I move—

This motion and the two following refer to the continued suspension of certain preferences under the Ottawa Agreement. This one deals with the ten per cent. ad valorem preference on South African stock fish imported into the United Kingdom. This was under the Trade Agreement of 1932 between the Union and the United Kingdom. That was the original agreement, but since the outbreak of war the Union has not been able to supply the United Kingdom market with stock fish and the British have been getting it from Iceland. In 1940 when the United Kingdom were negotiating a trade agreement with Iceland, the question of our preference was brought up, and it was suggested by the United Kingdom that as this preference was of no use to us during the war period, it might be suspended, and we agreed then that for a period of one year the ten per cent. ad valorem duty on fresh stock fish imported into Great Britain from foreign countries should be suspended, and since May, 1941, this preference has been annually suspended at the request of the United Kingdom authorities. Our own supply position was such as to make it impossible for us to take any advantage of the preference; and in May of 1943 the United Kingdom Government asked the Government of the Union to agree to a further suspension of this preference, and the Union Government agreed that this request might be met.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This motion refers to the preference on oranges imported into Canada from South Africa during the months of May to December. South African oranges imported into Canada during this period are entitled to the privilege of a duty free market. This is another of the 1932 Ottawa Agreements. In recent years the shipping position made it impossible for the Union to export any oranges to Canada, or practically none, and Canada has been obtaining nearly all their orange supplies from the United States, and these imports have been subject to a duty of 35 cents a cubic foot. This preference instead of being of any benefit to the Union has simply increased the price of oranges to the Canadian consumer. Last August the Canadian Government put it to us, as a temporary war measure, we should agree to the suspension of the preference on South African oranges imported into Canada, during the months May-September. As we are unable to avail ourselves of this preference during the war, we agreed that this request might be met.

As the hon. Minister knows, bearing in mind the developments in the past few years we are not really enamoured of the system of preferential tariffs. The Minister has already brought one instance, that of fish, before the House, and we did not raise any objection; but now we are dealing with the export of our oranges to Canada. The Minister advanced as his reason for this motion that it was impossible for the Union to export oranges to Canada on account of the lack of shipping space. On the other hand, in the course of the session we have learned, especially from the Prime Minister, of great quantities of war material and other requisites that have been exported to the Union from the United States and also from Canada. It would appear that the ships that bring the goods to South Africa from America or Canada have to return, and it seems to us rather strange that the ships should return empty. The ships are of course not returning to England; in any case, a certain proportion of them will make the return trip direct to America. Even if they do not go direct to Canada, oranges can be exported from here to New York in transit to Canada. In this instance it appears to me that the Minister has not such a strong case as in the previous matter, and it seems that our orange exporters are being made to suffer. Another aspect is that at the time when the agreement was made there was an exchange for the preferential tariffs that Canada gave us; there was a quid pro quo; and I should like to know from the Minister whether, seeing that we have sacrificed our preference, anything has been offered from the side of Canada. Has the Minister and his department taken any steps so that something may be obtained from Canada in exchange for the sacrifice we are making. In the first place, we should like to know why no use is being made of the ships that are returning after they have brought goods to us here under lease-lend, in order to carry oranges to Canada; and in the second place, whether anything has been done by Canada by way of exchange for our having accommodated them. The Minister knows that we are faced with a serious problem as regards the sale of citrus. All sorts of efforts are being made by the Citrus Board to dispose of oranges. We also know that in the past the citrus growers, especially since the beginning of the war, have been placed in a difficult position, and we should like to have an answer from the Minister on the two points that I have mentioned.

The two points raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) are both capable of being answered. In regard to shipping it is true that a considerable number of ships are bringing material from the United States and Canada, mainly from the United States; but as regards shipping citrus back in these ships you have to remember that citrus is a highly perishable product, and before the war it was all shipped in cold storage. The ships provided with cold storage are not available now. We did make a certain amount of progress in 1942 and 1943 in shipping citrus to Britain in non-refrigerated ships, but the holds had to be specially fitted with fans and so on to keep the cool temperatures, and as a matter of fact, we had an unexpected amount of success with oranges shipped to Britain and not in cold storage. But that could only be effective with fast ships on the straight run to Great Britain, and these ships that are bringing material to us from the United States are all slow cargo ships, and they take far longer on the voyage than the fast ships going direct from here to Britain. Moreover they are not fitted in any way for carrying perishable products. There are no facilities available for the shipping of perishable products to the United States and Canada. In regard to the other point raised by the hon. member, we have been asked to suspend this preference as a temporary war-time measure, in the first place because we cannot supply under that tariff, and in the second place they can obtain all they want of that particular article from the United States, and therefore the consumer in Canada is paying 35 cents a cubic foot more for their oranges to nobody’s benefit. We are watching the position here in regard to a reciprocal suspension, but there is no specific article which we obtained from Canada in peace time, which we are now able to obtain in quantities from other countries, and in respect of which our consumers have to pay duty for articles from Canada.

Was this examined before you entered into agreement?

Yes, before the request was made.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This refers to a duty of 10 per cent. on crawfish imported to the United Kingdom from foreign countries while this country enjoys the exports of its crawfish to the United Kingdom duty free. Since the outbreak of war this preference has been of no direct benefit to the Union, because the British Ministry of Food has contracted to purchase all available supplies of crawfish from the Union. That means that our crawfish canners and crawfish exporters are assured of a ready market for everything they can export. In 1942 the United Kingdom were desirous that a considerable number of Belgian and Dutch and French fishermen who had escaped from Belgium, Holland and France to Britain and were fishing there, should be allowed to have their catches admitted into the United Kingdom free of duty. Legally speaking the United Kingdom authorities could not do that, because they were foreign subjects, and under the terms of our preference their catches were subject to duty. The United Kingdom made representations to us in 1942 that we should agree to the suspension of this duty for a period of one year. We agreed, and in April, 1943, when that agreement was due to expire, the United Kingdom asked us to extend it for a further twelve months to the 30th March, 1944, which we agreed to do. Now the United Kingdom have asked us to extend it for a further twelve months, and as our arrangements with the Ministry of Food are already completed and we have sold the whole of our surplus products to the United Kingdom, we have agreed to a twelve months’ extension until March, 1945.

In regard to the first part, I can understand the circumstances. If the British Government have already bought the crawfish a new position has been created. But I should like to mention the second aspect, one that I alluded to in connection with the previous motion. Here we are doing something to meet England in response to that country’s request, with a view to assisting fishermen of the Allies, France, Belgium and Holland. Now I want to put the same question as what I put in connection with citrus. As we have made a sacrifice what has the Minister and his Department done to obtain a quid pro quo from the British Government?

I must point out that the agreement we made with the British Government was not primarily to assist the foreign fishermen but the British consumer, who was paying 10 per cent. duty, on account of the peculiar legal position that arose. These people who are living in Britain are catching the fish, but because they are foreign subjects it is foreign fish they are catching, liable to the duty, and consequently the British consumer, before this arrangement was arrived at with the United Kingdom, was paying 10 per cent. duty on that fish. We are getting a quid pro quo owing to the fact that the British Ministry of Food is buying the whole of our exportable surplus, and the whole object of the preference on crawfish was to find a market for the exportable proportion of our products.

Is this being done as a favour?

No, as a business proposition.

As a necessity?

No, there is a market for our fish, and they are prepared to buy it and to pay a price we are prepared to accept; the 10 per cent. preference is of no further advantage to us, and we have no desire, unless we are going to derive some benefit from it, that it should entail the British consumer paying more for fish than he need.

Motion put and agreed to.

I should like briefly to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister of Lands. In the first place I want to direct his attention to the fact that the problem of brackishness has assumed disquieting proportions on the denser settlements, especially at Vaal-Hartz and also at Hartebeestpoort. I want to inform the Minister that certain unintelligent persons are under the impression that the settlers are responsible for that. Even in this House, if I am not mistaken, it has been stated that this brackishness has been caused by the settlers owing to over-irrigation, and that the settlers are consequently in a great measure themselves responsible for the brackishness that is overtaking their plots. It is supposed to be wrong methods of irrigation on the settlements that have caused this. That is a very serious allegation. I want to state here very clearly that it appears as if the legislation that the Minister has introduced has been introduced in consequence of the notion that the settlers are the cause of the problem of brackishness. Let me say here in the plainest terms, that there is just one creator of the problem, and that is the State itself, and seeing that is the case the State should through the Department of Irrigation, accept full responsibility for the solution of that problem. I also want to say that we are grateful that the Department of Lands has given us the assurance that a sum of money has already been made available to combat this menace. In reply to a question that I put to the Minister of Lands, he stated that already at Hartebeespoort seven plots have been declared brackish plots, and that the settlers concerned had to be accommodated elsewhere. I should like the Minister to make a statement this morning as to how he is going to tackle the question of brackishness. We see how that six other persons have been placed on those seven plots. The plots have been temporarily leased. The question occurs to me whether it is the right policy to lease these plots at a rental of £19 or more—the amount varies— seeing that we know that the previous settlers have been unable to make a living on these holdings, and that they had in consequence to be sent to other holdings. I think that the Minister should rather give these holdings to settlers for a nominal sum, to allow them to see whether they can restore them to an economic value, keeping in mind that those holdings could then be permanently allotted to them. Then I want to tell the Minister of Lands that in view of the legislation that he has piloted through the House, it seems to me that the settlers are now going to be held responsible for combating the increase of backishness. I am grateful that the Minister of Lands nods his head. I want to tell him that I am not animated by suspicion when I say that, but that I have reason to complain here that he is going to make use of that legislation to cancel the holdings of certain persons. I have been on those plots, and the people have told me that they have received instructions to dig certain furrows, and we know that the labour position is today so perplexing that it is impossible for these people to do that. I want to ask the Minister to act very sympathetically towards these settlers in cases where the department makes an appeal to them to dig these furrows. The people are not in the prosperous position that would enable them to combat this process of bracknishness, and it is impossible, for them to give effect to all these instructions in view of the difficult labour position. I want to ask the Minister to act sympathetically where it is impossible for the people to comply fully with the instructions. Then I also wish to bring Item B (5) on page 213 to the notice of the hon. Minister, namely, the maintenance of furrows, roads and fences. I would like to tell the Minister that the question of roads is one of the things that occasions great difficulty on the settlements. I cannot recall the Minister having ever made an announcement in connection with the maintenance of roads on settlements. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not make a clear statement of policy in connection with this matter. Will he tell us what action the department is taking in connection with the maintenance of roads. Is he going to throw the responsibility on the shoulders of the settlers? I think that this is one of the factors that contributes to the lack of good co-operation between the Department of Lands and the settlers. Apparently, it is expected of the settlers that they should keep the roads in good order. At Kareepoort the Department amongst other things gravelled a road for the settlers when they had passed out. But what about the settlements on a place like Geluk? The roads are in a dreadful state. I think that the Department of Lands must accept full responsibility for the maintenance of roads on the settlements, also after the settlers have passed out. I shall be very glad if the Minister could also make a statement in that connection this morning. I do not want to take up much more time. These are two of the points that to my mind are very important, and that I want to bring specially to the Minister’s notice, namely, the problems of brackishness and the maintenance of the roads. I see that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) is in his seat, and I want briefy to make a few observations in reference to what the hon. member stated yesterday in this House. I just want to tell the hon. member that I regard him as one of the very honest members in this House. On the Select Committee he has always acted in a most unprejudiced manner, but now I want to ask him whether it is not with a view to casting a reflection on the settlers that recourse is being made for payment of instalments to the pensions which the aged people receive today? Why does he now want them all to be treated alike? If one comes across an exceptional case, why should one then present the Afrikaner in that light? If the hon. member wants to talk about settlements, why does he rather not talk of the solidarity of the Afrikaner families? Why does he not rather talk about the families who have a high conception of morals and religion? Why does he not tell the Minister of Lands that all his efforts towards economic progress, all his efforts for social uplift, and also all his ideals regarding rehabilitation will disappear without a trace unless we have these sound and energetic families? The hon. member did not take part in this debate before the guillotine was applied. After the guillotine was applied he now comes and avails himself of this opportunity to cast a crude reflection on the settlers in general. Let me tell him, with all deference, that if he manufactures such arguments, and if he wants the newspapers to take them up, as he suggested yesterday the time will yet arrive when he will pray, “Lord deliver me from the unscrupulousness of the press in South Africa.” I feel that the hon. member should not employ such arguments. Where these exceptional cases occur, bring them under the notice of the Minister, but do not create the impresison in this House that all the settlers are guilty of this.

[Inaudible.]

May I just tell the hon. member that he is always trying to make a joke; and that a skunk and a comedian are both effective in their respective roles. I want to say that we are glad that the Minister gave us an assurance yesterday in regard to his attitude about the allotment of holding after the war. That clarifies the matter of the Government’s policy. I want to tell the Minister of Lands that I am glad he has made that announcement, because if such a policy of favouritism is followed, I want to ask him whether he believes that will contribute towards our general progress. The hon. Minster must admit that equality of agricultural and economic opportunity is one of the most powerful factors making for true progress, and if after the war the settlers are going to be treated on a basis of favouritism, it is a proof to me of defective government in the country; because the laws and any policy that do not stand for equality of agricultural and economic opportunity, are a symptom and a proof of a defective government. Consequently I want to ask the Minister of Lands whether he will give instructions to the Land Board that all settlers in South Africa should be chosen on the basis of careful selection. All settlers should be subject to a sound scheme of selection, so that this equality of agricultural and economic opportunity may take place on a sound and honest basis, and also in an unprejudiced manner. I want to put the question to the hon. Minister: Will he admit that the economic front and the military front are inseparably linked up to form the basis on which the war effort rests. [Time limit.]

As a man who can speak from experience about settlements I feel it my duty to say a few words. I have been listening attentively to all the speeches, and I must say that the Minister is a very much more patient man than I had ever thought. A great many charges have been flung at him, but I want to tell him that we are grateful for what he has done for the settlers in the past. I originally objected to the fact that the Act was to have retrospective effect, and that the sons would have to leave their fathers’ homes. I discussed the matter with the Minister and with others, and I am now satisfied, and let me tell hon. members why I am satisfied. I look upon the Minister of Lands as a father of the settlers, and I feel that a father should have more powers than he actually has to exercise. You must give him more power than he really needs. I have listened to the speeches made in this House to find out whether the Minister has in the past in any way been unfair towards the settlers, but I haven’t heard of one single instance where anyone can say that he has acted unreasonably. I must say that the 1937 Act and the Bill which we now have before us give the Minister just sufficient power. One of our oldest settlements in the Potchefstroom district is the Klipdrift settlement. What happened there? Those settlers were put on the land in the days of the late Gen. Botha and they made good progress. They had to pay a certain amount of money and many of them have made excellent progress. These people are put there to make a living. But what has been happening now? One old man after the other has left his land and are today without any means of subsistence. These people no longer own the land, and some time ago my attention was drawn to the fact that one of those holdings—a holding which has a lot of water—today belongs, not directly, but indirectly to a coolie. I don’t know whether I should accuse the present Minister or the previous Minister for what has happened, but that is what has actually taken place on the Klipdrift settlement. A holding has been sold there for more than £4,000 and a coolie is the owner.

That is the policy of the old Nationalist Party.

I therefore say that we must protect the people on the settlements but we must also keep an eye on them so that they do not do any harm to themselves. The Opposition members have raised objections to the Minister’s statement about giving preference to a soldier in the event of there being two applicants—a private individual and a soldier. They object to the Minister giving preference to the soldier, all things being equal. Now I ask them to whom the land should be allotted. The Minister stated clearly that all things being equal, the land should go to the soldier. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) will agree with me that the soldier should get preference, and let me tell hon. members why I say that he will agree with me. The soldier has done his duty to the country. The hon. member himself is an old soldier. I know that if a soldier had fought under his order and had been a good soldier, the hon. member would have put him on the land. If he were the Minister of Lands and had to be the judge, he would give preference to the man who had done his duty to this country.

And if a soldier sits in this House and hasn’t done any fighting?

We are grateful for the reasonable attitude adopted by the Minister I am grateful for what the Minister has done so far, and I hope that in the days to come we may again have a Minister who will be sympathetically disposed to the settlers, and the people he has placed on these settlements. I have full confidence in the Minister because I feel that any Afrikaner who has a feeling of sympathy for his fellow Afrikaners will never be unreasonable and unfair, but I do repeat that we should give the Minister greater powers than he will usually have to exercise, because only in that way will we be able to protect these people.

I had not intended taking any further part in this debate. I think the matter was fully discussed yesterday, but this morning the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) came here and added fuel to the flames. He said that I agreed with him and that I would give preference to the returned soldier. Let me say clearly that there is a great difference between the man who fights for the freedom of his mother country and the man who goes to fight for another country. We on this side of the House contend that this war is no concern of South Africa’s and we therefore say that the man who stopped at home has made just as much sacrifice and has shown just as much love for his country as those other people. To tell us that the soldier must be given preference in every respect is unfair. After the Minister’s statement of policy we don’t want to continue this discussion. He said that all things being equal he was going to give preference to the soldier. Well, we are going to leave it at that. I am not saying that we were satisfied with that but we were prepared to leave it at that. We feel that if the private individual and the soldier have equal qualifications, if the merits of both are identical the Minister should give land to both. No preference should be given to the soldier. The hon. member for Losberg stated very definitely this morning that the soldier should be given preference and I want to repeat that we on this side of the House are strongly opposed to this course of action. We have one population in this country. They all pay their taxes and they must all be treated alike. The people who are most suitable for these holdings should be put on the land. I am sorry the hon. member saw fit to re-open this question again.

It might be well if I at this stage were to reply to some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) asked me some questions on the subject of houses which were damaged at Christiana as a result of the floods. I think he referred to houses beyond the line where we have servitudes, and he asked what we were doing in regard to those places. I said on a previous occasion that where damage had been done to houses at Christiana beyond the line where we hold these servitudes, an enquiry will be made by the Commission to be appointed to go into the matter of flood damage, and that commission will have to make its recommendations. Immediately after the Session the Irrigation Department will send out the commission for the special purpose of enquiring into the damage done and ascertaining what the actual position is. Let me tell the hon. member that our legal advisers have gone into the question and it does not seem that we are legally responsible for those houses. But I am not going to rely on that. Even if there is no legal responsibility, there is a moral responsibility. We do not want to evade our duty. Let us send the commission to make the enquiry and if we do so I think we shall be able to find a satisfactory solution. The hon. member also asked me some questions about the houses which we are now supplying for people who are living in tents, and he made the request that those people should afterwards be given the opportunity of buying those houses. That we cannot do. Those houses are only lent to them for a certain time. They are the property of the Irrigation Department and they are used at irrigation schemes and the department will have to get them back. With regard to damage done to houses higher up the river, that is not a matter which can be dealt with in the same way as the question of damage done to houses on land over which we have servitudes. This is a subject which will come under the general commission. That commission will go into the whole position. The whole question of crops, furrows, canals, etc. will have to be dealt with. But as I have said there is no actual obligation on the Government to pay compensation in this respect.

Is that the new commission which is now going to be appointed after the Session?

No, we have the general commission which consists of the Secretary for Social Welfare, the Secretary for Lands and a few other members, and that commission deals with all those questions. In regard to the houses in the area where we have servitude they come under the Department of Irrigation.

Is it not possible to give these people relief loans to enable them to build houses?

In regard to houses outside the area I believe that the commission has already proposed to give £75 for the purpose of material.

Is that a loan?

No, it is to be given to them. I do not know whether it can be done but I have suggested that an enquiry should be made whether in instances where the damage runs into several hundreds of pounds, and £75 is insufficient, it is not possible to grant a loan for an amount exceeding £75. I do not say it will be done but I have asked the commission to look into it. After that we may perhaps be able to lend a further amount of money on very easy terms. With regard to Kromellenboog, I would like to say that the first thing on the programme will be the raising of the Vaal Dam, before we can tackle the Kromellenboog scheme. As hon. members know we can raise the wall by another 18 feet and it will be necessary to do so. We shall then be able to supply a large quantity of additional water and in view of the expansion on the Wit water srand—and Pretoria is also going to be supplied by the Rand Water Board now—within a few years time the Witwatersrand and Pretoria will be taking more water from the Vaal Dam and the other scheme than the whole of the Vaal-Hartz scheme could possibly provide.

Is the dam to be built just above Parys?

That will also come later on. The idea is to take water down to the Free State. I want to tell hon. members that we already are spending a lot of money in the Free State, but we have the Caledon and Vet Rivers there and a very big scheme can be built there. It is a post-war scheme and if we start on that we shall start from down below on the Vet River and the Sand River. Why? Because of certain developments in the goldmining industry or the potentialities of such development.

Will that be just above Parys?

In that area. We cannot undertake proper surveys owing to the fact that 53 per cent. of the technical staff of the Irrigation Department is on active service.

Has a survey actually been made?

A rough survey, but a great deal of work still has to be done and it will be done as soon as we can undertake it. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) asked me a question about land becoming brackish. He says that under the new Act the full responsibility is thrown on the shoulders of the settlers. That is not so nor is it the intention. The whole question of land turning brak is so expensive that it is impossible to imagine the settlers having to look after it. It is a matter which the Government has to undertake. The settler is of course held responsible for the land on the holding itself becoming brak. For instance, if a furrow has to be dug on the holding to lead the water away, the settler has to do it. The department cannot be expected to do it, particularly if a man has been passed out and is farming on his own. That position also applies to the various holdings. One of the greatest difficulties we have with irrigators is that they over-irrigate the land; 90 per cent. of the settlers on any settlement may never have had any experience of irrigation. They used to be sheep farmers, or cattle farmers, and when they are put on irrigable land they think that all they have to do is lead water on to it. When they get up in the morning and the wife is not in a good humour the man takes his shovel and starts leading water, and if she is still in a bad temper when he gets home in the afternoon he goes out again and once more starts leading the water over the land. I went to Vaal-Hartz and made an investigation in regard to certain tenants who were continually complaining that the engineers refused to give them sufficient water and their crops were drying up. What did I find? I went to one holding, I took a shovel, and dug a hole and I am not exaggerating if I say that when the hole was two feet deep it was full of water. The water table was within two feet from the surface. I told the man that he was ruining his holding because he was putting too much water on it. As soon as we left him he got hold of the engineer and asked him when he would be allowed to lead water again. We have to control these people. In regard to the position at Geluk we have spent a lot of money there to prevent the land going brak. We already have this trouble at Vaal-Hartz and we shall have to see to it that it is tackled. If you go over some of these roads at Vaal-Hartz, your car goes right down and the Department of Irrigation is now considering the most suitable methods of draining the land at Vaal-Hartz. Hon. members will notice that there is an amount of £150,000 on the estimates for drainage. We have to do a lot in that respect. In regard to the maintenance of roads, during the time the settler is on probation, the Department looks after the roads, but as soon as he has passed out he has to look after his roads himself. The roads then come under the Board of Control.

But if the roads have not been handed over to him in good condition?

We always keep our roads in good condition. The question is of course what one understands by good condition.

They haven’t been gravelled.

We keep them in fair condition. After that the Board of Control takes over. Then there is another point. The question has been asked whether I instruct the Land Board how it is to apply its judgment in regard to the allotment of holdings. I give no instructions. The Board has to consider every case on its merits. I cannot give any instructions to the Land Board. Hon. members know that the duties and instructions of the Land Board are defined in the Act and I would be abusing my powers if I were to instruct it or to prescribe to it in any way. It is a statutory body and I shall certainly not interfere with it in any way whatsoever.

I did not intend taking part in this debate, especially after the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) had explained what many members and a large section of the people thought about the Minister. Yesterday evening ministers of the Dutch Church were at my house, and I just want to tell the Minister what they told me. I think the Minister will admit that we on this side do not lightly move a reduction in or the deletion of a Minister’s salary unless we really have grievances or unless the people have grievances. I want to tell the Minister that if he were to act in this House as he usually does in the lobby, he would not have half the difficulties which he has today. I do not know how it is that the Minister apparently cannot get away from the abnormal attitude which he adopts at meetings and in this House. I think the Minister is a very good party supporter, but as a Minister he ought not to regard himself as a party politician.

Give this lecture on morals to your friends.

I do not want to give a sermon on morals, but I just want to tell the Minister what the people in the country think about him, and I just want to convey to him what those people said. These are people who are older than the Minister, they share our views and they share the views of us younger people. Whenever the Minister of Lands makes an attack, it is always on Afrikaans-speaking people and on institutions which are sacred to the Afrikaans-speaking people.

You are talking nonsense.

Let me give examples, and then the hon. member can tell me whether the people who came to see me talked nonsense. When the Minister makes an attack on the Dutch churches and their ministers, then it is not nonsense. Whether we are religious or not, everyone of us will admit that the Dutch churches have meant a very great deal to our nation. I do not want to go into the merits of what the Minister said, but why should he, whenever he gets up in this House, make an attack on the Dutch churches? He is an Afrikaansspeaking Minister; why should he speak adversely of the Dutch churches in everyone of his speeches?

That is untrue.

I hope that hon. member will not interrupt me. We know he is a member of that party, not because of his convictions, but because he became dissatisfied in the Labour Party. The Minister will admit that when he speaks in this House we do not often interrupt him to remind him that he is making another attack on ministers of religion. We would not say these things if the Minister refrained from attacking them. Not only does he attack the ministers but he also attacks the Afrikaans schools; and those schools are also sacred to the Afrikaner. Why should the Minister continually attack everything of an Afrikaans character? There is not one member on the other side who can say that the Minister has ever said anything adverse in regard to institutions which are sacred to the English-speaking people. He always attacks the Afrikaner organisations and schools. Are they always wrong; why should the Minister continually attack them? I raise this matter here because people for whom we should all have respect, have approached me in that connection. I overheard the Acting Prime Minister tell the Minister that he should not reply. It would be sensible on his part not to reply.

Do you not want me to reply?

No, but the Acting Prime Minister told you not to reply. If the Minister thinks that what I am saying here is unreasonable, let him say so. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. When he holds meetings in the country or when he speaks in this House, let him speak as badly of us in the political sense as he likes. We shall know how to reply to him. But leave those Afrikaner institutions alone which are part and parcel of this side and which should also be part and parcel of members on the other side. If any fault is to be found with them, let the Minister exercise his influence in the right place to rectify those faults. I do not intend this as an attack; I merely want to make an appeal to the Minister. I want to tell the Minister that in the political sphere he can besmirch us as much as he likes; we shall reply to him; but do not interfere with those things which are very dear to the Afrikaner. If they have to be attacked, leave it to the enemies of the Afrikaner to do so; the Minister as an Afrikaans-speaking person should not do it.

I cannot neglect a reply to my hon. friend on the other side, and I wish to do so in the same spirit in which he spoke.

Treat him with contempt.

No, I do not wish to do that. He stated here that I attack the church and the ministers. Let me say at once that I have never attacked the church as a devout institution, and I will never do it. I am a member of that church and my forefathers were members of it. But I have the right to express my opinion when I think that the church is making a mistake, especially as far as the ministers are concerned. As a youth I was brought up, just as all hon. members, that the parson is a person who is above the political sphere. We were brought up in the old days in the belief that the parson is regarded as a sublime person, and we cherished him and esteemed him to such an extent that teachings of the gospel really bore fruit. The fault I now find with the ministers at the present time, is that there are so many of them who are not above the political sphere.

Mention them.

Must we now take the view that because a person is a minister, he can take part in politics and we may not say anything? I do not want to be bitter. My hon. friend brought the matter up here, and he says that I can run them down on political grounds, but I must say nothing against the ministers. But what about the ministers who are daily head over heels involved in politics?

And what about the English ministers?

What happened in Johannesburg to the fifteen ministers who attended a political meeting; what happened in Bloemfontein? I do not wish to mention names here.

As there no English-speaking ministers who take part in politics?

I know nothing about the English-speaking ministers. I cannot mention the names here of English-speaking ministers and I also do not want to mention names here. The ministers are so deeply involved in politics that I say with a full sense of responsibility, that the teaching by the ministers of the gospel has suffered and become futile. We have regard and respect for them and their doctrine if they hold themselves aloof from politics. But as soon as they enter the muddy sphere of politics, then I have the right to criticise them and I shall continue to do so, because our church is going under as a result thereof. In wartime there are certain things which are respected in the fighting lines. Take the Red Cross. That is protected. Where the fighting parties are face to face, the Red Cross will go amongst them and no one will shoot at them. But as soon as the Red Cross abuses its position, and shots are fired from its side, then the fighting parties have the right to shoot back. The ministers are in that position. As long as they keep to their calling of teaching the gospel alone, and do not mix themselves up in politics, we will respect them and cherish them as we were taught to do in the past. But as soon as they start shooting in the political arena, and they shoot openly and also from the background and from under the ground, then they must expect us to shoot back. Then I maintain that we have the right to shoot back at them. The hon. member can tell the ministers who complained to him, that as long as they move in the political sphere, we will shoot, and we will shoot hard.

This morning the following report appeared in the “Cape Times”—

I would like to know whether the Minister is cognisant of this matter, and what his Department is prepared to do. It is a very knotty problem to confine these elephants to a small reserve of 600 morgen. The Addo reserve is between 6,000 and 9,000 morgen in extent, and it now means that these elephants will be confined to 600 morgen. That whole reserve has not sufficient water for the elephants, unless sufficient water was found in the immediate past. The elephants usually break through because there is not sufficient water for them. You can easily understand that if a hedge of 600 morgen is made, and the elephants are confined, that at some time or another they will probably be able to break through. It will have to be a very good hedge to keep them there. If that happens, how will they be brought back to such a small reserve which is hedged in? I do not know what will be done, because the data at the moment is meagre, but I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister and ask him to be very careful in his conduct, otherwise the result will be that we may lose all these elephants, that all of them will be shot dead, which will be a great pity, because we want to preserve them for posterity.

I was on the point of congratulating the Minister on having calmed down to such an extent, and on the pleasant attitude adopted by him. But I am very sorry to notice that he has again adopted his poisonous and biting attitude, not only towards this side of the House but towards the Dutch Church. I don’t want to go into that question. I only want to make this statement and to say what my prayer is —and that prayer has been almost answered. It is this, that all the predikants in this country may become national just as the English-speaking parsons are national English. If there is an English-speaking parson who is not national English I don’t think anything of him.

What item is the hon. member discussing now?

I am discussing the statement made by the Minister of Lands. I want to reply to what the Minister said, but merely in passing. We appreciate the fact that our predikants are “nasionaal.” That has been the attitude of our church institutions throughout the centuries and we can prove by the history of all nations that the preachers of the gospel cannot preach the gospel unless they are “volksnasionaal.”

The hon. member must not elaborate that point.

The hon. the Minister made a statement about Kakamas and he said that the Kakamas Commission had imposed a prohibition on farmers’ associations by banning them and by victimising those who dared take part in any farmers’ association movement at Kakamas. On the 28th March, the Minister, in Hansard No. 10, said this. These were the Minister’s words—

Then he says—

Further on he says—

Here we have the unequivocal statement by the Minister that the Church Commission at Kakamas has placed a ban on farmers’ associations. But we have now had a statement from the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) that he was Chairman of the farmers’ society at Kakamas and that a teacher was the secretary of that association. The hon. member stated that the membership of the association at Kakamas numbered 500. I haven’t got 500 members in the farmer’s assotion in my constituency. It is an exceptionally big association. I noticed that the Minister has systematically avoided that statement of the hon. member for Calvinia. Does the Minister accept the hon. member’s statement?

No, he is quite wrong. Even his figures are wrong.

Very well, then I shall not elaborate that statement any further, though we shall hear more about it later on because I feel that if the Minister has made this statement, and it is proved afterwards ….

It will be proved before the Commission.

I most emphatically deny that there is a farmers’ association at Kakamas and that the Church Commission has placed a ban on that organisation, ánd has victimised it, and if the Commission which is going to be appointed puts the Minister in the wrong I hope that he will apologise not only to this House but also to the Church, and not only that, but that he will also resign as a Minister.

Just imagine!

Because a Minister of the Crown should not make irresponsible statements.

Are you going to resign if you find that you have been wrong throughout your political career?

Listen what the White Cliffs of Dover have to say.

Let me say this to the hon. member. Did he resign when he found that he was wrong? We are very pleased that this commission is going to be appointed. Now, let me ask the Minister this: Will he be prepared to appoint a judicial commission? We want to protect the Minister. The Minister will only be able to clear himself if he appoints a judicial commission. That is the only way in which he can clear himself before the people and before this House. We on this side, and also the people outside will be able to trust such a commission. If the Minister appoints a departmental commission we feel that we shall not be able to abide by it and the church will feel the same. I can assure the Minister that the church as well as this side of the House will abide by the findings of a Judicial commission and I want to ask the Minister whether he would be willing to appoint a judicial commission. He has the power to do so. It will cost the State no more and no less. Why not do the right thing? I am convinced the Minister will do it. If he tells us now that he is prepared to do it we shall not say another word about it. I have only referred to this matter in passing. I also want to touch on a few points in regard to combating the evil of the soil going brak. It is not only in the Transvaal where this difficulty is making itself felt, but even in our district. We find that at Koekenaap 72 erven have been issued by the Minister and of those 72 only 19 erven are free from brak; 50 have gone partly brak and three completely. It is increasing to such an extent that before long the Minister will have to write off those 50 as well.

Is that on the right bank of the Olifant’s River?

Yes. [Time limit.]

I have been appealed to repeatedly to appoint a Judicial Commission. Hon. members opposite also want to know who are going to be the members of the Commission, and the Commission has been condemned in anticipation not only in this House, but even by the Church and the Synodical Commission. I say that it has been condemned in anticipation. To say that a magistrate is not competent to serve on such a Commission is casting a reflection on our magistrates. I am prepared to give the undertaking that I shall appoint a judge as chairman of the Commission.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) that he need not worry about the Afrikaner. I shall at any time appear with him on the same platform, especially in regard to the settlers. I should also like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister, viz., in connection with the land which the Minister has purchased from companies from time to time. My attention has been drawn to the fact that companies keep the mineral rights. I do hope that the Minister will make an attempt to provide that those mineral rights on settlement land bought by him, will also be taken over by the State, and that they will not remain in the possession of the companies. In the Letaba area the mineral rights are still held by the companies. I believe that the effect thereof will not be to the advantage of the settlements. I should like to take my turn in praising the Department of Lands for the fair treatment they have extended to us, who have had much to do with settlements. Furthermore I want to say that the Land Board has treated us very fairly. I also want to express my appreciation of the work done by the members of the Land Board for the settlements. I just want to quote one instance to substantiate what I said, and that is the case of a certain man who had been brought under the influence of liquor by certain people and was then asked to give them permission to purchase the land. When the matter was investigated by the Land Board, his wife admitted that they did not want to leave the holding, but that the persons concerned made her husband sign the papers whilst he was under the influence of liquor. If it had not been for the steps taken by the Department of Lands, those people would today have been on the street. I want to give credit to the Land Board that they have in every case undertaken a careful investigation before they allowed the sale of certain lands. Furthermore I want to tell the Minister that I think he can be very proud of the work that is being done on the settlements. There is, however, still one settlement which does not have a dam, viz., the Levubu. Those people have to lead water from the river. Every year they have to pay £22 in levies on 15 morgen of land whereas they obtain water which is sufficient for two morgen only. Last year they had only two morgen under irrigation, and I want to ask the Minister, seeing that they have to pay levies for the 15 morgen whereas they obtain water for only two morgen, whether it will not be possible to grant them a reduction in the levy. It is not fair that they have to pay those water rights when they receive water sufficient for two morgen only. Those people have good prospects if only they can obtain water but they have water for not more than two morgen. Some years ago one of the young farmers who did have water, made a clear profit of £750 on his holding. I think this is to the credit of those people. As far as the Brits settlement is concerned, I had the privilege to inspect it and to see the improvements which have been effected in regard to the houses and tobacco stores and tobacco drying plants which do credit to the work of the Minister and his department. The former houses only had one beaver board wall and they did not do the State credit. As far as the Vaal-Hartz settlement is concerned, I recently paid a visit there and one of the settlers who had originally come there with a bundle on his back, made £1,500 that year. I believe that this shows best what the State is doing to rehabilitate our people on the holdings. Finally I want to say again that the hon. member for Brits need not be worried about the Afrikaners; we shall look after them.

I did not intend to take part in this debate again, but the Minister made two statements which I feel I can not leave unanswered. In the first place I refer to the attack he levelled against the predikants. The Minister since yesterday adopted an attitude which nearly moved me to withdraw my motion. Now, however, he comes here again and attacks our ministers of religion. I want to ask the Minister whether they are not the same predikants; did they not at that time advocate the same things they advocate today? Immediately after the rebellion we found ….

Order, order ! I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to elaborate that point.

The Minister here made an attack on our parsons, and I just want to reply to that.

The hon. the Minister replied to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop).

The Minister made a very venomous attack. During the rebellion in 1914 there was a sharp division of opinion whether the rebels should be allowed to retain their church privileges.

The hon. member can only confine himself to the reply of the Minister.

The church tackled the problem and neither the one nor the other side had anything to do with politics. I just want to reply to the interjection by the Minister that I was wrong. After all I was chairman of the agricultural union of the North-western parts for three years.

The figures you quoted are incorrect.

The Minister says that I was incorrect. The Minister is confusing two things. The people wanted to establish a cooperative shop and this the Church refused.

Did the church refuse to grant the people a piece of land upon which to erect a shed?

That is true. And why? Because the same people two years previously put forward a petition in which they asked that as the lucerne mill had burnt down, the church should erect a lucerne and corn mill. The church did erect a corn and lucerne mill there.

They merely asked for a shed to store their products.

I just want to tell you that the church erected those buildings there and then the people for whom those buildings had been erected came along and wanted to establish their own co-operative. If that had happened the new buildings the church had erected for them, would have become white elephants and that is the reason for the refusal. But the Minister pretends that they were not allowed to form an agricultural society. Well, Mr. Collins was the representative for those parts at the agricultural congress, and as chairman of the agricultural union I constantly had dealings with the association at Kakamas. How the Minister can make such an assertion, I do not know. The Minister branded me as a liar.

I did not use those words.

I am now curbing my language. The Minister accused me of an untruth.

It does not help to curb your language and then use such expressions.

I can speak with authority for I have been chairman of the agricultural union of those districts for three years and I have visited Kakamas. The Minister ought to keep himself better acquainted with the facts.

Perhaps you visited something which does not exist.

Yes, in that case I have met a committee of an agricultural society which did not exist and then I have co-operated all those years with a secretary who did not actually represent a society. The representatives sent to the congress must then have come there under false pretences. I do not doubt the Minister’s honesty, but I do hope that the Minister will treat us in the same manner. Yesterday I used forceful language but I spoke in a courteous manner and the Minister was also very courteous. As he was yesterday, he is the most civil Minister in the House, but this morning he is again moving in the other direction. I hope that the good start he made yesterday will be kept up right through his minsterial career.

I just want to reply to a few questions. I am not going to discuss Kakamas again. All the matters that have been raised here will have to come before the commission. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) spoke about the fencing in of 600 morgen for the elephants at Addo. This does not fall under my department but it comes under the control of the Parks Board. I agree with the hon. member that 600 morgen seems to be far too small an area for such a number of elephants. I shall bring the matter to the notice of the Parks Board. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) wants to know what the position is in regard to mineral rights on land in the possession of companies. It is quite correct that they do possess mineral rights. The Department of Lands is not interested in mineral rights. When minerals are to be exploited, the owners will have to meet their obligations towards the State and the State will receive its share. Where my department does reserve mineral rights is on inherited Crown land. But where for instance farms under Section 11 are concerned, we do not hold the mineral rights. That is not inherited Crown land. I know of numbers of settlers having farms under Section 11 who have sold their mineral rights at enormous prices. As soon, however, as the minerals are exploited, the State receives its due share. With regard to the people under the dam who do not receive sufficient water, it will of course be necessary to go into the position when, as the hon. member indicated, 15 morgen have been scheduled, and the plotholder only receives water for two morgen. The State does not intend to make the people pay for water which they have not received It will have to be de-scheduled and we shall have to see that the people pay only for the water they actually receive.

I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the position of a few farms in East Griqualand which were bought some time ago by the Lands Department for settlement after the war. These farms were occupied on a temporary basis by five or six tenants and these tenancies have been terminated by the Minister, and he has told these people that he requires the land for resting and for subsequent settlement. I quite appreciate the Minister’s desire to improve this ground and to make it ready for settlement so that when the settlers are given the ground, the ground will be in good order and no deterioration allowed to take place. But I feel that the turning off of these people on the 30th September will retard production of food very considerably, and I think it would be possible to meet the case of these people by allowing them to remain on the holdings, and—if the Minister is afraid that the land is being overstocked—by strictly limiting the amount of stock that can be run on these farms. This matter has been taken up by the East Griqualand Farmers’ Congress on behalf of these farmers. They have written to me and brought to my notice a few of the facts which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. They say this—

The suggestion I should like to make is that the Minister might ask his inspectors or whoever is in charge of these lands, to get in touch with the local Vigilance Committees. We have committees throughout East Griqualand and they have been appointed to do everything possible to maintain food production throughout the war, and they have been assisting in keeping going the farms of people who have gone on active service, and if the Minister would ask his inspectors to consult these committees it might be possible to allow those people to remain on the farms, with the strict limitation of the amount of the stock they run there and control of the lands to be ploughed. The effect would be that the land would not deteriorate, and that food production would go on. There is another urgent need in regard to these farms, and it is this, that soil erosion should not be allowed to continue to depreciate the arable ground. It is necessary for contours to be made to check the quick run-off of water and I suggest the Minister might consider obtaining a tractor and a ditcher in order to have the whole of the arable ground contoured so that when the settlers take them over they can start working these lands to the best advantage. It is necessary to preserve every acre of the land and if the contouring could take place before the farms are allotted, the ground would be improved very much and the present people could be left in possession of the houses and farms under strict supervision.

I shall look into it.

I am sorry that the Minister has again been using such strong language. I do not want to go into that any further but I just want to say that any man who gets into conflict with the Dutch Reformed Church will have plenty of trouble. Greater men than the Minister have in the past been crushed in their fight against the Church of the Afrikaner. It will in any case do the Minister no good. We are worried about the health of the Minister, for he is the greatest asset our party has. He will still bring us into power and we therefore should not like to lose him. But if he excites himself so much, we may lose him before the time. The Minister said something about a scheme near Parys and I should like to have some more information. Is that just above Parys, about 12 miles?

I think it is between Parys and Vredefort. A barrage has to be constructed there.

Can I get that information?

As far as the information is available, the hon. member can obtain it from the Director of Irrigation, but Vaaldam comes first.

Yes, I assume it is a post-war scheme, but I expect that it will be one of the first, for it will be of great value to an important part of the Free State. Then I want to tell the Minister that many of the difficulties in connection with the recent floods have been due, I am informed, to the fact that the locks of the dams had not been opened early enough. If the locks of the barrage had been opened in time, much of the damage could have been prevented.

You mean just above Parys?

Between Parys and Vereeniging. If the Minister’s Department had made arrangements with the Johannesburg Water Board to open the locks in time so that the water could have run off, some damage might have been prevented. They want to catch as much of the water as possible and when afterwards the locks had all to be opened a veritable mountain of water came down. They possess a means of communication with Vaaldam and therefore ought to have been in a position to make arrangements to open the locks in time.

I shall have enquiries made.

This is a very important matter. Many of the difficulties have been caused thereby and I think that in future provision should be made for this to be done. Before I sit down I want to extend an official invitation to the Minister to visit that area in order to see for himself, before he takes a final decision, what we can do in regard to irrigation schemes.

I think I would fail in my duty if I did not draw the attention of the Minister to certain names of farms in my constituency. We find farms there with the following names: “Prospect,” “Eventide,” “Hollywood,” “Proposal,” “Just in Time,” “Home Sweet Home,” “Cáwoods Hope,” “Never Mind,” “Honesty,” “Blue Heaven.” I furthermore want to point out that these names are still existing but that the people who gave these names to their farms are no longer living there. They were English returned soldiers who during the Milner government were settled there. The names still exist but the original people have disappeared, and today these farms belong to people such as Van Niekerk, Du Plessis, Knoesen, etc.—all Afrikaans-speaking farmers. I just want to warn the Minister of Lands that if he, as he stated in the Senate, is again going to grant farms to overseas persons after this war, he will witness a repetition of this history.

We discussed that matter yesterday.

Paul Kruger said that we should learn from the past. Here we have a concrete warning. Then I want to point to another matter. At Schweizer-Reneke we find at present a number of holdings and an investigation has shown that those holdings all belong to a Jew called Stern, although originally these holdings were intended as a sort of settlement under the municipality. I understand that under the legislation we have passed recently, powers are given to have certain areas proclaimed as settlement areas and I want to ask the Minister of Lands to go into this matter. These holdings are at present in the possession of a Jewish capitalist and the Minister should find out whether he will not be able to get hold of them again so that they may be allotted for the settlers for whom they were intended. I want to ask him to investigate this matter still further.

Amendment put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—27 :

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—62 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen. R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell. J. H.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 34.—“Lands,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 35.—“Deeds,” £83,800, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Surveys,” £115,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 37.—“Irrigation,” £364,000,

In connection with this Vote I should like to see the Minister give us some more information in regard to the schemes he has so often announced, viz., the great irrigation schemes in the Free State. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) asked a question during this Session about the scheme on the Caledon River. He asked—

The Minister replied that they had not yet been completed. The next question was—

The Minister’s reply thereto was—

In other words, the Minister stated that the enquiry into the Caledon scheme had not yet been completed and that he did not give this House the assurance that the scheme would be built. I cannot understand how the Minister can give the House such a reply at this stage. What then is the meaning of all the statements and promises the Minister gave the people before the election? He visited my constituency and addressed a meeting. The Minister gave us there the impression that we would have to move soon as otherwise we would be washed away. The farmers said that they had to hurry home in order to start making furrows immediately. We were very pleased about the undertakings the Minister gave. I must add here that the Minister did say that the work could not be started until after the war. Last year when there was an election in the offing, the Minister came here in this House and stated that a whole series of schemes had been projected and he gave us all kinds of undertakings. He admittedly did say that this would happen after the war, but he also said here—

He mentioned that scheme as a plan which would immediately be put into effect as soon as the technical staff became available. Here he says quite clearly that his scheme had already been drafted in all details and he told us about the model villages to be constructed there. Now this Session, after the election, he comes here and says that the investigations have not yet been completed. He said that he did not want to give any undertakings. Somebody accused him that these were just imaginations. Thereupon he stated—

I assumed that the Minister was not talking nonsense. He said that these were not illusions, that they were actual hard facts they were busy with. He said that the schemes had been finally drawn up. He furthermore said—

This statement he made on 24th April of last year, shortly before Parliament was prorogued. I mention this here because one feels concerned about the Minister having given that undertaking to the country just before the election. He says that the schemes have been finally drafted, and that they are not illusory. But after the election the hon. member for Ladybrand asked him a question and his reply was that the investigations have not yet been completed, and that at this stage he cannot take a decision. That makes one feel worried. At the time I accepted what the Minister said. I personally approve of that policy of the Minister. He says that he will rather himself construct the furrows and lead the water to the farmers on their farms. I maintain that this is a very good policy. Now, however, the Minister comes here and casts a doubt on his own schemes. He gives the impression that after all these wonderful promises, after this beautiful picture of schools and gardens and water, there is no certainty yet and that he cannot take any decisions. This makes one feel somewhat worried and I should like to ask the Minister what his plans are in connection with this matter. Last year he also declared during a speech at Sea Point—

I shall therefore be pleased if the Minister will be able to make a reassuring statement today, and I shall be glad if he can give us information in connection with the Vet River scheme and the Sand River scheme. Is it his idea to first of all construct the smaller schemes and thereafter to commence with the Caledon scheme? The Department probably has already drafted up its timetable. Will they tackle the Sand River and the Vet River schemes simultaneously, or what are their intentions?

While we are all very interested in the great schemes the Minister has for the future, I want to ask the Minister that the existing schemes should be given preference and first be put on a proper footing before any of those schemes for the future. The storage dams in connection with the Fish River and Sundays River schemes are today in danger of being silted up altogether. Certain proposals have been put to the Minister to prolong the life of these dams. If something is not done in the near future the livelihood of all those people on these rivers will be jeopardised. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement as to what his programme is in regard to the Fish River irrigation scheme and the Sundays River. Many millions have been spent on them up to the present time. Large numbers of people are living there, and the position is that in the dry season they will be without water altogether. I hope that the Minister will make a statement so as to set people’s minds at rest that provision will first be made to put them on a proper footing before any of the big schemes are tackled. I would also like the Minister to make a statement with regard to reclamation works in the catchment areas, with regard to soil erosion, and to let us know what he proposes to do in the future in that regard. Then also I wish to say to him that in Natal we have got some wonderful permanent rivers, but owing to the claims of the dry areas we have been overlooked in the way of irrigation schemes. Natal is a province that is specially suited to land settlement, but due as I say to the claims of the dry areas we are being overlooked. What I have said about the Fish River and the Sundays River is also the position in regard to a couple of our irrigation schemes in Natal. The Minister has assisted us by making surveys there in respect of existing irrigation schemes, but I hope that before any of these big national schemes he is talking about are tackled, he will first of all put the existing schemes on a proper footing. We claim that the men who have already made a success of irrigation in this country should get first consideration, and that they should have priority over any other schemes that may be undertaken in the near future. I hope that the Minister will make a statement to assure existing schemes first consideration.

I just want to reply to the important question the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asked in connection with the Caledon River scheme and the Sak River scheme. The hon. member was so kind to say that I explained when making my statement that the schemes would be proceeded with after the war. I want to make the position clear once more. At the moment we are short of staff. We are now making plans so that we can make a start with these schemes after the war. I have here in my hand a plan which we have drawn up with regard to 32 schemes for the post-war period. Hon. members should not ask me at present what the names of the schemes are or in which sequence they will be proceeded with, because otherwise they will afterwards say that I promised to tackle this or that scheme first. These schemes which we have drawn up in detail will keep the Department busy for 12 years.

Then vou won’t be here any more.

Yes, but you will be compelled to build them. This list is topped by the Caledon and Sak River schemes. As far as the erection of model villages is concerned to which the hon. member for Winburg referred, I just want to tell the hon. member that the Government in its post-war reconstruction plans is going to provide work for the people, etc. We intend building model villages at the various points. The idea is to commence with the Sand River and the Vet River at the same time, and the reason why we are going to start so low down is that the Caledon River will ultimately join up with the Sand River. A further reason, however, is the mineral development which may take place in that vicinity, and for that reason we want to make a start with these two weirs.

Why did you say during this Session that you could not yet make a decision?

I mention this only to show what we have already done in this respect.

†With reference to the question put by my hon. friend, the member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson), in connection with the Fish River and Sundays River schemes, Lake Arthur and Lake Mentz we know are silting up at a tremendous rate, and the future of the people in the Sundays River valley and the Fish River valley is really in jeopardy, because we know it will only take a short time before these dams have silted up. There will be no room to build other dams, with the result that they may go entirely under and revert to the position that they originally started from. I have a scheme, a plan, a statement to make; I will make the statement on the loan account of irrigation in in regard to the Fish River valley and the Sundays River valley as well.

The hon. Minister said that I should raise this question of boring machines for settlers and farmers in general during the discussion of this vote and I shall be glad if he can tell us briefy what the position is. We know that boring machines have been sent up North and we assume that these have now come back and are available. If that is not the case, I can understand it. All the same I should like to have a statement from the Minister that he will take care that after the war we shall not have the same shortage of boring machines as in the past. Then there is still one other matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is that today boring machines are being brought to land belonging to the Native Trust and I do not think that is fair. I shall tell you why I think it is unfair. Those lands are not now to be occupied by natives. Those lands will only be properly controlled after the war when the necessary officials will be available. Today the officials are not available. It is much more important that the boring machines which are in the country should be used for the farmers and the settlers.

I should like to receive some further information from the Minister in connection with the difficulties concerning boring machines. Some time ago I asked the Minister a question and he replied that the reason why a certain boring machine in my constituency has been standing unused for the last two years is that he has no trained staff for it. It is a deplorable position that whilst there is such an urgent need for boreholes, it is possible that, quite apart from the boring machines which were sent up North, unused boring machines can stand around. I sincerely believe that the Minister will be able to find enough people who will be able to work the boring machine. If the Government were really making an effort to employ such people, it would be able to find them. We have great difficulties as regards water in the Bushveld and there a machine has been standing idle for two years. The farmers are begging for boreholes and I think that the Minister should really make an attempt to find the people who can work a boring machine. I appeal to him. In regard to the large schemes the Minister is dreaming about, I want to say that I hope that he will also dream about Waterberg.

If I go there you reproach me.

No, I attacked the Minister because he told the people that it is my fault that no irrigation scheme has been constructed yet. Together with the Director of Irrigation I climbed the baboon-infested mountain in order to find out where an irrigation scheme might be constructed. We have two great rivers there, the Pongola and the Mochol, and I understand that his department has been faced with all sorts of difficulties, but I want to ask that the area be surveyed again in view of the extreme fertility of the land there and the enormous quantity of water flowing to waste every year. The Director of Irrigation—I went with him through those areas—was deeply impressed by the possibilities there. In my presence he himself pointed to a possible site for a dam. Then there are the Nyls, the Great Nyl and the Little Nyl, and the Olifants River. In regard to those rivers the Irrigation Board initially made a favourable recommendation. Thereafter, for reasons difficult to understand, the same Irrigation Board made exactly the opposite recommendation. I believe there had been a tremendous agitation on the part of people lower down the Nyl River who took up the stupid attitude that when a dam would be constructed, they would be deprived of their drinking water. That is a nonsensical point of view.

The opposite is the case.

Precisely, but this is one of the reasons why the then Minister abandoned the scheme and I want to ask the Minister to go into this again, for there are great possibilities.

If the Minister should supply boring machines, I should like him to keep in mind the needs of the small farmers near Port Elizabeth. There is a great and urgent need for boring machines there. We are very pleased about the Minister’s statement in regard to what he is going to do for the Sundays River Valley, but I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment that during the past 25 years no comprehensive scheme for the Little Karoo and the Great Karoo has been undertaken, and I think that it is high time that those parts should also receive some consideration. We hear so much about the Vet River and the Orange River and what is to be done for the Free State, but I think that the Great Karoo is more entitled to irrigation works than any other part of South Africa.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) with regard to the Sand River scheme. I want to point out that the Government has already taken steps to survey the site where the dam is to be constructed. There are several owners higher up who know already that their farms will be covered by the water, and the result is that these people are today in a very uncertain position. They cannot effect improvements on the land, for they know that their land will eventually be inundated. They are sitting there powerless and are also not in a position to buy other land. They are just sitting there and waiting. Is it not perhaps possible to buy these people out now already so that they may be able to purchase other land to continue farming operations? I should also like to have some further information in regard to the servitudes along the Vaal River on the Free State side. I raised this point yesterday but the Minister told us to raise it on the Irrigation Vote. Is there any truth in the rumour that the servitudes higher up along the river may be paid out? And is there any truth in the story that the engineers in their calculations are not taking account or are not sufficiently taking account of the depth to which the water will cover the land? This will be caused by the construction of the weir and the depth of the water on the land will certainly have to be taken into consideration when farms are to be inundated. When the Government is instrumental in my farm being flooded, surely the Government has to pay me out. It is self-evident that when the bank which is perhaps 30 or 40 or 50 feet high is taken away the water will not rise so far up the river. If the water is going to rise higher than the level on which servitudes were paid out in the first instance, I should like to know why the Government will not be prepared to pay out, if the water will now rise to a higher level. I should like to know what the policy of the Government is going to be. From time to time we receive requests from people who want to know whether they will also come under the scheme and it will be very useful if the Minister were to issue a statement now.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that the Vet River and Sand River schemes and the Caledon River scheme will be commenced with as soon as possible. I do not want to say which one should be started first, but I think it is of importance that as the Caledon River has its source in the Drakensberg, where we have an excellent rainfall, that scheme should be proceeded with first, because the other dams in connection with the Vet River and Sand River can be fed from the Caledon River. I appreciate the Minister’s idea of providing water for as many farms as possible. It is an ideal scheme that farmers should be in a position in that way to place their farming operations on a more permanent basis. It is a wonderful idea if every farmer can have a piece of land where he can produce fodder under irrigation. It will be of enormous assistance to farmers during droughts. We know that the rainfall in the Free State is very uncertain. One year we have abundant rains and the next year practically nothing, and in years of drought such fodder banks will be of enormous value to the farmer. If every farmer has a plot under irrigation, he will possibly be in a position to increase his farming operations by 50 per cent. I hope the Minister will give effect to his schemes as soon as possible. I am convinced that if the Free State has a scheme like that, those parts which are subject to droughts, can be transformed into an oasis, and for that reason I am glad that the Caledon scheme is also receiving attention and I hope it will be one of the first to be undertaken. The surplus floodwater can then be used to strengthen the Vet River and Sand River. I also want to refer to the Leeu River scheme. That is a very small scheme and will only embrace some 60 farms. The scheme is very favourably situated, it is a natural scheme and can be built at a very small cost. The survey has been completed. Only the maps have to be completed. Possibly that scheme, because it is a small scheme, should be undertaken first. It may serve as a model for the others and we can see how it works. The farmers there have been waiting for this scheme to be started for the last seven years, because already seven years ago the survey was undertaken. The majority of the farmers falling under that scheme are dairy farmers and they supply four cheese factories with milk. The soil is excellent for lucerne. It will mean a tremendous lot to the farmers. They will be able to produce lucerne there and also winter harvests. This scheme does not only concern the 60 farms, but also the village of Hobhouse, with its famous name. I am convinced that there is sufficient water also to assist that village. Most of the residents possess eight or ten cows. There is a cheese factory in the village, and many of them make their living in that manner. If water is available, we can also make that village into an oasis. I wish to conclude by asking the Minister to pay that area a visit. He has not yet been there, and we will point out a place to him where his aeroplane can land. The Minister can then form his own judgment about the natural position of the irrigation works.

I just wish to congratulate the Minister on the report brought out by the Irrigation Commission in connection with boreholes in the northern districts. In that report the necessity for boreholes is most strongly emphasised, and I would like to have the Minister’s assurance that he will accept this report, and if possible, will make a start with the work before the end of the war. There are over 600 applications outstanding, and many of these applications have been on the list for two or three years already. The position is becoming terribly serious, because the people cannot do without the boreholes. They cannot build irrigation works. They are dependent on the underground water, which is mostly very deep. The difficulty is that the ordinary private boring machines are not capable of boring such deep holes. I also wish to ask the Minister if it is not possible to send boring machines there to make test holes to a depth of from 1,200 feet to 1,500 feet. At present the water which people find nearer to the surface is in many cases salty, and the only manner in which some of those parts can be utilised, is to bore past the salt water and to reach the sweet water lower down. People with experience say that the deeper you go, the higher the water rises. If the borehole is 600 feet deep, probably the water will rise 300 feet. The argument that the borehole is not economic then falls away. If, by making test holes of 1,200 feet and 1,500 feet, we can prove that the lower water is fresh, then those farms can be occupied which it has not been possible to use so far, and have been lying idle. I would like a statement from the Minister.

I just want to reply briefly. Some hon. members have referred to boring machines, and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) referred to a boring machine which was idle. We are now in the fifth year of the war, and as I have said previously, a large number of our boring machines were sent up North and also a large percentage of the staff, with the result that we have no staff for a number of boring machines. The hon. member asked whether we could not get the personnel. No, we cannot. We are doing our best, and if the hon. member can give us qualified persons, we will at once appoint every one of them.

Place an advertisement in the newspaper.

We shall do so with pleasure. We are only too anxious to obtain people. As yet we have only 81 boring machines to meet the needs of the whole Union. We hope that this difficulty will be solved when the war is over. Another great difficulty is that our boring machines are antiquated. They are extremely heavy and the farmer needs five or six span of trek animals to transport them. Our intention is that the Irrigation Department should manufacture its own boring machines after the war. At the moment we are already in process of manufacturing ten. We have a five year plan and we hope during that time to replace all the old boring machines by modern machines. With regard to the Palala River, I want to tell the hon. member that I saw the beautiful stream of water there, and I was greatly perturbed to find that near the river the cattle died because they had to drink salty and bitter water. If a canal can be constructed, that area can be converted into a paradise. I have on two occasions sent engineers to that area to see whether it could not be done, but they tell me that the land is so level that they cannot lead a canal from the river. The river drops approximately two feet per mile, and they cannot get away from the river. I instructed them to ascertain whether they can construct a dam higher up and in that way get the water out of the river. That investigation will be made. I can assure the hon. member that I am only too anxious to lead off that stream of water, even if the canal only runs through the farms so that the people can use the stream for their stock. As regards Olifants River and the Nyl, I wish to say that it is very difficult to find a spot where a dam can be constructed. The boreholes have not yet given good results, but I am again giving instructions that the matter must be further investigated. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) mentioned certain servitudes. There are no servitudes along the river, but only in the vicinity of the dam. If that line is exceeded, we will go into the matter to see what our responsibility is. The farms which were damaged along the river—well, that will all come under the commission which has been appointed. As regards Leeu River, I can only say that we have found a spot where a dam can be built, and the survey is being made. The boreholes were satisfactory. It is not a big scheme. It will only be possible to irrigate some 1,500 morgen, but it is an important part where the people for the most part devote themselves to dairy farming. I have already said that there are so many schemes in the Free State that we cannot construct them all at once, and we also cannot grant all the money to the Free State.

It is the best investment.

As I have said, this scheme is not a big scheme, and we will see what we can do in regard thereto. When the scheme has been constructed, Hobhouse will also be taken into consideration for water: It is our custom, where canals pass small towns, to supply those towns with water. We have done that in the case of Koffiefontein and Jacobsdal, and we will do it in this case too. I think I have now answered all the questions. I thank the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock) for his reference to the report of the Irrigation Commission with regard to the policy in connection with boreholes.

There is just one point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely, that it would be a very good thing if the farmers along the Vaal River could be provided with power engines on a system of payment over a long period, to enable them to pump water. I trust that the Minister will give attention to this matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 38.—“Justice,” £851,300, put.

HOUSE RESUMED :