an example: There are the major rivers such as the Crocodile River, the Blyde River, the Letaba River, and perhaps there are others, but here you have examples of areas which have already been declared Government water control areas. In these areas there are storage possibilities. There are still tremendous development possibilities along the banks of those rivers. If storage takes place there, then the water stored in that way could be used by the State for the extension of agricultural settlements under irrigation; it could be used for industrial and for urban development. The State has control over that water because that water has been stored by the State, but it could also be used to provide additional water to existing riparian owners who are already practising irrigation, so that they might increase the size of their units. In point of fact, as the Act stands at present I cannot legally issue those people with a permit to abstract quantities of the surplus water for irrigational development along the river. At the moment they have to wait until such time as storage eventually takes place, and in the meantime the water flows past these people for years without their being able to use it. They could make good use of a certain quantity of that water but I refuse to issue the permit; I adopt the attitude that it is water belonging to the State and that it does not fall under the formula. All that I am doing now is this: I want to allocate a percentage of that water to those people. In that way one will not retard the natural development which would have taken place if we had built a dam there. But I realize that one has to act very responsibly in apportioning surplus water to riparian owners because one is taking the water belonging to the State and giving a portion of that water to those people who have asked for it. One is therefore encouraging those people to undertake agricultural development on the basis of surplus water, and what effect would that have? When the time comes and storage is undertaken there in the form of a major Government work, one will have to recognize that development which you have allowed to take place under permit and you will have to schedule the lands which have been developed in that way and make that water allocation a permanent one. In other words, this is a positive measure. It is not a negative measure intended to take away rights; the intention here is to give, not to take away. The hon. member for South Coast had certain misgivings about the use of the words “or any other cause”. He says the water we are talking about could only be rain water and that it is then part of the surplus flow; this you can store, but where does the other water come from? Hon. members know that some of our industries—I am thinking of our power stations, for example—are major consumers of water. They obtain a permit to abstract water in Government water control areas, but the Water Act provides, in order to prevent the pollution of water, that they must cause that water which was theirs to use and which they were unable to use, in other words, the surplus drainage, to flow back into the river in a purified form according to prescribed standards. Why should we refer specifically in the Act to sewage effluent and factory effluent and mention a whole long list? Instead of that we merely say “or any other cause”. In other words, any water, even if you have allocated it, must flow back again in such a condition that he did not wish to grant powers, even to be covered. It will be water for which a permit can be issued in this way.

I think the position is clear as far as the principle is concerned. I hope there is no confusion here: there is no need for any confusion. I do not believe that any Government would abuse the powers granted to it in connection with the apportionment of water. The hon. member for Umlazi paid me the compliment of saying that he had no fears on my score but that there might perhaps be subsequent Ministers who would think otherwise, and that he did not wish to grant powers, even to me, which could be abused. I am convinced that no government in South Africa will ever be able to curtail the legal rights to which a riparian owner is entitled for the sake of other national developments. You cannot deprive one sector of its rights and give it to another sector. That will never be done, least of all while this Government is in power. I think we may just as well accept that that will be the position for many years to come.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is not feeling well so he is unable to attend this afternoon and consequently the Bills standing in his name cannot be dealt with. Hon. members know, of course, that Orders 20, 21 and 23 must stand over as well as Order No. 16. Those measures will probably not be dealt with this Session. As a result of that we have no more work this afternoon and I therefore move—

Agreed to.