as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Credit Agreements Bill, reporting that the Committee had been unable to complete its inquiry.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, during the sitting hours from now until Monday we shall continue to deal with the remaining Votes until they have been disposed of, whereupon the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill will immediately be taken. The financial measures on the Order Paper will be disposed of next, and we shall then proceed with legislation. Preference will be given to Orders of the Day Nos. 7, 8 and 9, as printed on the Order Paper for today, and the House will then deal with the remaining legislation as printed on the Order Paper.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment of the Water Act, 1956, has become necessary for the following reasons: With regard to clauses 1 to 5, 9(i)(a), 10 and 12 to 16 the amendments to the sections concerned arise purely from the changeover to the metric system.

The proposed amendments in clauses 6, 7 and 22 are necessary because the fines mentioned in the appropriate sections of the Water Act are no longer applicable today and are disproportionately low compared to the seriousness of the offences to which they are applicable.

The amendments proposed in clauses 8, 20, 21 and 19(c) have become necessary because, due to the sharp increase in the building costs of water works during the past few years, comprehensive reports with regard to water works have had to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament in an increasing number of cases in terms of the provisions of sections 58, 157 and 162 of the Act. The preparation of these reports is exceptionally time-consuming.

Section 62, of the Act with regard to which amendments are being proposed by clauses 9(i)(b) and 9(2), provides for the following rights to the abstraction, impounding, storage or use of water from a public stream within a Government water control area:

1. (1) Any person who at the date of declaration of a Government water control area was lawfully taking water from a public stream and using it, is entitled to a permit in terms of subsection (1) which enables him to continue using the same quantity of water.
2. (2) The Minister may authorize any owner who did not abstract and use water from a public stream before to abstract and use a specific quantity of water by issuing a permit in terms of subsection (2).
3. (3) Alternatively to the issuing of permits in terms of subsections (1) and (2), the Minister may also in terms of subsection (2) authorize the abstraction and use of water from a public stream within a Government water control area by notice in the Gazette.

In terms of section 62(6), a permit issued under section 62 shall attach to the land in respect of which it is issued and shall be available to any successor in title of the person to whom it was issued. As subsection (6) does not, however, contain any reference to a person abstracting and using water on the authority of a notice in the Gazette, the implication is that the limitation of subsection (6) is not applicable to such a person, and the proposed amendment to section 62(6) is therefore designed, inter alia, to rectify this deficiency.

The provisions of subsection (6) are clearly intended to prevent speculation with rights to the use of public water, which could lead to an uneconomic use of water, and this intention is still endorsed today.

It has always been accepted that when a property referred to in subsection (6) is subdivided, the owners of the subdivisions concerned may agree on the division of the permit rights, provided that there is sufficient irrigable land available on each subdivision. Recently, however, doubt arose about the exact meaning of the provisions of the Act concerned, and after legal advice had been taken, it became apparent that the existing interpretation of the provisions was not correct. It appeared that the limitations imposed by subsection (6) actually meant that when a property is subdivided, permit rights may only be divided on a pro rata basis according to the size of each subdivision and that neither the owners nor the Minister have any right of disposal in the matter. It is felt that this position cannot always be reconciled with the approach that public water should not be used uneconomically, and therefore it is furthermore suggested in clause 9(1 )(b) that the matter be put right by affording the owners some right of disposal which will, however, be subject to approval by the Minister, so that an unwarranted deviation from the original aims of section 62(6) of the Act may be prevented. The Select Committee to which this Bill was referred proposed an amendment which provides specifically for land owned by Bantu.

In practice it has been found that a further deviation from the provisions of section 62(6) is still justified. Under the present circumstances it is desirable to consolidate sub-economic units, and modern irrigation methods have proved that it is sometimes more beneficial to concentrate water rights, after consolidation, on one of the original properties. In terms of section 62(6) this is, however, not allowed, and therefore the Bill proposes that limited rights of disposal be granted in such cases. To prevent abuse, it is proposed that such right be valid only in cases where all the properties concerned have the same owner; that the transfer of water from one property to another should not prejudice other owners; and that uneconomic use of water should be avoided. It is proposed that in such cases the owner be allowed by the Minister to use the water rights in respect of any such property or properties on another property or properties, but that the right expire as soon as the properties concerned no longer belong to the same owner. In this way the economic use of water can be promoted without detracting from the aims of section 62(6). To protect the rights of possible buyers, it is also suggested that such an authorization by the Minister and the accompanying conditions be endorsed on the title deeds concerned.

†In clauses 11 and 17 it is proposed that the relevant sections of the Act be amended which preclude a member of an irrigation board from involving himself in an agreement to a value in excess of R100 with the board concerned, unless the prior approval of the Minister has been obtained, and which prohibit a person who is involved in such an agreement, from becoming a member of such board without the Minister’s approval. Apart from the fact that an adjustment of the amount is necessary due to the gradual depreciation in the value of money, the situation where boards have been unable on short notice to procure the services of a secretary, have frequently recurred in the past and boards were compelled to employ the services of their members to attend to the administrative work of the respective boards. The scope thereof is usually of such an extent that the payment of compensation to such a member is warranted, but the prior procurement of approval by the Minister, which is at present a requisite, has had a detrimental effect on the administrative operation of boards and it is proposed that the amount referred to in sections 81 and 99 of the Water Act be increased to R1 000, which will enable boards to utilize the services of their members on a temporary basis without the approval of the Minister.

Past experience indicates that the period of five years referred to in section 121 (1 )(e) of the Act, within which it is incumbent on water boards to repay loans obtained to defray administrative and incidental expenses, is too short and that the presently stipulated period deleteriously affects the financial position of water boards. In clause 19(a) it is therefore proposed to extend the period to a maximum of 10 years.

Section 121 (1)(g) of the Act enables a water board to make a loan not exceeding R200 available to the owner of land which is supplied with water by the board, for the installation thereon of water piping and fittings in connection with the supply of water. This maximum amount of R200 is now inadequate and it is proposed in clause 19(b) that it be raised to R500.

To provide that statutory bodies concerned with the supply and distribution of water are not strictly confined to their areas of jurisdiction, it is proposed in clause 23 that to a limited extent statutory authority to operate outside the limits of their areas be granted. Provision in this connection has become a necessity particularly with a view to the continuation of existing services to homelands after independence until such time as these services can be maintained by the Governments concerned.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this Bill was referred to a Select Committee. I trust, therefore, that there will not be much discussion.

Mr. Speaker, three members of the Official Opposition served on the Select Committee to which this amending Bill was referred. It consists mainly of amendments to adjust the legislation to the metrication of units. Then, too, as a result of rising costs and inflation, there are increases in the cost limits of the works which have to be constructed and which have to be referred to Parliament. In clause 8 there is the increase from R500 000 to R1 million with regard to Government waterworks. In clause 19(c) there is an increase of the advances on waterworks from R150 000 to R200 000. In clause 20 there is an increase with regard to irrigation board schemes from R150 000 to R200 000 and in clause 21 an increase of subsidies from R150 000 to R200 000. There are other adjustments in accordance with present values in clauses 11 and 17. These are mostly adjustments providing for cost increases and changes in value as a result of inflation. There are also amendments that stand on their own. Clause 9(1 )(b), for instance, provides for a water right which is attached to land which is being subdivided or consolidated. We support all these clauses.

The only contentious clauses are those with regard to the increase of fines and imprisonment. It would appear that they are not quite consistent. However, if one considers the increase in the cost of everything, and if one takes into account that water is becoming increasingly scarce and therefore more valuable and that strong action should be taken against water theft, we want to support these amendments, too. Therefore I say on behalf of the Official Opposition that we support this amending Bill in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I served on the Select Committee on this Bill. In the Select Committee I did have reservations concerning the increase in the penalties which may be imposed in terms of this Bill. I had no quarrel with the provisions relating to financial penalties, because these changes merely took into account inflation. However, the imprisonment penalties were increased. I moved amendments in the Select Committee, but these were voted down. It is not my intention to move them again now that the Bill has come before the House. I will merely content myself with expressing grave reservations about the severity of the prison sentences. I believe it is a little too high. Apart from this, we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Bill before us was referred to a Select Committee on which I sat. There we thrashed things out thoroughly and therefore we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further comment to make except to express my sincere thanks to members on the other side of the House for the fact that we have been able to reach agreement and that we have also received a measure of support from the member for Orange Grove, although he expressed his reservations. I think the time has come for him to support something here from time to time. However, I thank him sincerely for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in my speech before the House adjourned last night I brought a few matters with regard to my constituency to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The importance of water for our country is emphasized during a discussion of the Water Affairs Vote. Although its importance has been emphasized over and over again, I do not believe that one can overemphasize it. During the hon. the Prime Minister’s visit to Paraguay in 1975 he said that if it were possible he would like to exchange five goldmines from South Africa for a tenth of Paraguay’s water. The growth of any city, town or area is dependent on the quantity of water available.

We realize that we are fortunate in having been blessed with very good rains during the past two or three seasons. All our storage dams are more than 90% full today. However, we know that we will have droughts again and that the water content of our dams will again sink to 30% or even lower.

The fact that the population growth in South Africa is plus minus 2% per year while the increase in water consumption is calculated at 4,6% per year is very disquieting. At some stage the position will therefore be reached where the supply of water will not be able to meet the demands of the growing population.

We are also aware of the fact that storage dams will in future be much more expensive than those that have already been built. In other words, all our cheap dam schemes—if one can call them cheap—have already been built. Now that our dams are full, we are inclined to use water liberally. I think, however, that it is very important that we adopt the saving of water as a way of life. The position with regard to water is much the same as that with regard to the economy of a country. If everything is going well economically, one is inclined to spend injudiciously. When conditions become more difficult, it is also more difficult to economize.

What I am really trying to say is that everyone in this country should realize that water cannot be used to an unlimited extent in this country. Everyone should realize that we have to use our water judiciously because if we do not do that, we will have great problems in future, due to a shortage of water.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Winburg when he mentioned the very important role water played in South Africa and would play in future. One can draw the clear inference that South Africa will never have a surplus of water at its disposal. Where the hon. member for Winburg addressed an appeal to the water consumer, I should like to state that more discipline will have to be exercised by every consumer. That applies to the city dweller as well as the industrialist and the farmer. We shall have to make it our object to consume and to utilize water in the most profitable manner. This being so—other hon. members, too, make this very clear and produced other facts—I want to appeal to the Department of Water Affairs to draw even more attention to this matter by means of its publicity section.

The public should be kept fully informed in this regard at all times. We have appreciation for the efforts of the department’s publicity section. I am referring, inter alia, to all the inquiries to which it replies, inquiries which also bring the activities of the department to the attention of the public. This is essential, because there are still many people who do not realize the comprehensive nature of the department. We also have appreciation for the manner in which the department liaises with the Press and for the talks given from time to time on the programme “Landbouradio” as well as for the documentary films, the exhibitions, the pamphlets and the brochures.

I do not believe, however, that the position can be improved solely by means of the dissemination of information. I want to advocate that we continue conducting an intensive programme of research for complementing the resources we have at our disposal. For that reason I should like to endorse fully the point of view expressed by the Secretary for Water Affairs when he said—

Here the Secretary is placing the emphasis on research connected with this stimulation of rainfall and the desalination of sea and brackish water. I know that the latter is an extremely expensive process, but it has tremendous possibilities for the future.

Mr. Chairman, because I represent an irrigation area, I, too, should like to say a few words on irrigation. Allow me, in the first place, to record the sincere gratitude of the voters of the Oudtshoorn district because we now have for the first time in many years, four dams at our disposal of which two are full and the remaining two virtually full. This area has just passed through a period of very serious drought and now for the first time the farmers in this area have fine prospects. I should also like to express my sincere appreciation on behalf of the farmers of the Klein Karoo, of the Oudtshoorn district, to the Department of Water Affairs and specifically to the present hon. Minister, his predecessor and the Secretary, for the Kamanassie Irrigation Scheme proclaimed as far back as 1917. It is probably one of the oldest irrigation districts in South Africa. It serves an area of 11 000 hectare.

Down the years, however, we have been making do with a canal system which has been giving rise to a loss of from 60% to 70% of the water. I am very grateful for the fact that this matter was tackled two or three years ago and that connecting canals are being constructed at a cost of approximately R5 million and will possibly be completed within a year, as a result of which the loss of from 60% to 70% of the water from the Olifants River—we have had to use the river bed—will be eliminated. Sir, I can give you my assurance that the farmers of the Oudtshoorn district are sincerely grateful to the Department of Water Affairs for this fine effort on their part to come to the aid of the farmers in the area.

I want to conclude by also expressing my appreciation this morning for the statement made by Dr. Kriel, the Secretary, last year. He said irrigation was one of the oldest uses of water. In the past it was regarded as the field of the hydraulic engineer. It is only relatively recently that it has also become part of hydrology as agricultural-scientific principles of irrigation started receiving more and more attention. It is right that we should irrigate in an agricultural-scientific way. Yesterday the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to the fact that farmers readily wasted water. In the past the farmer did not always know the scientific methods of using water correctly. If we can give more and more attention to this matter, if the farmer can be informed and if these scientific methods can be employed, the farmer, too, will be placed in a position to utilize and save water correctly. I can give this House my assurance that the farmers do want to make a contribution in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, since thirteen members have taken part in the debate up to now, I think that this is an appropriate moment for me to furnish certain information to the House which I regard as very important, also in the light of the discussion which has been taking place up to now.

We are living in a time of relative abundance as far as water is concerned. We have more water in the darns at the moment than ever before. I was able to say this last year as well, but this year we have even more water because we have more dams. I am thinking in particular of the P.K. le Roux Dam, which is more than 80% full already and in which a large quantity of water can be stored. Under these circumstances, however, we are inclined to take water for granted. The hon. member for Benoni and others have referred to this. If hon. members would only look about them in the House, they would realize that even this debate could not take its normal course without water. Nevertheless, we are inclined to assume that water should be available at the turn of a tap. The electric lighting in this House is also dependent on the availability of water.

Having been responsible for the Department of Water Affairs for a year now, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity, as other hon. members have done, to express my appreciation to the department for its great achievements in the past year. This is a department which has to contend with a wide variety of problems. In referring to their great achievements, I do not mean to imply that they have never made any mistakes, for one does come across legitimate criticism from time to time. Nevertheless, I want to associate myself with the hon. members who have expressed their appreciation to Dr. Kriel and the staff of the department for the great service which they render to the country.

We still have staff problems. One of the hon. members has already referred to this. We did not attract the number of students this year which we had hoped to attract. However, I trust that this is a temporary decline and that we shall attract more students in the future. The private sector says that it is having a very difficult time, so I cannot understand that although we make a large number of bursaries available, only a small number of bursaries— only 30 this year—are awarded to students. We hope that this situation will improve in the future. I want to point out that the position regarding engineers has improved considerably through the employment of additional graduates. However, there are still certain categories in which there are considerable shortages.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a number of cardinal problems before the discussion is taken any further. The first is the question of future financing. As far back as 1969, the Commission of Inquiry into Water Matters estimated that it would be necessary, in terms of the values at that time, to spend approximately R8 000 million on water schemes up to the year 2000. Because of the inflation since then, the required expenditure at present values will amount to approximately R14 000 million. This means that much more will have to be spent every year than is being made available and can be made available by the State and other bodies at the moment. The danger exists that a serious backlog, which will be difficult to make up, may arise if the annual financial provision has to be kept at its present restricted level for a long time. This is one of the major reasons why the consumers of water must be prepared to give their financial support to the provision of water by paying for it. Most cheaper water development possibilities have already been exploited and we are now being forced to build much more expensive schemes. In addition, water has to be conveyed over longer distances.

The commission of inquiry found the following, inter alia—

In recommendation 38, the commission said the following—

Further to this recommendation, I just want to mention that they said that the unit prices should also be scheme-related. The commission went on to say—

I specifically bring this matter to the attention of the Committee because representations are continually being made to me to the effect that water is now becoming too expensive. Recommendation 38 of the commission goes on to say—

1. (ii) That water rates on new irrigation schemes cover the full running costs as well as a percentage of the interest and redemption costs, bearing in mind the share of capital costs of the scheme recoverable through raised land prices in accordance with recommendation 44(vi).
2. (iii) That in so far as consistent with socio-economic conditions, the water rates on existing Government irrigation schemes be gradually raised to cover at least the operating costs.

In the light of this I want to mention what has been happening in the implementation of the price policy. Government water rates on Government irrigation schemes have been systematically increased since 1970-’71. On 10 of the older schemes, the annual rates have been increased, on an average, from R4,83 per ha in 1970-’71 to R19,72 in 1976-’77, which amounts to an average increase of 308% over this period. On 45 schemes, R307 550 was collected in 1966-’67, while in 1975-’76, 55 schemes brought in R1 009 100. However, there is a tremendous problem as far as this matter is concerned: The operating and maintenance costs of State irrigation schemes amounted to R1 302 370 for 45 existing schemes in 1966-’67, and these operating and maintenance costs increased to R6 032 200 for 55 schemes in 1975-’76. The proportion of the operating and maintenance costs covered from revenue was 48% for the main irrigation schemes in 1946, 31% for 45 schemes in 1966-’67 and 29% for 55 schemes in 1975-’76. In other words, in spite of the fact that water rates have been increased, we have still not succeeded in recovering the operating costs.

From the above facts it is clear, therefore—I do not want to go into any further details; I am trying to be as brief as possible—that at the present value of money, the Government water rates on Government irrigation schemes will have to be increased by a further 300% in the future if we are to recover at least the annual operating and maintenance costs of the scheme. It is important for us to realize that water is becoming more expensive and that people who use it will have to pay more for it. The rates will have to be further increased if the irrigators are also to make a contribution to the partial redemption of the capital cost of the schemes involved, which amounts to R230 million at the moment.

Although an attempt will be made in the national interest eventually to recover the full annual operating and maintenance cost of irrigation schemes by means of increased water rates, the ideal is to make the normal statutory subsidy of 33⅓% on waterworks to be constructed for irrigation purposes applicable to the capital cost of our Government schemes as well. I think this is an important approach. I have seen rivers where there is a Government scheme on the one bank of the river, while an irrigation board is in control of the opposite bank. The Government provides water to the irrigation scheme at a much lower tariff than the irrigation board has to charge. Consequently the irrigation boards want to be taken over by the Government as well. In some respects, according to calculations that have been made, the Department of Water Affairs has spent more on welfare—by means of this disguised subsidy on water—than the Department of Social Welfare has spent on certain people. We shall have to start realizing that although the Department of Water Affairs had a welfare commitment in the past, it can no longer assist people by bearing a part of the cost of water supply. Everyone who uses water will have to learn to make the best use of it. This applies to our farmers in particular. Furthermore, people will have to learn to pay for water what it is worth.

I mention this because it is quite clear that the department can no longer take this money from the taxpayer’s pocket, and that the consumer of water will therefore have to contribute his share to the future cost of water supply.

Regarding the urban industrial and mining sectors, I just want to mention that certain recommendations were made in their case as well. It was recommended that those sectors bear the full cost of their own water consumption and that no artificial lowering of prices to industries and to other urban consumers be sponsored by the department, the local authorities and by other distributors. These recommendations will certainly be applied consistently. I have the tables referring to the increase in water prices. However, I do not want to go into this in detail. I only wanted to draw to the attention of members very urgently the problem of water supply in the future and the cost it will entail.

Furthermore, I want to refer briefly to the establishment and integration of the new geo-hydrology division of the Department of Water Affairs. I find it gratifying that the geological survey division of the Department of Mining has transferred its ground-water section to the Department of Water Affairs. This happened at the beginning of this year. This resulted in the establishment of a new division in the Department of Water Affairs. This is the geo-hydrology division, which has been created from the geological survey division, together with departmental staff from the hydrology divisions, people who are concerned with ground-water themselves.

The functions of the new division involve a full survey of our ground-water resources, the determination of their potential yield, and how and where they can best be developed. I do not want to elaborate on this any further. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a very important step forward in the interests of investigating and utilizing our water resources. I therefore trust that this division will render very valuable service to the department in the future.

Furthermore, I want to refer very briefly to hon. members’ speeches. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South apologized on behalf of the hon. member for Mooi River, who is unable to be here. The hon. member has given me his regards. I thank him for that. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred for the most part to research, to the cost this entails and to certain White Papers. Allow me to make just one remark in connection with the redemption period. The indicated life of certain enterprises is 45 years. For that reason I believe it is correct that the redemption should take place over a period of 45 years. The hon. member expressed his misgivings about this. In his opinion, the period may be too long. However, as far as I know, this is the life which is forecast for such a scheme.

Mr. Speaker, how is one to understand this? According to the White Paper, only 45% of the cost will have been redeemed after 45 years. What becomes of the remaining 55%? When is that redeemed?

Of course, there is also a subsidy applicable. When the subsidy of 33⅓% is deducted, however, the redemption of 45 years relates to the remaining amount.

As far as the constant increases are concerned, it is a pity that this should be so. However, it is very difficult to determine things in advance, and on top of that, we are living in a period in which there is a tremendous escalation of costs. The hon. member also referred to research, and in this connection I want to say that it is a great pity that we do not always get the publicity we ought to get for these very vital problems. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn also mentioned the fact that we do have proper liaison and so forth. In this connection I just want to mention that an international congress began in Johannesburg on Monday. It is still in progress and it will probably end today. Several countries are represented there. Dr. Stander, the chairman of the Water Research Commission, was the chairman of this international body until recently. Because he has rendered a great service in this connection over the years, he is held in great esteem at this conference, which is mainly devoted to the reclamation and the pollution of water, the re-use of water, and so forth. This is a very interesting subject and various countries are taking part in the discussion. If hon. members had read about this in the newspapers or heard about it on the radio, they might have mentioned it. I did not have time to check whether it had been reported in all the media.

In any event, this very important international conference took place this week. I was there and I made the opening speech. Apparently the Press did not consider it important enough. I find that a pity. I want to appeal to the Press to give it proper coverage in the light of the problems we have with water and the important role which South Africa plays in connection with water research—the hon. member referred to this. We presented this conference together with Israel. As far as the reclamation of water is concerned, South Africa is one of the foremost countries in the world, if not the leading country. We make a tremendous contribution. Unfortunately, this kind of information is not easily made available. I mention this in consequence of what the hon. member said. I cannot go into the matter in detail. However, I may just add that our engineers are continually going on overseas visits and we try to keep pace with developments wherever possible. I think they are held in esteem and they keep pace with research all over the world.

The hon. member for Piketberg made a few interesting statements. I just want to refer briefly to the potential of the Olifants River to which the hon. member referred. Of course, it has a fine potential. That river is already very productive, but unfortunately that community has an advantage over other areas. Where further expansion may take place in the future, the danger exists that the land which is situated further away from the river and which can be irrigated to good effect may be affected by the build-up of salt and that this may lead to brackish conditions. We shall have to examine this matter very carefully. But there certainly is potential. The water is there, but that area may have to wait for a while because of the extremely heavy programme. The hon. member also referred to the Aspoort scheme. This is a scheme which does have possibilities. But in the light of the present priorities, we shall not write it off as the hon. member said, but we shall keep it in mind. As he said, this is not a densely populated area. We must first give attention to the areas in which there is a large concentration of people. To me this is a priority. With the limited amount of money we have, we must not develop schemes in a completely new area to which one has to attract people. Stability must be given to those areas which have already been developed and which already have a population and an infrastructure. We must not allow existing areas to suffer because we want to start schemes in new areas. But I suppose the last word has not been spoken about the Aspoort scheme. We shall hear of it again in the future.

I want to thank the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet for his positive contribution. He referred to the annual report and he asked for liaison as far as the use of ground-water is concerned. I do not know whether this is quite practical, but with reference to what he said in connection with the ground-water section and the strengthening of this section, I think that we will make very good progress.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the canal from the Kunene would pass right through the middle of Etosha. I want to inform him, however, that this matter has been dealt with several times before and that assurances were given in this connection by my predecessor. An assurance was even given by the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. He therefore appears not to be fully informed.

*I do not want to elaborate on the matter, except to tell the hon. member that the canal will not pass through the middle of Etosha. It will pass through a small comer on the south-western side. Before a final decision is taken on this—the matter has not been finally decided yet—conservationists will be consulted about the best methods to be used, as my predecessor promised. The hon. member spoke as if R50 million were nothing, but since we already have a shortage of money, R50 million is a large amount. We shall consult the conservationists in connection with this matter. I want to point out to the hon. member that certain developments are taking place in South West Africa at the moment. What I have undertaken to do I will do as far as I am able. However, if the territory becomes independent, he will have to speak to new authorities.

†The hon. member also referred to my department’s report being late. I have the assurance that next year’s report will be submitted timeously. As I mentioned last year, the Secretary took the blame for it as he wanted to incorporate certain information in the report. Unfortunately he could not find the time and he accordingly held it back.

*In this connection I want to assure the Secretary that we speak of him with great praise and that we hold him in great esteem as a scientist and as an administrator. However, I think that he is trying to do too much himself. Therefore I shall have to go into the matter with him. He must not try to do too much himself. He must delegate more. Otherwise this kind of problem arises. I have already spoken to him and I do not think he will take it amiss of me if I mention it here in public, because we have very competent people who can assist him in this connection.

I want to refer very briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Brits. He referred to the problem of water hyacinths. I furnished some information in this connection this morning as well in reply to a question. I should like to elaborate on the matter by saying that this is a tremendous problem. However, it is not affecting the Department of Water Affairs or the quality of water. As a result of the enrichment of the water of the Hartbeespoort Dam by the addition of phosphates and nitrates in the effluent from the catchment area, these plants are multiplying very rapidly. This causes the plants to exhaust some of the nutrients, and this prevents algae from multiplying in the dam. The only disadvantage this has for the department is that more water may be used through transpiration than would be lost through evaporation. However, we have no wish to shrug off the problem by saying that it is no problem at all, as is alleged in some circles. It is true that it is no problem for us, but it is a problem for the man who wants to relax on the dam and who wants to go fishing there, as well as for the nature-lover. For the functioning of the Department of Water Affairs, however, it is not really a problem. If we were to remove the plants, we should have problems with algae which might clog the sluices. As I have indicated, we are working together. I visited the Bon Accord Dam last year. This is a dam of the local irrigation board and it is completely overgrown with water hyacinths. There is no easy solution. We get a lot of advice in connection with the problem. Recently a lady living outside Cape Town wrote to me that her son had turned up with a truck full of water hyacinths. He told her: “Mom, I brought you some fine flowers for your little dam.” When she went out and saw that they were water hyacinths, she did not want to offend him, so she told him to put them in the dam. She wondered what she was going to do with the stuff. However, she had a few ducks on the dam and when she got there three days later, she found that the ducks had eaten all the water hyacinths. She also told me where she had bought the ducks, where we could get the ducks. This is a very laudable idea, and I think it may have some merit. Some private individual may try to start breeding ducks at the Bon Accord Dam or at the Hartbeespoort Dam so that we may get rid of those hyacinths. In my opinion, biological control is the obvious method. However, this is a problem which occurs all over the world. Hyacinths are actually very interesting. Quite a number of articles have appeared on the subject over the past year, especially in America. The information indicates that hyacinths are used for water purification. Instead of the conventional sewage purification methods, one can use water hyacinths to purify the water.

To the hon. member for Brits I can only say, however, that we are continuing the research work, as I indicated in reply to the question this morning. I hope that we shall be successful. As I have said, this is a problem which occurs all over the world, and we are trying to obtain information from all kinds of sources.

I now want to refer very briefly to the hon. member for De Aar. He referred to the irrigation areas there and asked for further research and investigation in respect of the left bank. Attention will be given to this. I have already dealt with the question of bursaries which he touched on.

Now I come to the hon. member for Benoni. He referred to ground-water. His was a fine approach. He said that perhaps we did not realize the value of water.

†He said that we took the supply of water for granted. Those were the words he used. I referred to the same aspect at the beginning of my speech.

*It is very important, of course, that we bring home to people the fact that water is not easily obtainable, as I have already indicated. He also asked for a balance sheet of our water position to be made available. I think it has been published and made available. I think it is also set out very clearly in the annual report. But perhaps we can bring it home more forcibly to our people in a different form. I have spoken to the Secretary about the idea of producing a special publication once every 10 years, setting out the position as a whole as well as the planning of the department for dealing with our water problem. He also referred to ground-water on the Cape Flats. The water which has been found there will be able to satisfy the increased consumption for only about four years. Therefore it is in fact valuable, but there is not a very great deal of it. At Richards Bay, the situation is still being investigated. The hon. member also spoke of the Loerie Dam and the flood-water which overflowed the dam.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister indicate what the problems are at Richards Bay and why we cannot deal with those problems ourselves? I am referring to the reclamation of the water flowing into the sea under the dunes.

The sand which is found there is very fine. It is much more difficult to extract the water from it than in the case of the Cape Flats. That is the main problem. However, the total extent of the water supply there has not yet been ascertained. We are doing further research there regarding the quantity of water which is available as well as its extraction. However, extraction is not so easy because the sand is so fine and the water moves very slowly. As far as the Loerie Dam is concerned, I have received a full report on this from the department. The rainfall in certain parts of the Eastern Cape is exceptionally high, higher, in fact, than the department normally accepts as the standard. Steps will now be taken to make the dam safer after the very heavy rainfall this year, when the water washed over the earthen sections of the dam.

I want to conclude for the present, but first I want to refer very briefly to the very interesting and informative speech made by the hon. member for Meyerton, in which he described the role of water in very special terms. It is particularly interesting to learn that a person who drinks whisky will spend R14 200 on whisky over 50 years and that the water he adds to it will cost only R50. An hon. member has now suggested that one should rather drink the whisky neat and save the R50! Our philosophy for the future will have to be different, so that we may save some of the R14 200 and invest more in water. I thank the hon. member for a very informative speech.

As far as international waters are concerned, there is the Helsinki agreement, which serves as a basis. It is being applied. He also mentioned the Limpopo and asked that we should perhaps consider trading water for food in the future. I just want to mention in this connection that we do have liaison with these other adjoining territories, but that I do not consider it to be satisfactory. I was in Lesotho last year. I discussed the matter with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we must have further talks with our neighbouring States and we must enter into agreements concerning water, because I think this is in the interests of everyone. In some cases, we can use some of the water and they, especially Lesotho, can derive financial advantage from it. It is a pity that these people have not yet made use of this. I think that the original scheme, the so-called Oxbow scheme, should now be greatly expanded, and we should like to investigate the matter. This is all we want. However, we are now waiting for them, and we have been waiting for a year. We hope there will be some reaction sooner or later.

As regards the division of water between the homelands and the rest of the Republic, I want to say that an interdepartmental committee was appointed by my predecessor a number of years ago. I was also involved in the appointment of this committee when I was the Deputy Minister of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. We hope to get the report at the end of the year. So we are hoping to reach an agreement there in this connection on the basis of the Helsinki agreement and in accordance with some other guidelines that have been laid down. So this matter has received proper attention. I shall leave it at that for the moment. I may come back to this question of agreements and the division of water if I have an opportunity at a later stage.

I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister how much I appreciated his comments, especially in respect of the rising cost of construction, conservation of water storage projects and also the rising cost of operating these large schemes. I would, however, like to put to him that a possible solution to these problems must surely lie in the degree of expertise of those people who are planning these schemes, both from a technological point of view and also from the financial point of view. This means that there has to be a greater emphasis on research, and it is in this direction that I would like to address myself to this hon. House and the hon. the Minister.

I would like to say at the outset that I was most impressed with the annual report of the Water Research Commission. I found this an extremely interesting document to read, particularly with the recent research work that has been conducted into surface hydrology. One of the major design problems which has been experienced by civil engineers in the past has been the problem of assembling really reliable and relevant data, especially data concerning meteorological information as well as the hydrological parameters with which the engineer and the scientist must work for the construction or design of a particular project. For each watershed area these parameters include such items as the climatic conditions and the precipitation rates as well as the topographical formation, soil types and land use, etc., all of which affect the rate of run-off, the amount of run-off, the time of concentration of flood-waters at any critical or vulnerable point in the water’s flow to the sea and also such things as the storage capacity of dams and the flow capacity of water courses. All this information is vital to the civil engineer if accuracy is to be achieved in the design of these projects. Not only is accuracy important, but also economy has to be achieved in the design of these projects such as of dams, flood-control structures, bridges, etc. It is also extremely vital to the town-planner, who must ensure in his design of townships that there is adequate drainage and an adequate water supply for both domestic and industrial use.

In the distant past and in recent times we have seen the consequences of not having sufficient background information and data in respect of the design of projects. We will all recall the disastrous floods in Natal in 1959 when some recently completed bridges were knocked down by the flood waters as they reached the coastal area. One bridge was at Illovo. We found that even after it had been repaired it was again knocked down by the floods which occurred as recently as last year. We heard yesterday how the Loerie Dam at Port Elizabeth was only saved by the rains stopping 20 minutes before the dam would actually burst. We see the results of inadequate planning in areas such as Tin Town, and occasionally we see what happens when the Orange River goes into full spate.

I do believe that we need this information as far as our design engineers are concerned. Given the time, this information and the money, which is now becoming increasingly hard to get, I believe that we can harness the rainfall which runs off our land each year. I believe we can store, control and use it to the benefit of all our people. However, in order to do this, it is essential for the engineer and the scientist to have reliable data. I repeat, therefore, that the research which is being conducted by the Water Research Commission is to my mind extremely important, especially in the field of surface hydrology and also in the use of the computer, which we now see is gaining favour with the department. I believe all of us in the House must commend the department and support this particular work.

In its report the commission states that it is receiving some help from universities such as Rhodes, Natal and Zululand. At these universities valuable work is being done in the study of hydrology of certain small catchment areas. This information, coupled with the data which the department has been collecting from nearly 800 stream gauges and also with other data which is being collected from topographical, meteorological, agronomic, soil and land use studies which are being done throughout the country, is providing South Africa with a wealth of very valuable data, which can now be processed by the computer which the commission has for use by the engineer and the scientist.

I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this, but the commission is working towards the development of a mathematical model for any watershed. In other words, by using the computer and the vast storehouse of information which is now being fed into the computer, a mathematical model of any watershed throughout South Africa can be simulated to provide the engineer, the agronomist, the forester and the town-planner with the essential data required for sound planning and design. Therefore I believe the commission must be congratulated on this work and must be encouraged to proceed further in the interests of South Africa with regard to its long-term future. It must also further the interests of Southern Africa, because the information which is now being accumulated can easily be applied to other neighbouring countries in the sub-continent. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that the amount of money which has been spent on this research has been increased from R121 000, just five years ago, to R4,3 million. However, to my mind that is not an important factor. I believe the benefits which are to be derived from this type of expenditure are enormous. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could ask the Secretary for Water Affairs whether it will be possible to prepare for the members of the Select Committee a suitable paper which would explain to them this surface hydrology research, particularly in respect of the development of a mathematically simulated watershed model. The hon. member for Mooi River asked me particularly to ask the hon. the Minister whether this would be possible. He also asked whether it would be possible for the department to organize a seminar for all members at which this subject could be discussed.

While this type of research work into the technical aspects of the construction of water schemes will greatly assist the engineers and designers of such projects, there is another important area of study and research, to which I think the hon. the Minister himself has referred, viz. the economic viability of projects. This was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. These large water-storage projects are extremely expensive. Such a scheme has now been proposed for the Crocodile River and it is estimated that it will cost approximately R34 million. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that the resultant rate charged for water will be economical in that area. It it stated in the White Paper that some 20 000 ha will be available for irrigation. I am aware that about half of this has probably been developed already, using water that is pumped straight out of the river or led off by means of a weir. However, I believe that the cost of this development has already reached approximately R100 million. That is the total cost, which takes into account the development of the land, the sugar mills, the processing factories, etc. This is therefore an enormous investment. In order to complete the dam as proposed, I would envisage that there is going to be at least another R100 million invested at all levels of the scheme over the next few years. It is important, therefore, that the supply of water should be economical in respect of the crop that is being produced. The White Paper states that the water tariff will be between R30 and R40 per hectare. This is for the irrigation of sugar cane. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister once again whether he can assure the House that these projects will be economically viable with water costing that amount. It is for this reason that I ask him whether he will ask his department and especially the Water Research Commission whether they could feed into their computer the relevant data to see whether a mathematical model could be developed to test the economic viability of such projects. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters that I should like to raise. Firstly, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the fact that a considerable amount is being made available in the Estimates for the raising of the wall of the Kalkfontein Dam. I believe work will commence shortly if it has not already commenced. During the recent floods the local people experienced anxious moments and sand bags had to be placed on top of the wall.

Secondly, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the completion of the P. K. le Roux Dam. My sincere thanks go to the Department for having been able to complete it at such a relatively cheap price. It was much cheaper than it would have been had any private contractor done the work. I think the amount came to approximately R11 million. A group of young men put their shoulders to the wheel and completed the job within a short space of time. We congratulate them on that.

Sir, there are certain things that worry me as regards irrigation and the canals downstream from the P. K. le Roux Dam. This is a very expensive scheme. Up to now approximately R490 million has been spent on the Orange River project. That is a lot of money. Now, irrigation downstream from the P. K. le Roux Dam is extremely important. Water used to be the cheapest commodity in agricultural production. Today it is possibly the most expensive, and, relatively speaking, the scarcest commodity. Consequently our endeavour should not be to see what our production can be per unit of land, but what it can be per unit of water. That should be our object.

To attain this object, we need two things: Exceptional irrigation practices, and exceptional managerial practices. A great deal of research has been undertaken in this regard, inter alia by the Water Research Commission, and this has given rise to the position that in future irrigation will develop into an extremely specialized industry practised by the most knowledgeable entrepreneurs. Irrigation water will have to be used in a production pattern with greatly improved and adopted varieties so that these, supplemented with judicious fertilizing, efficient systems of crop rotation, land cultivation, and well-executed, sustained insect control programmes, may give the highest yield. To enable irrigation farmers to produce the maximum yield per unit, the necessary technical knowledge has to be made available. That is what is worrying me with regard to the scheme. Mr. Chairman, you may say that this falls under Agricultural Technical Services and you may be right, but the Departments of Water Affairs and Agricultural Technical Services are so closely linked in this case that I may as well address myself to this hon. the Minister in this regard. I am worried because the necessary technical information is not available there at this stage.

I have already drawn the attention of this House to the value of water. If I make a small sum, there is one thing which is even scarcer than water in that area at this stage, and that is money. Stands in the area sell at approximately R25 000, which is very cheap. Then the owner has to install water and electricity connections, which will cost approximately R10 000. This already makes it R35 000. Then, and this is my biggest worry, there is a specific condition that sprinkler irrigation is to be used. I have ascertained that a sprinkler irrigation system for that scheme will cost R35 000 or more, even R40 000.

The prospective farmer is still without a house. For a further R20 000 the prospective farmer can build a house with outbuildings, but it will not be a house which may be described as being luxurious. This gives one a total of R90 000 and still the prospective farmer will not have a tractor, a plough or anything of that kind. Therefore, if a prospective farmer has to meet all these requirements, it will cost him a minimum of from R105 000 to R110 000 before he can start farming.

To my mind that places a query against the economic possibilities of those stands. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: On what can we cut down? It is logical that the only thing one can eliminate, is the sprinkler irrigation system of R40 000. I know there is good reason to recommend that farmers use the sprinkler irrigation system. It will use less water and will help preventing future mineralization, but seeing that it has not been determined as yet what will be the best crops to cultivate on those stands—it will probably be wheat, but future wheat prices do not look very promising—I want to ask again whether it is essential and right to insist at this stage on the requirement of a sprinkler irrigation system. I should like the hon. the Minister and his department to consider this matter. Water is very scarce and will become scarcer in future. The hon. member for Winburg has just said that we are not going to have enough water to drink in future. I accept that, but at the moment there is one thing that is scarcer than water, and that is money. That is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, as a brief reference to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith, I just want to remark in passing that whereas we have time and again been conducting investigations in the past into new and bigger water schemes for the irrigation of agricultural land, we may have been neglecting the matter of paying more attention to tried and proven agricultural irrigation areas.

One of the biggest problems I have been experiencing since my coming to Parliament, is one I inherited from my two predecessors in this House; not because they left me any problems, but because they set such a good example as members of Parliament in the area I now represent. One of these predecessors—it is gratifying to me to be able to say this—is the present hon. Minister of Water Affairs who represented that extremely important irrigation area forming part of my constituency in such an outstanding way in the past. Indeed, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs knows the Barberton district and its problems like the back of his hand. It gives me great pleasure to be able to thank the hon. the Minister and his department today for the latest White Paper with regard to the proposed Government water scheme in the Crocodile River and in the Kaap River.

The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that when the previous White Paper on the construction of a dam on the Crocodile River at Sterkspruit was tabled—the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the dam, but apparently he had consulted the previous White Paper and not the new one which replaced it—there were reservations, particularly in the lower parts of my constituency situated along the lower reaches of the Crocodile River that the proposed dam, which was to cost R34 million, would not meet their needs. However, I am grateful to be able to say that this matter was re-investigated in consequence of the representations that had been made and by the good offices of the hon. the Minister.

The new proposed scheme, at a lower cost of R25 million, will do as much and probably even more than the previous proposed scheme would have done; so much so that when the two proposed dams, i.e. the one at Sterkstroom and the one at Mountain View, are completed, it will be possible to make provision for the irrigation of an additional 10 000 ha of land in the district of Barberton. The scope and the importance of this development, not only to my constituency, but to the country as a whole, are such that one cannot praise it sufficiently.

What is important, however, is that although the establishment of a sugar industry in that area has had a great stabilizing effect on irrigation farming, we have lately come up against the problem that the existing, established sugar mill does not always have the necessary capacity to accommodate the existing production of sugar cane. In this regard representations were made to the body which established the sugar mill, for the erection of a second sugar mill, but they are not prepared to erect it until such time as they have the assurance that the cultivation of sugar cane will be such to justify a second mill. Therefore the position at the moment is that as soon as the new scheme has been completed and the additional 10 000 ha of land has been placed under irrigation, the erection of a second sugar mill on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River will be justified. That will be of tremendous benefit to our country in general and to my constituency in particular.

In recent times, however, we have been experiencing a particular problem in the area along the lower reaches of the Crocodile River. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that when the river was placed under Government control and the consumption of water came under Government control, the granting of permits awarded to irrigation farmers, was based on the land cultivated and under irrigation at that time. Land which could be irrigated but was not under irrigation at that stage, was not taken into account. We have had repeated requests from our farmers— people who have tamed and developed a region by their private initiative and their own diligence into a jewel in South Africa—that the department re-investigate the granting of permits and not to wait until the proposed scheme has been completed. Consequently I should like to address an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to conduct an investigation into this aspect with all despatch, if at all possible. I have more than sufficient reason to suspect that much of the irrigation taking place along the lower reaches of the Crocodile River at this moment, is taking place without the necessary permits having been issued. I have reason to suspect that this is so. While we do not experience any water problems in that area for most of the year, and sometimes even have surpluses of water, and while our only problem is the stabilizing of the river during the critical winter months and early spring, I am nevertheless of the opinion that it is possible for the department to conduct a proper investigation even at this stage into the real needs which will arise and into the possibility for a more equitable granting of permits, especially to the riparian farmers on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River.

In conclusion I want to mention that an idea occurred to farmers on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River that, in addition to these schemes now being proposed—schemes for which we are very grateful—the construction of a weir on the lower Crocodile River will be of tremendous additional benefit as regards the real stabilization of the river. I believe the department is investigating the matter at present. Therefore I want to address a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to see to it that the investigation is completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton concentrated on matters affecting his constituency. It is right and proper for him to have done so. However, I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of liaison between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Water Affairs.

The activities of the said two departments are so interwoven and there is such a measure of overlapping that one cannot help wondering whether the division of the activities is correct and whether the liaison between the two departments is as it should be. By way of illustration I just want to mention that the Department of Water Affairs controls, in addition to water affairs, Government drills and subsidies on boreholes for stock-watering places. The department also controls subsidies on windmills for stock-watering places and in some cases also subsidies on dams for providing stock-watering places. On the other hand the Department of Agriculture, of course, controls soil conservation and veld control.

The basis of soil conservation and veld control is, of course, the restriction of the number of livestock on a particular pasture. For this purpose the farmer needs camps. The veld in certain camps has to rest during certain periods. To have livestock grazing in camps, one has to have an adequate supply of water for each camp. There must be water for the sheep to drink. As I have already indicated, subsidies on boreholes and on stock-watering places are controlled by the Department of Water Affairs. So what happens in practice? The Department of Agriculture has its extension officers. They are relatively well-distributed. In the Karoo, for example, there is an extension officer at De Aar, as well as one at Middelburg, one at Graaff-Reinet and one, I think, at Victoria West.

The extension officers plan farms in conjunction with the soil-conservation committees and they draw up grazing schemes to be followed by the farmers. What happens then? After he has studied the nature of the veld concerned and has recommended where wire fences have to be erected, and where camps are to be situated, surely it is the most natural thing to expect that the extension officer should be able to indicate at once where a borehole is to be sunk. In addition he should be able to approve the sinking of a borehole and should be able to conclude the whole matter there and then. He could instruct the farmer to sink the borehole and in this way the whole transaction could be concluded. But what happens in practice? After the extension officers have recommended the fences and have taken up a whole lot of time, the farmer has to go to another department. Now he first has to approach the Department of Water Affairs to apply for permission to sink the borehole.

That is right. They deal with water.

The hon. member says: “That is right, they deal with water.” But does he know what happens then? First the farmer has to go to the magistrate and obtain an application form for completion from him.

Naturally!

That only goes to show how little the hon. member knows. Those hon. members have never seen what happens in their constituencies in practice. If they would stop frequenting the snooker room, they would know what was going on in their constituencies. Nine times out of ten, if not ten times out of ten, the magistrate does not have an application form. If the farmer lives in Richmond, De Aar or Philipstown, he has to write to Somerset East for an application form; if not, he has to write to Pretoria for an application form. The Post Office being what it is today and the Railways being what it is today, it takes a week for the letter to arrive there. Then it takes a few weeks before the farmer receives a reply from the Department of Water Affairs. When he receives the letter, he first has to fill in the form. Then he has to see a commissioner of oaths and afterwards the letter has to be mailed to Pretoria. When the letter arrives in Pretoria, the chances are ten to one that the department finds some technical fault. Then the whole lot is returned to the farmer.

In the meantime the farmer has found a driller and he has hired people to erect his fences. Eventually the drilling machine leaves and he has to sit and wait. After the farmer has received permission to proceed, he first has to telephone the boring inspector in Somerset East When he has finally managed to get hold of him, he first has to give his approval. Only then can the farmer start drilling. After all this red tape and trouble that poor farmer who was a man before inspired—he wanted to improve his veld and he wanted to farm—is so despondent that he abandons the whole thing.

Is it unreasonable to ask that the extension officer dealing with this thing, should be able to conclude the matter? Cannot the Department of Water Affairs surrender that function to the Department of Agriculture? It is only logical. Cannot the extension officer do that work for the Department of Water Affairs? Must every Minister cling to his little empire, or should he work to the advantage of the country? The extension officer is paid by the same people; his salary also comes from the State coffers.

There is yet another anomaly. What I have been dealing with up to now only applies to stock-watering places. The farmers can never exhaust the water resources of South Africa by erecting stock-watering places. The farmer only needs 1 000 gallons of water per day for 1 000 sheep. That is a trickle as thick as my little finger because 1 000 gallons per day is only 40 gallons per hour. I now come to the other peculiarity. When it comes to boreholes for turbines which pump from 10 000 to 20 000 gallons per hour—that is 240 000 gallons per day—and virtually exhausts subterranean water resources there is no control over them. The Department of Water Affairs has no control over that. Do hon. members know under whom such control falls, although they do not exercise it? It falls under the Department of Agriculture.

The only thing the Department of Agriculture does, is to tell farmers whether they may clear more lands. They see whether the contour walls are right and whether wash-aways are not going to be caused. However, the department is not concerned at all about the quantity of water pumped from the ground. There are large parts of the Karoo in which this type of pumping is done. It has been found that water for livestock is drying up as a result of the water pumped out by the turbines. One also finds cases where the water becomes so salt that the sheep cannot drink it. Stock-farming is the life-blood of that area, but nothing is done with regard to the pumping out of subterranean water, while control has been introduced over stock-watering places. Can one believe that this is the way in which they are carrying on? Surely this is a very simple matter to resolve.

However, I want to return to the question of the paying of a subsidy on drilling work. When does a farmer drill—apart from when he plans his farm? Sometimes there is a drought and when he wakes up one morning, he has no more water for his sheep. Then he suddenly has to start drilling and he has to find a drill. But he first has to fill in forms and send them off. By the time the forms arrive, the drill has left and all the sheep have perished. Is it asking too much that when a man has to drill in an emergency, he should be allowed to drill? He can apply subsequently and then the department can carry out its inspection if it wants to. Why should approval first have to be obtained, while all the red tape which causes delays, a wasting and squandering of money, makes it impossible for the farmer to drill? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if what the hon. member for King William’s Town said was really true, our whole sheep population would have died out already, because I do not believe it is as serious as he made out.

I should like to discuss two matters, neither of which will cost the State or the Department of Water Affairs an extra cent. The first concerns a problem being experienced more and more by riparian owners in South Africa, in connection with the overgrowing and silting up of rivers. The problem is found in my own constituency and the hon. the Minister knows about it. I think that this danger to riparian owners, that of the rivers becoming overgrown, is developing throughout South Africa. I shall not go into the factors which contribute towards this, because the causes are well-known. However, the farmer is afraid to work on the river. He is told that he can work on the river and I think that sections 61 and 75 of the Water Act prescribe to him how he should do so. He is afraid, however, because the other farmers downstream may experience problems and suffer damage due to loose sand and soil and other material loosened by a farmer higher up the river.

I spoke to the hon. the Minister about this matter earlier this year and asked him whether it would not be possible for Parliament to grant some protection to a riparian owner when he assists in solving the problem with engineering advice and the approval of the department. Our farmers would like to do this themselves and they would like to open up the part of the river which they are responsible for, but they are afraid. I think that we can make a plan to afford greater protection to the riparian owners and to encourage them. Then the problem can be solved without the Government having to spend additional funds.

I want to repeat that I think that our riparian farmers are willing and eager to be involved in this great task. Then, however, we must afford them some protection from possible claims and compensation, because if there is damage, they may be involved in a court case. The second point which I should like to bring home, is the question of greater control of Government water schemes by the irrigator himself, i.e. by members of irrigation boards. In South Africa there are 65 Government waterworks which are managed and controlled entirely by the Department of Water Affairs. There are also 46 Government waterworks where only the dams are controlled by the department and the distribution of water is controlled by an irrigation board. Then there are nine other Government waterworks—and one of them is the Breede River Conservation Board—which is managed and controlled solely by irrigation boards. Earlier this morning the hon. the Minister said that his department was a department of technical people. I therefore want to make the following appeal: Why can we not arrange for the irrigation boards in such a Government water scheme region to take over the administration and control of those schemes themselves? My plea is therefore that the farmer should be given the opportunity to be more involved in the distribution and control of the water which they themselves use. The Secretary for Water Affairs knows what happened in my constituency where the Breede River Conservation Board is situated. In former years he himself was employed by this conservation board before joining the Department of Water Affairs and ultimately progressing to the important post of Secretary for Water Affairs. I think that these irrigation boards are an example of the greater involvement of the farmers in this whole scheme. The Breede River Conservation Board controls the provision of water from the Government dam, the Brandvlei-Kwaggaskloof dam. This board controls irrigation water for no less than approximately 12 000 ha of land along the Breede River valley, and it has various lesser boards under its jurisdiction whose water is also administrated by this conservation board. This Government waterworks has borrowed R1 million from the State in its time—an amount which has already been paid back— for the improvement of canals, etc. This conservation board employs a part-time secretary, a part-time typist and an engineer or a technical person, i.e. three people at an annual cost of approximately R10 000. This is what it costs this conservation board to do its work for the year, i.e. to control and distribute the waters of the Brandvlei-Kwaggaskloof dam properly. I therefore want to make the following request. I think it is possible for the department to see whether more of these Government waterworks could not be managed and controlled by irrigation boards whose members are irrigation farmers. Then the farmers are more involved and look after the water better. I want to say that greater involvement in the management will result in greater responsibility as far as the usage of water is concerned. They would then consult their fellow farmers on the use of water, the channels, etc. If this could be done, the department could use its engineers, who now have to administer conservation boards, for many other more important and more technical jobs than the mere administration of Government water schemes, i.e. compiling minutes, arranging meetings, convening meetings, etc. These are two steps which will not cost the department a single extra cent, but which will help our irrigation farmers a great deal in developing the water in their areas.

Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate, one member after the other has expressed his concern about the limited nature of our water resources and the optimal utilization thereof. I should like to associate myself with this idea, but approach it from a slightly different angle.

During the Dutch settlement at the Cape, the Dutch legal conception as regards water was that the State was dominus fluminis, i.e. the controller of all running water. Consequently this approach was adopted by Jan van Riebeeck and his successors at the Cape, until the British occupation of the Cape in 1806. Since that time, the English legal conception as regards water rights had been applied in South Africa, and the South African water law, as determined by legislation and court decisions, has followed the English model. However, the Water Act of 1956, Act No. 54 of 1956, and successive legislation granted extensive powers to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs as far as public water is concerned and, for all practical purposes, put the Government in the position of dominus fluminis once again. However, I do not think that the existing legislation goes far enough in this regard. The State should have full, effective control of all available natural water resources and supplies and the utilization thereof.

The present consumption of water from natural resources in the Republic, is estimated at 10 000 million cubic metres per annum and water shortages with resultant water restrictions are already the order of the day. At the present rate of population growth, approximately 30 000 million cubic metres of water will be required annually by the end of this century in order to provide for the requirements of the steadily growing population. Even if storage dams were to be built in all catchment areas where dam sites are available, this would still not be sufficient to provide for the required water supply. Until such time as a method is found to desalinate sea-water economically, Government control of all the water available for domestic, industrial and irrigation purposes, is therefore vital for the survival of the steadily growing population. In this regard, private water and its utilization should also be considered in order to ensure that there will be optimal use of private water.

If we look at the Water Act, we find that there are only two sections, i.e. sections 5 and 6 of the present Water Act, which have any bearing at all on private water. The only private water over which a water court has jurisdiction, is the water of a private stream which has followed a defined course for more than 30 years to a lower lying property than that on which it rises, and which has been beneficially used by the owner of the lower lying property during that period. Section 5(2) of the Water Act reads as follows—

I think it is correct that as a general principle, trading with water should be prohibited. In view of what I have already said about Government control of private water, I also agree that a permit is required to trade with private water as mentioned. Bearing in mind the motivation for the provision I quoted, I also accept that an application for a permit to trade with private water which will make the effective utilization of private water possible, is always sympathetically considered by the department, and will continue to be in the future. But I do not think that the provision I quoted goes far enough in this direction.

I can very easily imagine a situation where the owner of a property on high ground who is also the owner of a low-lying property, can beneficially use private water which rises on the former property, on the latter property, and has also received the required permit for this from the Minister, or is able to receive it, just to check the unreasonable refusal by the owner of an intermediate property, to grant him the right to convey water over his property. I am aware of and know about just such a case which did in fact occur and which is still unresolved. The required permit is then undoubtedly only issued if the Minister is convinced that it is justified in the circumstances of the particular case.

Therefore, the fact that the required permit has been obtained, or can be obtained, implies that the Minister must be convinced that the applicant can in fact beneficially utilize on his low-lying property the water which rises on his property which is on high ground, without putting anyone else at a disadvantage. The owner of an intermediate property, however, absolutely refuses to allow the applicant to convey water across the intermediate property, in spite of remuneration or on any other conditions whatsoever. This water cannot be conveyed from the higher to the lower property in any other way. The result is that the water concerned is lost without being used and that the productivity of the low-lying property is limited.

Section 145 of the Water Act does in fact provide for obtaining and establishing the right to convey water over another’s property. Section 141 of the Water Act, however, makes it clear that this provision of section 145 only concerns the utilization of public water. I believe that a similar provision concerning the utilization of private water, should also be incorporated in the Water Act in order to ensure optimum soil and water utilization in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very interesting speech. I just want to warn him that he must not use this place to make the laws so water-tight that, in time, he and the people in his profession will no longer be able to make a living. In future, he must be able to sell his knowledge in such a way that all roads will not lead to the charge office.

I want to express my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for the statement he made here this morning to the effect that due to the limited funds at our disposal in these times, we should take a closer look at the established interests in the production sector, which have the infrastructures, the knowledge, the machinery etc., but are experiencing a water shortage. We should rather take a look at this than develop new areas, or, as Hamlet said, fly to other (evils) that we know not of. We are living at a time in which there is a sudden over-production of agricultural crops. I think that the general public and those in the production sector will see this if we initiate, develop and, as the hon. the Minister said, launch a welfare project without delay.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what I consider a very fine achievement which has been accomplished in recent years in that part of the world which I have the honour to represent. I want to refer to the achievement of the Groenland Irrigation Board which serves the area which starts in the mountains near Sir Lowry’s Pass and where more than half of the country’s export apples are produced. The area had already been provided with the necessary infrastructure by the time that this fine achievement began. It is situated next to the National Road and on a fully electrified railway line and is situated only 80 km from the Cape Town harbour. Whereas the rainfall in the south-western Cape is approximately 700 mm per year, the rainfall in this mountainous area varies between 1 000 mm and 3 000 mm per year. The clean, silt-free water in this area simply runs away in winter and in summer there is usually a shortage.

In the early ’sixties, the need arose for an comprehensive scheme for the whole Western Cape, but this area did not qualify immediately for a place high up on the list of priorities. Consequently, the area adopted what one could call a self-service scheme. That scheme is now nearing completion. It is interesting to note that 88 land-owners, who together own a potentially irrigable area of a little more than 6 000 ha, got together in July 1965 and founded an irrigation board, and without any financial aid from the Government—I want to emphasize this—appointed consulting engineers to investigate the Eikenhof area with a view to constructing a dam there. Every participant in this scheme signed a contract and accepted full responsibility for his share of the costs, in order to get the dam built. The consulting engineers recommended that it would be economical to construct the Eikenhof Dam with a storage capacity of 22,7 million cubic metres and that if necessary, the storage capacity of the dam would be increased to 50 million cubic metres. This gives an indication of the confidence which the farmers had in their own future. As I pointed out, they also provided, for the sake of their descendants, that the storage capacity of the dam could be doubled. Initially it was calculated that the dam would cost R1,5 million, but the costs eventually amounted to R1,6 million. When the work was almost completed, an application was made for a loan of R1,8 million. This was granted, together with a subsidy of 33⅓% thereon. The distribution system cost more than the dam, but these people did not ask for alms. They negotiated a loan. I want to convey my wholehearted thanks to the Department of Water Affairs for their assistance, advice and guidance in this regard. In 1972 the Deciduous Fruits Board calculated that the effect of this scheme would be such that the yield of this relatively small area could increase by R2,5 million. This would increase the annual tax contribution from that area by approximately R1,l million. The export services will also increase from about R12,2 million to an estimated R14,3 million per annum. I think that this can serve as an example for areas where similar circumstances exist and which has the necessary people and infrastructure. In view of the results of this scheme, I think that more attention can be given to similar schemes by the State.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Caledon must forgive me if I do not react to his argument. I would rather talk about something else.

†I found the annual report of the Water Research Commission extremely interesting. I would like to congratulate the department on issuing the report and on the quality of the report. I would also like to congratulate the chairman of the commission, Dr. G. J. Stander, who rendered such wonderful service to the International Commission for Water Pollution Research. I do not know if all the hon. members of the House are aware that Dr. Stander served as the president of this international commission for eight years and probably would have been re-elected if he had been available this year. It is nice to know that there are still bodies of scientists and engineers who appreciate South Africa, technologically, if not politically, for the work that we do. We trust that Dr. Stander and his department will continue to be members of this international association for many more years. We are proud to have men like Dr. Stander, Dr. Kriel and men of that calibre in our department.

I was also interested to read in the report about the commission members’ visit to Israel when they attended a symposium on the recycling of waste water. I have always been interested in the desalination of water since the early days of Welkom when I played a small part in the building of the desalination system which was erected there by Anglo-American. I wonder if any progress has really been made in this field since those days, because we hear very little about this important subject.

I also wonder if these officials during their visit to Israel investigated or heard anything about the use of seawater for sewerage, which I understand is being done in Tel Aviv. I read an article stating that seawater is now being largely used in Israel for discharging sewage. It means an extra piping, plumbing and drainage system, but if such a system is possible I would like to know why it cannot be introduced in South Africa. We have new townships being built with completely new systems.

Surely, the same methods can be used. Today there apparently are materials which can withstand the corrosion of seawater and I want to know why these cannot be utilized in installing that type of system and in that way saving fresh water.

The report of the Water Research Commission states that by the end of this century 55% of our fresh water is going to be used for domestic purposes, in other words, largely for the use of sewerage. This seems to me a terrible waste of our fresh water supplies.

I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Water Research Commission and the Department of Water Affairs regarding the research project being undertaken with the University of Zululand at Mtunzini. A little bit about this project is given in the report. I was originally interested in this research project when it was the brain-child of Mr. Kobus Jordaan, who is a lecturer at the University of Zululand. Ever since then I have been interested in this project. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about some of the work that is being done in this research project. A lot of money has already been spent on this project, something like R130 000.1 would like to congratulate the department for their co-operation with the Water Research Commission in this particular project. This project is now taking on a specific form and is working well. We hope it will give us tangible results in the future. The information that could be gleaned by this particular research project would be of very great importance to Zululand and also to the Natal coastal area. Mr. Jordaan came to see me the other day and said that if I possibly could, I should really pay a tribute to the work of this department under Dr. Kriel and the hon. the Minister and in co-operation with the Water Research Commission. I am sorry I could not attend the ceremony last year when Dr. Kriel handed over the weirs there. However, I tendered my apologies.

The other matter I want to speak about is in regard to the conference which is being held now with some of these scientists from Israel, a conference to which the hon. the Minister also referred. They are discussing the re-use, the recycling of sewage and the recovery of waste water to be used in domestic systems. This is a very important project to South Africa, because—as was pointed out yesterday—we are in for another drought cycle very soon, and every drop of water in South Africa is then going to be of very great importance. We hope that the information that is now being gathered at this particular conference will be made available to hon. members who are interested in this sort of work. Perhaps it will be possible to include some of this information in next year’s report. Mr. Chairman I hope I shall be permitted to tell a quick story. A very distinguished scientist was taking part in a panel discussion on this very matter, on the shortage of water in the future. This particular scientist had done a lot of research work into the recycling of sewage, and during the discussion he said: “I have got very bad news for you, and I have also got a little bit of good news. As a result of our research we have discovered that by the year 2000 you will be getting all your drinking water from recycled sewage.” A few people looked very upset and said: “Well, that is the bad news; let us have the good news.” The scientist then said: “No, that is the good news. The bad news is there won’t be enough to go around.” This, to my mind, is going to be our problem in South Africa.

I want to end off by once again expressing my congratulations to our Department of Water Affairs for the work they do.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the words of appreciation which the hon. member for South Coast addressed to Dr. Stander. I met Dr. Stander for the first time during the ’ fifties when he investigated problems in connection with the water affairs of South Africa and impressed me as being a great scientist. Of course, Dr. Stander was not the only scientist from South Africa who achieved great international fame. In the scientific spheres today we find that South African scientists are taking the lead everywhere in the sphere of science and making economic development possible to the advantage of the people of the world.

I actually want to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Karas. He discussed departmental activities in general in connection with South West Africa’s water affairs, but I want to pay more detailed attention to the northern border areas and the area beyond the Angola border. The activities there take place on a basis of long-term planning which was begun as far back as the ’fifties, and the completion of these activities became a direct recommendation of the Odendaal Commission. They are primarily concerned with the physical survival of the Black people of the northern border areas and, in the second place, with that of the rest of the people in South West Africa. Hon. members will realize the seriousness of the situation if I give them a summary of the factual position. The hon. member for Meyerton has already stated it in greater detail. It is that no man or animal on earth can survive without water. If we cannot distribute water over a sparsely populated, arid area like South West Africa, the economic activities of the people of South West Africa are doomed to stagnation.

I refer hon. members to what Prime Minister Callaghan said at the Commonwealth conference when he referred to the problems in Africa and to the famine which is facing the world. We in South West Africa, of course, have no fear of the sombre picture painted by Prime Minister Callaghan, because we have confidence in the activities of the department.

The hon. member for Karas also referred to this confidence. It is also reflected in the annual report of the department. Under extremely difficult conditions of war, under conditions of terrorism and international conflicts, the department erected constructions there. This took place in an atmosphere which would be regarded by the ordinary citizen as one of uncertainty and tension. Nevertheless the department succeeded, not only in proceeding according to a prearranged programme, but also in completing some constructions before the intended date. With a spirit of enterprise characterized by a disregard of fear and dangers, they succeeded in completing the work on the coffer dam beyond the border, at the hydro-electric power station of Ruacana, and the work at the flood control dam of Calueque, higher up on the Kunene River, was taken over at the eleventh hour from the Portuguese contractor who threw in the towel because he did not think he could hold his own and cope with the problems which arose during that period.

If the MPLA Government had not put a stop to the activities, the dam at Calueque, too, would have been completed long ago. In fact, if the Department of Water Affairs had undertaken the scheme at Calueque from the beginning, without the Portuguese private contractors, the dam would probably have been completed before the international conflict. This was not a deliberate elimination of the spirit of enterprise of a private contracter. However, we still consider private initiative to be excellent, and we are keen to enable a private enterprise to undertake certain tasks. In this particular case, however, it would have been wise rather to entrust the task to the Department of Water Affairs. The accusation that the State is practising socialism by eliminating private initiative is not justified here.

In total, there are approximately 500 Whites and nearly 1 500 non-Whites in the service of the Department of Water Affairs in South West Africa. Apart from the usual activities, which cover a wide field, of which construction work constitutes an important part—as is also clear from the annual report—the department also supervises the activities of contractors. I am very well acquainted with the circumstances in which those people, White and non-White, together with contractors, work at the outposts of South West Africa. Some of them have already been killed or wounded. Others have been abducted. Nevertheless, they have carried on with the work in order to complete projects. Something which has made a deep impression on me in connection with the scientific and technical staff is their factual acceptance of the international situation without any emotional display. They accept the condition as a matter of course.

The purposefulness and dedication which they have shown in performing their duties and in carrying out the tasks entrusted to them is unprecedented in the history of South Africa. Hon. members who live so peacefully in this atmosphere and in the shadow of Table Mountain can imagine what their own state of mind would be if a daily task had to be carried out in the sight of a Black soldier in an MPLA uniform with a loaded Russian automatic, knowing that he is our enemy and the enemy of your country. When you look into his eyes, you cannot gauge his state of mind. The level-headed guidance which has been given to others there by the men of the engineering profession cannot go unnoticed and should be recorded in the annals of the history of South Africa. That is why it is fitting that we pay tribute in this way to the men who have done such excellent work in constructing projects on which the future aspirations and lives of the people of South West Africa are dependent.

Since it is clear for me that I am in this hon. House on borrowed time, I want to hope and trust that the staff and the services of the department will still be at our disposal in the new era which awaits us. Together with the CSIR and the Water Research Commission, they have carried out the work of ambassadors for us. The five ambassadors of the Western nations at the UNO would do well to go and look at the landmarks and monuments which have been erected in this sphere. They are unprecedented in Africa. These things have been done in order to live and let live, for both Blacks and non-Blacks in South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to conclude this debate. I have had the privilege of listening to the fine things which have been said about water. There is an old saying: “Water is life.” It would be a bitter day for South Africa if there should ever be a water shortage severe enough to influence our lives. Water is like blood. If you do not have blood, you cannot live and must die. When I think of my own constituency, in which an area of more than 700 square km is under irrigation, I do not know what would happen one day if we did not have enough water to enable those farmers to make a living. When we think that our industries, agriculture, and mining are all dependent on water, I say that water is the soul of this country and its people. It would be a tragic day if South Africa could not meet its water requirements any longer. Many of our people are aware of the fact that we may not have sufficient water one day and therefore I want to make the request today that we should not be content with words only, but that we in South Africa should put our words into action.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the privilege I had in that he was able to visit my constituency for three days after last year’s session. We have many problems with this old, established scheme, where many things and functions have been neglected. When I think of the condition at the lower Riet River, I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department very much for the assistance which was rendered to the irrigation farmers there, as well as to the irrigation board, to make it possible for the board to provide more water to farmers who had not been scheduled before. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the circumstances of these farmers have already improved considerably.

When it comes to the Lower Orange River, I think of the circumstances which arose there as a result of the tremendous floods which have taken place there in recent years. We think of the stormwater drains which overflowed and were washed away as well as the damage to bridges, levees and drainage channels. Due to heavy rains, drainage channels which had to carry the water away had become overgrown. Under these circumstances great costs had to be incurred. In addition, large-scale mineralization took place. I think—and the hon. the Minister realizes this, as I observed recently—that many of the A works which should have been completed by now have not yet been completed. I believe that this is due to a shortage of funds and labour. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the attention which he has given to that work and we know that it will soon be completed.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the raising of the Douglas retaining wall. We are grateful that so much progress has already been made that the raising has been possible. The position was that the Douglas Canal and the Bucklands Canal could not provide for the requirements of those riverbank farmers because there was not enough water in peak hours. As a result of that, the farmers suffered a great deal of damage, especially in the summer months. With the raising of the retaining wall, provision was made for more water for the irrigation farmers. These farmers have suffered a great deal in recent times. I want to thank the department for having appointed irrigation boards now and for having taken active steps regarding these matters. The co-operation which we receive from the department is such that we have reason to expect a prosperous future.

However, there are still some things which must be done. Below the Douglas retaining wall there is still a large portion of the old canal which wastes a great deal of water in any event. The water which is sent into this canal from the river and which is allocated to the Bucklands area cannot leave the canal due to the fact that it drains back into the river again. Until the earthen canal has been replaced by a concrete one, that problem will always remain. Since these things are essential, I want to ask whether capital provision can be made in the near future so that this work can be accomplished.

We know that great development has been taking place in the Department of Water Affairs in recent years. However, there are still some old schemes which were founded in 1908 and 1913 where much of the work has remained in abeyance because sufficient capital has not been available to develop these schemes to their full potential. We are pleased to know that it is the hon. the Minister’s policy to follow up these schemes which have been kept in abeyance and to see that these things are rectified. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his point of view and I want to hope that this will be carried out in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a fairly long and a very interesting discussion on the part of hon. members. A wide variety of subjects have been raised, and I believe that they will contribute to a better understanding and to better functioning on the part of the department. I shall try, to the best of my ability, to deal very briefly, with the representations made by hon. members and the ideas they have expressed.

I want to begin with the hon. member for Kimberley North, who told us about the miraculous recovery there had been in the Vaalharts area. He also thanked the department for the efficient way in which the drainage had been done there. He asked that the department should consider greater scheduling because of the draining away of available water. I want to point out very briefly that the condition in the Vaalharts area in general is still a matter of concern to me because there has been and still is mineralization in some parts, and because my department will have to spend just as much money— approximately R16 million—to bring the whole matter to its final conclusion as was originally spent on establishing the scheme. It is very important to note that these amounts do have to be spent. I must emphasize that it is largely due to poor irrigation standards that the water table has risen to such an extent that we are faced with those problems. However, the hon. member wants us to increase our scheduling because there is water which is draining away, water which may not contain so much salt and which may be suitable for further irrigation.

However, there is nothing to prevent a farmer from using the water he gets on more land than the 30 ha. If he uses his water very effectively and profitably, therefore, he can irrigate more than 30 ha. However, the department should not be asked to make available for extra irrigation the water which has drained away and which the department has to remove by means of run-off furrows at a high cost. The farmer simply has to irrigate efficiently from the start. Then the cost of drainage will be prevented and the farmer will not need to apply for extra water to be able to irrigate more. What the hon. member requested, therefore, is actually available. The farmers should only spread the available water over a larger area by using it more efficiently. Then there will not be so much water seeping away and causing the farmers to ask for further scheduling. Unfortunately, further scheduling is not justified because of the situation in the Vaal River as such and the fact that we are already pumping over water from Natal at a tremendous cost. The hon. member will therefore realize that reconsidering the position could cause us great problems.

I also want to refer very briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I see that he is not here at the moment. He referred in particular to weather modification and to the desalination of sea-water. These are matters in connection with which research is being conducted and which are therefore receiving attention. The weather modification project in my constituency is a very interesting project. We may furnish further particulars about it at a later stage. It is an expensive project, and I want to point out that the farmers who are undertaking that project—a project which is costing them R¾ million a year— believe that the State is guilty of unnecessary duplication by having the same research conducted in a different way elsewhere. I know there is a difference of opinion about these matters. The Weather Bureau has begun a project in Bethlehem which is intended in the first place to stimulate rainfall. They would like to have weather control and do not regard a practical enterprise such as that one as ideal for research purposes. Nevertheless we do try by means of co-operation to benefit as much as possible from that enterprise. I agree with him that the research in connection with weather modification will most probably be very valuable to us in the future.

The hon. member for Karas asked a question about the process of reverse osmosis in connection with the desalination of seawater. He also expressed his thanks to the department for assistance rendered and he expressed the hope that flooding will be less frequent now that the P. K. le Roux Dam has been completed. We cannot guarantee this, of course. As far as the desalination of sea-water is concerned, there is of course the pilot plant at Swakopmund, where the process of reverse osmosis is being applied. The plant is not yet fully operative, but it will come into operation soon. We shall then be able to give him further information concerning the success of this specific enterprise.

Are we going to take it back when South West Africa becomes independent?

We shall just have to leave it there so that the process may continue. It can make valuable information available to us which we will be able to use in other parts of the country.

The hon. member for Winburg referred to the problems at the Sand/Vet River, and I want to thank him for his kind words about the department and about what has been done to investigate the problems of flooding. He complained about the rates, and I want to tell him that as I indicated this morning, rates have unfortunately had to be increased. I shall not go into detail about the reasons why the rates for water used for stock watering have also been increased. I think the hon. member should accept that the price paid for water should be in accordance with the cost of supplying it. In this case, those people are not paying the real cost of that water, and it is likely that there will have to be further increases in the future. It is true that an increase of 116% is high, as he said, but three years ago a year’s supply of water through a three-quarter inch pipe cost R3. Now it costs R6,50. A year’s water supply through a one-inch pipe now costs R13. This is still a small amount, and people will have to accept that they will have to pay even more in the future. As the hon. member said himself, the droughts will come again, and the only way in which people can be taught to save is to make them pay for the value and the real cost of the service.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to the service which was being provided in his region, expressed his appreciation and asked that research should continue. I want to assure him that this is being done. I also express my appreciation to him for his thanks to the department for a special service which was rendered there. I can tell him that I am very pleased to hear that there is such a lot of water in the dams at Oudtshoorn. One has always felt concerned upon looking at the dams and seeing that those at Oudtshoorn refuse to fill up. We share his joy about the conditions prevailing there, in respect of agriculture in particular.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked for more for research, and referred specifically to mathematical models being built for specific regions and to the need for research for the civil engineering section and for detailed information to enable them to do planning. All I can tell him is that there are numbers of publications available about mathematical models. I do not think that it would really serve a purpose if members of the Select Committee were given lectures or more information about the scientific process. I doubt whether it would serve a purpose, except maybe for certain members. But the publications are available, and I think that members should acquaint themselves with these. I doubt whether anything more can be done about it.

As far as research is concerned, I quite agree with the hon. member. We are however doing a lot of work in connection with research. He also referred to the question of flooding. Of course, we gather as much information as possible by means of all these gauging stations and we make it available for the use of engineers in the private sector when they do designs.

He referred to the White Paper on the Crocodile River. I think the hon. member for Barberton was correct when he said that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti probably referred to a previous White Paper. I think that is indeed the case, because there has since been a new White Paper which replaces the old one and which actually refers to lower rates.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I was replying to the representations made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He has apologized for having to leave, but for the sake of the record I nevertheless want to reply in regard to the cost of the Crocodile River irrigation scheme. According to the information available to me, sugar farmers in Natal say that they can pay approximately R100 per hectare per year for water. I do not think there need be any problems in this connection. I want to point out that the estimated cost of this scheme is R25 400 000. The hon. member spoke of an amount of R34 million.

Furthermore I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith. He raised certain matters. I should like to express my appreciation for his words of thanks in connection with the Kalkfontein Dam. I see that the hon. member is not here. He requested that irrigation research should be done on certain areas because there is uncertainty about what can be produced there. I just want to say that I agree with that. I think we should enable certain farmers along the river to buy water from the department to be able to irrigate more, so that we can get a better idea of the best product to cultivate in those areas. This can be supplementary to research.

He expressed misgivings about the cost involved in spray irrigation. I want to tell him quite frankly that I was instrumental in the setting of that requirement. It is a large amount which is involved. My experience is that we have reached the stage where our standards of irrigation must be such that the soil will not be harmed through mineralization. We must also ensure that our practices will not cause effluents containing a high concentration of salt to flow into the river. This would create other problems for us. In respect of his view that we should allow another method, such as flood irrigation, and that we should not wait for spray irrigation, I just want to say that it costs a great deal to prepare soil for flood irrigation and that this must be taken into consideration.

I want to reply briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Barberton about permit allocations in the Crocodile River valley. According to my department, the allocation of permits is based on the available water. There has already been a shortage of water on one or two occasions. However, I want to say—my department knows this—that I do not entirely agree with their approach in that respect. I think that they are a little too conservative. In practice, that whole area was actually frozen as far back as 1957 because no more water than the permits provided for was allowed for development. I undertake to discuss the matter with the department again because I also know that certain farmers irrigate more than their permits allow. However, I do not think we should interfere unnecessarily and unfairly in such cases. We must try to allow the farmers to expand as soon as possible within the limits of the storage prospects.

I also want to refer to the White Paper in connection with the Crocodile River. As far as the word “Witskrif” is concerned, I want to point out that it is really black writing on white paper. But it is generally known to us as a “Witskrif”—“White Paper”. However, I think we should not quarrel so much about it, because we understand what the term really means. With reference to this White Paper I just want to say that certain information still has to be obtained. Further investigations are necessary and I trust that the department will be able to obtain the particulars, so that when the building of the dams is commenced, the necessary knowledge and information may be available.

The hon. member for King William’s Town complained about the cumbersome procedure caused by the fact that the Department of Water Affairs has to decide about the situation of boreholes. He compared this with farmers who pump water for irrigation and said that they do not need it. However, it is only when one needs the subsidy that one has to apply to the department. For the rest, one may bore wherever one likes. Since it is very important, however, that water should be controlled by only one body, he had better put up with the small amount of inconvenience allegedly caused by this. In the light of the importance of underground water, as pointed out by various hon. members, I believe that this is something which cannot simply be transferred to other departments. If we can make arrangements in practice to solve these problems, we shall do so. I concede that the present arrangement may sometimes be a little cumbersome, and we can try to simplify the procedure. But at the same time I do not think one can get away from the fact that a body such as the Department of Water Affairs with its responsibilities is best able to handle this matter as well.

The hon. member for Worcester spoke about rivers that were being overgrown and he asked whether the legislation concerned could not be amended to afford the necessary protection to people who want to do something about the matter themselves. I shall discuss the matter with my department. I believe that if farmers and irrigation boards obtain technical or professional advice from the department beforehand, it should generally be safe for them to undertake work of this nature. The opening up of rivers creates problems, and my department and I often receive representations in this connection. However, the department as such cannot undertake the task. But it is a very good thing that we are taking a positive interest in this and that the communities themselves are trying to perform this task. I agree that we have to take steps to make this work easier and less risky.

The hon. member also referred to the establishment of irrigation boards to take over control of water and of water works from the department. This is a very good idea and I agree with it in principle. I may just mention that I have personally asked the department to look into this matter because I believe that this would enable our people to be more closely involved in the supply of water. People should just not leave this to the department and then come running to the department all the time. They must be more deeply involved with the administration of water schemes and they must have a greater realization of the value of water, of how it must be controlled and of all the problems that this entails. I can assure the hon. member that I shall discuss this matter with the department. I believe that the department with its trained staff may be devoting too much attention to the administration of areas, while this could just as well be done by irrigation boards. Unfortunately, not all the irrigation boards function as well as the Breede River irrigation board and other irrigation boards in this area, and in those cases the department has to take over the activities of those boards. Generally speaking, however, I agree that we must try to involve the communities to a larger extent in the administration of water schemes. I believe that this simply has to be done in the long run.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked us to exercise greater control over water than we are doing at the moment. I may just tell him that the time of the department is so fully taken up with the controlling of public water, and it does not even control all public water yet, that we do not see our way clear to exercising control over private water at the moment. However, I can see that this idea may have merit in the future. I think we shall probably have to look at it again in the future. Generally speaking, the hon. member made an interesting speech, but unfortunately I cannot dwell on it any longer. I only hope the time will come when we shall be able to satisfy the hon. member and to obtain greater control over water in the interests of everyone.

The hon. member for Caledon referred to the Groenland irrigation scheme and the dam they have built. The department and I are very proud of the enterprising spirit of that particular irrigation board. They have created a beautiful water work and they have also tried to finance it themselves for the most part. They have really made a great contribution and set an example of what a community can achieve.

Of course, they are in an area which is highly productive and which lends itself to something of this nature, but it is nevertheless commendable that people should come forward in this way and produce such a beautiful work of their own initiative and administer it efficiently as well. I visited the area together with the hon. member and acquainted myself with what was happening there. I want to congratulate the hon. member and the Groenland irrigation board on their fine achievement.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to research services and specifically mentioned Dr. Kriel and Dr. Stander of the Water Research Commission and the valuable work they are doing. The hon. member also mentioned the desalination of sea-water. As I have already said, we have a pilot plant at Swakopmund, where we are conducting further experiments in connection with this matter.

As far as research in general is concerned, I neglected this morning to refer to the very important and valuable work done by the Water Research Institute of the CSIR in respect of water research.

The hon. member also wanted to know why we did not use sea-water for sewerage purposes in certain cases. In practice there are problems, of course, because two kinds of water would be conducted by one and the same pipe. This means that there would naturally have to be a separate system of pipes for sea-water. The time will probably come when we shall have to think in this direction. There is also the problem that the effluent will be more polluted because of the salt water and will make reclamation more difficult. We are very keen to reclaim effluent at the moment so that our water potential can be better utilized. So I foresee special problems in this connection.

Now I have very briefly replied to most of the problems raised by hon. members. However, there are still a number of matters that I want to deal with briefly.

The hon. member for Worcester mentioned the possible takeover by irrigation boards of certain Government water schemes. Further to this, I want to draw hon. member’s attention to the fact that it is the department’s policy that water boards should also be established to supply water to the various areas on a regional basis. The Rand Water Board is an excellent example of the efficient functioning of such a board.

Accordingly, the following water boards have been established in recent years: The Umgeni Water Board, the Phalaborwa Water Board, the Vaalkop Water Board and the Pelladrift Water Board. Several further water boards which will be able to supply water on a regional basis are being envisaged, in areas such as the following: The Free State gold fields; Mhlatuzi in Natal; the West Coast— for the Berg River and Saldanha; Namaqualand—i.e. the Springbok-Nababeep area; the Eastern Transvaal Highveld; the border—i.e. the East London-King William’s Town area; Algoa, i.e. the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, concerning which I have already informed the hon. members involved; the South-Western Cape; Richard’s Bay-Empangeni; and Mossel Bay. The establishment of water boards for these areas will have to receive attention in the future.

Furthermore, I want to say a few words about the pollution of water and the reclamation of effluent. These are matters which were discussed at the international conference this week. The department, as the central authority, keeps a close check on the quality of water in public streams, as well as the purification and disposal of sewage water and effluent, in order to ensure, on behalf of the Government, that the legal requirements in respect of pollution control are being complied with. Pollution control is very important and will become even more important in the future because of the limited water supplies available to us.

Another matter I want to touch on very briefly is in connection with flood damage, a matter we have been hearing a great deal about in recent years. I may just mention that the dams which hon. members and the community often want to serve as flood control systems were built in the first place for purposes of water storage and not of flood control. Flood control is a subsidiary function of the dams.

I should like to conclude by referring to the construction of the P. K. le Roux Dam and the cost involved. This matter has often been discussed in the past. My predecessor decided that the department would build the dam itself. A great many inquiries and objections were received in this connection and there were reservations about the question of whether the department would be able to complete the dam successfully and to keep the cost within limits. I want to state today that I am very proud of the achievement of the Department of Water Affairs as far as the building of this dam is concerned. The costs incurred in connection with the civil engineering works of the dam up to 31 March 1977 amounted to R52 047 000. However, it is estimated that approximately R4,6 million more will be spent on the engineering work. This will bring the total cost of the civil engineering work on the dam up to R56 670 000. The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to this amount and I agree with him that if escalation and the tenders originally considered for the building of the dam are taken into account, one can only come to the conclusion that at least R11 million is being saved by having the civil engineering work on the dam undertaken by the Department of Water Affairs.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to motivate this in detail. In my opinion, however, it is very important that we take note of the fact that the department has been able to complete that vast construction so efficiently and so rapidly. A timetable was laid down according to which the dam would be completed, and broadly speaking, as has been indicated, this timetable has been complied with. In the first place, it was indicated that the dam would be closed round about September last year and that the work would be completed round about July. I can assure hon. members that the department has worked according to that timetable. I therefore want to convey my sincere congratulations to Dr. Kriel and the other staff of the department on the excellent service they have rendered. I know we are criticized for not having made enough use of the private sector, but the department has tried over the years to do a great deal of work itself, and there are certain circumstances which force the department to do this. In my opinion, it is very important that we continue to do it ourselves as far as possible. Even with the construction of a project such as the P. K. le Roux Dam, great use was made of private contractors. I just want to furnish the information regarding the use of private contractors. The access roads to the residential area and the main civil engineering work on the dam cost R16 263 000. The cost of the mechanical equipment and other steel-works for the dam amounted to R14 million. These figures are in addition to the R56 million spent on the civil engineering work on the dam wall itself. The fees of consulting engineers amounted to more than R5 million, and miscellaneous expenditure, such as the fencing of the dam basin and so forth, cost more than R1 million. The total cost of the whole complex should be R93 728 000. In my opinion one should distinguish between the various works, so that the building of the dam as such is not confused with all kinds of other works related to it.

I believe I have now dealt with the most important matters and I shall let that suffice.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 40 and S.W.A. Vote No. 25.— “Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to start this afternoon by apologizing once again for the absence of the hon. member for Mooi River. Unfortunately he cannot be here. However, as I told the hon. the Minister yesterday, the group is still satisfied to have me act as the official Opposition’s chief spokesman on forestry this afternoon. [Interjections.]

†The hon. the Minister knows that timber farmers are going through an extremely difficult time, particularly on account of the weak conditions of the market for mining timber and saw timber. At the same time pulp mills are unable to take all the timber that is offered. The hon. the Minister also knows that certain of his State forests have suspended the thinning out of some of their compartments due to the lack of demand for timber at the moment. There is, however, one bright spot in the whole scene. That is the contract that was entered into between our Central Timber Co-op. in Natal and Japan for wattle wood. The hon. the Minister knows that the timber is railed from the various suppliers to the chipping plant at Cato Ridge, and that chips are then loaded on to a bulk carrier of 250 000 tons, which the industry itself has acquired, for transport to Japan. In addition to the bulk carrier acquired by the industry, the industry has gone to the expenditure of establishing the chipping plant at Cato Ridge.

I am sure the hon. the Minister will be aware of a telex which was sent by the managing director of the Central Timber Co-op. The telex reads—

The hon. the Minister is aware of a telex to that effect. Let us just briefly have a look at what the rail increases have been. With an increase in September last year, and again this year, by the hon. the Minister of Transport, the rate for a ton of timber from Lothair in the Eastern Transvaal to Cato Ridge has gone up from R7,90 to R12,20. The rate from Panbult has gone up from R6,90 to R10,60, and from Piet Retief from R6,50 to R10,10. When one thinks that the value of the timber to the grower, when he delivers it free on rail at the station, is between R8 and R8,40, it is clear that the railage is in fact more than the value of the timber. It is quite apparent that this hon. Minister is not the person responsible for these increases. He is not at the bottom rung of this vicious spiral. He is nearly at the top. He is at the receiving end. It is also quite apparent that the hon. the Minister will be unable to commit the hon. the Minister of Railways in this debate this afternoon, and I do not expect him to do so. All I am asking him this afternoon, is for some assistance, and to use his influence within the Cabinet to alleviate a situation which, I believe, is important, not only to the timber growers of this country, but to the country as a whole, as I will show a little later. I believe that without some such commitment by the Government to do something about stabilizing railage costs, the possibility must be faced of the whole scheme foundering, and of an enormous capital loss resulting.

As I have said, this capital investment in the chipping mill at Cato Ridge and in the bulk carrier could be lost. An awful lot of foreign exchange could also be lost. I quote again from a telex—

What the hon. the Minister can also do, in addition to trying to persuade the hon. the Minister of Transport to do something about a stable railage rate, is to ensure, through consultation with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, that a stable price can be quoted in negotiations. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is present here to listen to this plea today. The hon. the Minister can ensure that a stable price is quoted in negotiations, by obtaining from the department of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs an undertaking to consider subsidizing the transport of this export product, in exactly the same way as he is subsidizing other export industries in this country. I believe it is important to the country. If we are to keep this export product at an economic level, it is essential that we should obtain these two things.

As we view the situation this will be a once-only thing, because each round of negotiations with Japan will depend on the escalation in the railage rate and other factors. Alternatively, there is a request that we should ask the Railways Administration and the Department of Commerce together whether they are prepared to negotiate a price with the Central Timber Co-op. and with the Japanese buyers, a price that will make a single scheme for the export of 505 000 tons of timber viable on a reasonably sustained transport cost basis. When we think of what 505 000 tons of timber will bring in in terms of this contract—I do not want to quote the figure; the hon. the Minister knows what the price is, and he knows what the figure of foreign exchange that will be earned is—I believe it is an important consideration, and the Railways Administration too should look at it from the point of view that 505 000 tons will bring in revenue in excess of R5 million. Of this 505 000 tons 327 000 tons will be transported by rail to Cato Ridge. 481 000 tons of chips, once it has been chipped at Cato Ridge, has to be transported to Durban. This is done on contract by train, which again means revenue to the Railways. I believe that this industry is a large user of the Railways Administration and therefore it is deserving of special consideration by the Railways Administration and by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in subsidizing this matter. It is at this moment that they need the help. This industry needs immediate assistance. It needs some assurance from the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will be able to give it this afternoon and that he will press his colleagues, particularly the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I am glad to see the hon. the Prime Minister is here, because foreign exchange and many other things are involved in this matter. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will be able to achieve something for the future of this particular industry.

In the few moments at my disposal I want to raise a second matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter which emerges almost annually at the Satga congress, i.e. the congress of the South African Timber Growers’ Association. It has become a hardy annual. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to give fresh thought to this problem, namely the problem of creating a single body to represent all the growers, including large grower processors, in any negotiations between the hon. the Minister and the industry. There are two bodies at the moment, the South African Timber Growers’ Association, which we might call the one which represents the private or small grower, and the Forest Owners’ Association, who are the large grower processors of timber. They are those who sit with one foot on each side of the fence. They have a foot in each camp. Delegates from these bodies meet in the Forestry Council which has been established by this hon. Minister, and attempt, amongst other things, to fix prices for forest products.

The hon. the Minister’s predecessor insisted that these two bodies should amalgamate to form one mouthpiece for the growers’ interests. This must be seen against the background that the Forest Owners’ Association had separated themselves from Satga, they were a break-off organization which had broken away from Satga, because of what was essentially their dual role in the industry. I believe that this hon. Minister has to accept three basic factors. Firstly, he must accept that an organization is necessary to speak for the private growers in all price negotiations. Secondly, he must accept that the growing activities of the processor growers are ancillary to their processing and that apart from the generally determined price, must be left free to work in their own timber at the price which best suits them from a bookkeeping point of view, but that they have to participate in the negotiations for the prices which private growers will get. Thirdly, the processors have a fundamental interest in depressing timber prices, always within limits, which cannot be reconciled with the interests of the private growers, even though they are themselves, incidentally, growers of very large acreages of timber. The negotiations between the bodies are stalled on the question of voting rights. This is what is causing the problem. It is the question of how to determine the voting rights. This is where the hon. the Minister must use his influence to settle the argument which is going on between these organizations. The one organization wants voting rights by grower, which means that every grower should have an equal voting right.

One man, one vote!

They want one man, one vote, yes. They want one grower, one vote. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South touched on matters about which I, too, should like to say a few words. The position of the timber industry has of course been influenced by the recession that is being experienced everywhere. The decreasing use of construction timber in particular has become a major problem. The fact is that the decrease in the use of mining and construction timber amounts to about 25% to 30%. The Timber Growers’ Association to which the hon. member referred is very concerned about this matter and they have decided that it will be necessary to undertake an assiduous search for alternative markets. They also asked that the Forestry Council should play a more active role in the marketing of timber. Furthermore, they requested that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate this matter.

It is true that the demand for wood dropped during the recession to about 65% of production. If we bear in mind that this means an amount of about 1 million cubic metres of timber, it is clear that there is a vast quantity of timber available for other purposes. Expressed in terms of money, this means that we can earn about R40 million for our country in foreign exchange. We already export a considerable number of timber products and this would involve almost a doubling of that amount. Earnings in respect of the export of rayon pulp amounts to R20 million, whereas wattle chips, to which the hon. member also referred, earn R8 million and bark and other wattle products earn R12 million.

It is a fact that some of our progressive private concerns made a start with the export of timber and they have already achieved a reasonable degree of success in this regard.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the Department of Commerce would do well to consider paying a subsidy on railage where timber for export is conveyed by rail. If one takes into account the fact that timber could be a major earner of foreign currency it is perhaps worthwhile to consider a subsidy in respect of the transport of this product as well.

However there is another way in which the State can assist in enabling the exporters of construction timber in particular to compete more effectively. Almost 34% of the timber produced in State plantations is processed by private saw-mills. The price of the roundwood is determined by the Department of Forestry which is permitted to make certain deviations and accommodations, although it is impossible to give a discount of more than 50% on the price of roundwood. I want to appeal to the Department of Forestry to approach the Treasury and ask that it be permitted to grant a bigger discount on roundwood exported as construction timber. In this way we can enable the people to build up a good market overseas.

Then, too, there are other uses of wood which could be reconsidered. I have in mind in particular the manufacture of petrol from wood. A few years ago the CSIR carried out a study in this connection and they found that it was quite practical to manufacture petrol from wood. At that stage, however, it was not economical. At the time, however, petrol cost about 25 cents per gallon, whereas today that is almost the price of a litre of petrol. I wonder whether it is not time for us to give very serious consideration to the possibility of manufacturing petrol from timber. Timber is a product which renews itself in contrast to fossil coal and petroleum. We shall perhaps have to give more consideration to this in the future.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also referred to the central control of marketing. In past years there has been voluntary co-operation in regard to the marketing of timber. However, the situation is slowly but surely deteriorating, although it is at this very stage that co-operation among the various organizations is most needed. At the annual meeting of the Timber Growers’ Association, the chairman, Mr. Craig Anderson, put the matter as follows—

He proposes that negotiations should continue. In my opinion it is vital that these organizations should meet with each other at this point. I also just want to quote from a speech by Mr. Malherbe, former Secretary for Forestry, who is now executive director of the National Institute for Productivity. He says the following—

I now turn to another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I refer to the present composition of companies in the timber industry. In connection with this matter I looked at what the commission on monopolistic conditions found recently in its report on the timber industry. The commission found that there were 13 pulp, paper and board firms, and that of these, three controlled 74% of the production. There are five wattle bark firms and one controls 92% of the production. There are three tannin firms, and two control 70% of the production. With sawmills the position is not so bad. There are 36 firms that control 70% of the production. The five biggest, however, control 25% of the production. The matter does not, therefore, look too serious. However, if one studies the position in depth, one will find that at this very moment there is a danger that a few firms may acquire too much power.

I therefore want to put the following questions to the hon. the Minister. Is the department giving attention to this? Can long-term State contracts obtained by firms be freely transferred from one firm to another without the department having control over this? Is the department also keeping an eye on the transfer of shares among these different firms with the aim of being able to control monopolistic conditions that may ultimately develop?

Then, in conclusion, I just want to congratulate the department on the results achieved this year by the sawmills division. As we know, this has always been a struggling industry over the years that has never made a big profit. This year, however, the sawmill divisions made a profit of no less than R2 700 000. Even the sawmill at George, which is always run at a loss because they employ Whites there, showed a very useful profit this year in spite of the big fire that broke out there. The State sawmills play an important role in that they enable the department to exercise control of costs in the timber industry and do not detract from the activities of private industry. I therefore want to ask that the State should continue to operate its sawmills itself. They only saw 10% of the total quantity of sawtimber in the country, and of the 50% of the timber produced in plantations, 20% goes to the private industry as well. I think that this is a very praiseworthy achievement.

I also just want to mention the report on commercial timber resources published by the Department of Forestry. Here the promise that proper surveys would be made by the department every year, which was made when the legislation was passed, is being kept. Here, then, are the results. Now we can see what the position is in the timber industry. I should just like to quote a few very interesting figures from this document. The total intake of roundwood for the year was a little more than 10 million cubic metres. The total cost of the log intake as delivered at the mill was more than R100 million. The value of sales and conversion from sawn timber and timber products—turned that same R100 million into R458 million. R363 million has been invested in roundwood processing industries and these industries provide work for 52 400 employees. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate to be able to follow up on what the speaker who introduced this debate had to say. He said that we should look at the forestry industry because there were various factors which caused us difficulties. I also want to follow up on what the hon. member for Humansdorp had to say. Before doing so, and before I discuss that matter further, I just want to start by saying that we must congratulate the department and its officials and the Minister on these very comprehensive and neat reports that have appeared this year. We also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the rapid action taken in regard to a telex which the hon. member for Mooi River asked to be passed on. Within ten minutes of that telex arriving in Cape Town the Minister began to work on that matter. We want to convey our sincere appreciation to the Minister for that.

We, too, appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go on where the hon. member for Humansdorp left off when he discussed the issue of monopolies. Year after year the timber industry asks that there should be orderly marketing. Apparently this orderly marketing can only be brought about by two methods. Now, I am also aware that there is a one-man commission investigating the whole matter at this stage. Perhaps it is necessary that we should lend it support. At the moment the timber industry is characterized by a monopolistic tendency. Representations have already been made concerning a very sensitive point. I want to dispose of these representations at once. They do not concern the timber industry as such but the tendency in recent times to object to State interference. They regard the only two methods which could be adopted to bring order to the timber industry as State interference. I wish to deny in the strongest possible terms that this constitutes State interference. The first measure by which to bring order to the timber industry is the introduction of a body by legislation; this body will have teeth and will have to take the whole timber industry under its wing. It will have to have the same influence as the Sugar Act has in the sugar industry, for example, or the Wattle Act in the wattle industry. I want to quote a paragraph from representations which the people in the timber industry have made. They read as follows—

They also say, inter alia—

From that we could see that they had excluded in advance the possibility that any body or department should concern itself with this matter, because they want it to remain a monopoly. Let us call it that. Right at the outset these five companies to which the hon. member for Humansdorp referred and which control about 25% of the market there, say that only they have a turnover of more or less R450 million per annum. They too, give the same figures which the hon. member gave in connection with the number of people working for them. They say that due to the fact that they are large companies, and due to the heavy capital outlay and large turnover, they are now better able to tell these 1 650 or so individuals or partnerships in the timber industry how things should be run.

They also say that they alone will consent to control being exercised and moreover that they will only do so if that control is effected on a basis of acreage. I want to state here bluntly that if any control is to be introduced on the basis of acreage, we can forget about it right now, because it will only consolidate and strengthen the monopoly. The only way we farmers know of looking after ourselves is a unit basis. In other words, every farm unit, whether it comprises five, 50, 500 or 5000 ha, will have one vote in such a body. That is what we want to ask for. In this connection I want to associate myself with previous speakers who spoke about “one man, one vote”. I ask that if such a body be established, it be established specifically on that basis because if this is not done then the present situation of disruptions of the forestry industry will continue.

Although many people will say that the situation in the forestry industry is not chaotic, I am telling hon. members here and now that it is in fact chaotic. Some of the farmers in the forestry industry are having to sell their timber at R3 per ton at the moment, just to get if off their farms. He cannot make any investment with that. However, these five companies say that if he cannot accept the price of R3 per ton and live on it, then he should sell the farm. So he sells the farm to the companies. These big companies exert pressure on the forestry industry by way of wages because they do not make money out of the plantation but out of the product after the timber is delivered to the factories, the sawmills or the pulpmills. That is where they make their profit. They know that if they make their profit there, they can push up their wages. As a result they put pressure on the farmers by paying inflated wages. The farmers are then obliged to pay these wages; otherwise they have to leave the industry. When they do so, they have to sell their plantations to the companies. These companies say that they are prepared to carry on with that uneconomic unit. However, this is the chaos that prevails in the timber industry. At the moment these companies sell all the wood they want to sell to their mills and others, whereas the small man simply has to go around and plead.

We are all agreed on one thing in the forestry industry: There must be co-ordination and a body with teeth must be brought into being, a body established in terms of the Act. This body will then give people a quota when necessary and will determine prices. This body must not consist of Government officials only, because these people object to Government officials. They say that Government officials are not able to determine prices. This body must function on the same basis as the control boards, for example, or along the lines of our wattle and sugar legislation in terms of which the fanners themselves also have their representatives in controlling bodies. These representatives can take their own technical advisers along to meetings to assist them in negotiating prices which will enable the farmer to stay on his property and compete with these other bodies.

The monopoly in the timber industry is an extremely sensitive one involving much capital. Some of the biggest sources of capital in South Africa are used to canalize the timber industry. There are people in the timber industry who have become multi-millionaires and who simply begrudge the next man in the timber industry a place in the sun. For this reason the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that in some cases, 92% of the total control of a timber industry is in the hands of one big capital-rich enterprise. We should like to ask the hon. the Minister to draw up plans for us, with reference to the findings of the investigation into monopolies, by which to combat this evil which is driving us small farmers off the land.

When the wattle legislation was brought into operation there were about 4 000 farmers growing bark. However, just before the Act was introduced the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that within a matter of two years, almost 1 800 farmers had left the industry because they were unable to compete with the bigger farmers. At that stage an equitable distribution of quotas did not exist. These people did not have the opportunity to farm as they wanted to. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker made a very interesting contribution. However, I do not want to get involved now in the question of “one man, one vote”. Therefore if he does not mind, I shall take that no further.

Sir, I want to say something in relation to what was said by the previous two speakers on marketing conditions in the timber industry at the moment. I should like to raise, in the spirit of an inquiry, two points with the hon. the Minister. The first point is that, as I understand it, the market is going through a greater depression than it has experienced in some 40 years. According to the Secretary for Forestry this is apparently due mainly to a drop in demand in the building and mining industries. At the same time, a huge increase in the demand for timber is anticipated. Indeed, it is anticipated that the demand will probably double in the next 16 years. The trouble is that, despite the low-interest financial assistance they are offered by the department, the producers cannot be expected to plant in these times even though they should in fact be doing so. Understandably, the timber producers’ faith in the industry is wavering as a result of which they are reluctant to plant. I myself am a small timber producer. I got a permit from the department to plant another 1 000 acres—we speak of acres in Natal—with patula, but naturally I am reluctant to plant in the present situation.

Market conditions are bad despite the fact that there is a housing shortage in South Africa. This is really the point I wish to come to. It occurs to me that the hon. the Minister may do well to have another look at the whole question of timber housing. If timber housing could become a viable proposition in South Africa, it would solve two problems. Firstly, it would solve the problem in relation to the demand for saw-logs and, secondly, it would solve the need for homes. I appreciate that there are difficulties in respect of timber housing. I appreciate that one of those difficulties is the question of the durability of timber houses in a country such as ours where the climate favours insects such as borers and others. Secondly, we do have very tough building restrictions in this country which very often hinder rather than help our chances of overcoming the housing shortage. However, in a country like the USA and in Europe as a whole, where extreme climatic conditions are experienced, there are nevertheless very old, attractive and durable timber houses to be found which are not by any means modest houses. They are, on the contrary, very good houses. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that one of the great advantages of timber houses is the speed with which they can be erected. I believe that if there were proper control, through building regulations, of such timber construction, these houses could be made weather-proof and durable and could be very attractive and nice to live in. For that reason I suggest that the hon. the Minister should get the department to carry out research in this field. Research should be done on the seasoning and treatment of wood to withstand insect infestation, climatic extremes and fire. I am sure that this can have positive results. Naturally, this would require liaison with the building industry and with local authorities in order to adopt different building regulations. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can throw some light on the investigations that have been carried out in this field and also on what he proposes to do in this connection. That is the first point I wanted to raise with the hon. the Minister.

The second point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of labour, particularly non-White labour in the forestry industry. In this very debate last year the hon. the Minister spoke about this kind of training and said that he had approved the establishment in the near future of a training college for Coloureds near Saasveld and, secondly, he said that he had given consent to the Forestry Council for the training of African labour in heavy machinery at Sabie. He said that he hoped that the training would start in January 1978.

I would like to tell the hon. the Minister a story about the training of Black labour for sophisticated equipment. I was on a farm near my own farm which belongs to a farmer who recently came from the Free State. He put up a very beautiful milking parlour. This is not in the forest industry, but nevertheless a very sophisticated bit of machinery. Together with all the other farmers of the valley I walked around this parlour and looked at it in wonderment. I was trying to find out how his labour was going to work this machine, because it was elaborate and had little television sets and equipment which weighed out all the dairy meal and so on. I asked the farmer if his labour could cope with the equipment. He told me that he had bought the machine from England and that the instructions said that four farmhands could run the machine. He was of the opinion that they must have been speaking about four English farmhands, because he said: “Met twee Zoeloes kom ek baie goed klaar.” At any rate, in many fields they have become fairly sophisticated.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in respect of these two training establishments which he spoke of last year. There is no doubt, as Mr. Straiten, the forestry director of SAPPI, said at the timber harvesting and transport symposium in Durban in February this year, that there would be startling gains in the forestry industry, with little investment, if there were better training for Black people and if, therefore, they could be given better jobs and better pay. He pointed out that equipment would last longer and that employee loyalty would develop. He said—

I made exactly the same point last year in the debate on the In-Service Training Bill. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider a training centre for African employees, not only at Sabie in the Transvaal, but also in Natal. There is a lot of timber in Natal and I can assure the hon. the Minister that we would welcome such facilities for labour in our timber areas in Natal. Even if we start there simply with in-service training …

How much do you pay your Zulu labourers?

A lot. The training could embrace training in heavy equipment and also the tending of forests generally and the use of light equipment, training in fire prevention, dealing with fires and so on.

Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us, firstly, what progress has been made in the setting up of the training centres he spoke of last year and, secondly, what the possibility is of a training centre in, say, the midlands of Natal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North made a very sound contribution and raised a few valid points. I think that his plea for timber houses in particular is a very valuable suggestion and it is a matter that we can probably pursue in future. I feel that the way the debate has gone this afternoon was the result of the very real position in which the timber industry finds itself at present. I therefore think that this was also the motivation for what previous speakers had to say in this connection. I want to lay special emphasis on the fact that in my opinion, the commercial timber resources and the entire timber industry is caught in a vice-like grip. On the one hand, there is our present position, in which in the Eastern Transvaal in particular, and possibly elsewhere as well, there is a tremendous accumulation and surplus of timber. Hon. members can imagine that such a situation will have a most disastrous and disruptive effect on the interests of the grower. Over the years we have encouraged our growers to plant in such a way as to be able to satisfy the demand which will occur. It can easily take up to 20 years from the day a pine tree is planted until it can be processed as timber. It is particularly discouraging if at the end of that period one is not able to market the article. The marketing potential of timber is very limited at the moment. The corporations in particular are doing very good work in this connection, but serious bottlenecks undoubtedly exist. However, I accept that they may be of a short term nature.

We must also bear in mind that the target we have set ourselves and the norm we are trying to maintain is to plant about 50 000 ha per annum. Our present industry only manages half of that, viz. only 25 000 ha are being planted. It is therefore obvious that we can expect a tremendous shortage by the end of the century and perhaps even earlier than that, and in view of the fact that we cannot even keep up with the programme now, we can take it that the position will undoubtedly be worse than chaotic by the end of this period.

It is unnecessary for me to mention all the factors bearing on this, because in my opinion the hon. the Minister and other hon. members of the study group are well acquainted with them. However, there are other aspects—to which reference has already been made—to which we shall undoubtedly have to give attention. We must bear in mind in particular that at the moment it is quite obvious that there are divergent and clashing interest groups in the industry. There is a fragmentation of the industry between the various organizations in the industry. A few of them have been mentioned in the House, such as FOA and Satga. Where fragmentation occurs and where there is no uniformity or co-ordinated action, the situation cannot be beneficial to the industry. Indeed, there are bodies and persons that exercise a degree of control in the industry but that do not belong in the industry and have little real interest in the industry.

I do not want to repeat what has already been said here in connection with the prevailing monopolistic conditions, but these conditions prevail due to the fact that there are interest groups in the industry that abuse and exploit the situation at the cost of other groups. For example, there are growers cum manufacturers that play both roles and that further their own position at the cost of those who plant on a small scale. One gets the large-scale planters and the small planters. The 2 000-5 000-ha group have a very strong grip on the entire industry at the present juncture and they are in a position to dominate; in fact, they are literally calling the tune. I do not wish to make out that in order to deal with this situation a control board in terms of the Marketing Act would be the answer to the problem. However, I think that we should bear in mind that the State certainly plays a very important role in this set-up. I think that the State controls about 32% to 35% of the entire industry. That is why I believe that it is also the task of the State—in view of the control the State can exercise—to see to it that this industry, which is a utility industry, is controlled in an orderly fashion in the future.

In my opinion, the most pressing need at the moment is sound leadership. Because there must be sound leadership I want to propose, firstly, that a statutory board be established. I believe that we could use the Forestry Council for this purpose. Then, however, more extensive powers would have to be vested in the council. It would have to have powers with which it could duly control and consolidate the position. It would also have to have powers with which it could effectively establish and control a single planters’ organization and also take the lead with regard to marketing. This is a fine industry. It is a very good industry. It is an industry which provides South Africa with money and foreign currency. The industry has a turnover of nearly R426 million per annum. If we do not take very positive action with regard to the council, the situation could occur in which we would be saddled with a total shortage within 10 years, and in which we would also have to see the entire industry collapsing in a matter of a few years. That is why I should like to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo pointed out to us various bottlenecks in the industry in expert fashion. I do not want to dwell any further on the field he discussed. I want to concentrate on another aspect of the department’s activities.

During the discussion of the Community Development Vote, the hon. member for Parow made a very interesting speech. He referred in particular to the code of conduct of children in very densely populated areas. Subsequently, during the discussion of the Tourism Vote, the hon. member for Bethlehem also made an illuminating speech. Among other things, he made the statement that man has become tired of some of his activities, that man has even become tired of his successes, and that man is now seeking opportunities for escape. We want to associate ourselves with that statement; we want to record our full agreement. With regard to the code of conduct of children in very densely populated areas—conduct which is quite normal in view of where they live—I nevertheless want to maintain that they experience a genuine yearning for open spaces.

Experience has taught us that those people try to move away from those confined areas. They turn to nature in order to spend their time there, often at great inconvenience. That, of course, is because they find a cure for their condition there.

With reference to that I should like to refer to an event which took place in Johannesburg last week. It is an event which gave us all food for thought. It was yet another family murder. I do not want to elaborate on this. However, I just want to point out that from 1966 to date there have been 13 such family murders. More than 100 children have been involved. If we consider the views of psychologists in this regard, if we take note of what they say about the basic reasons for murders of this nature, we note that there are some which we can single out. The most important is tension. These people are in a tense state. The second reason is economic problems. This is something we are all very well acquainted with. The third reason is the rapid development in the technological sphere as against the total lack of true progress in the field of mental adaptation or mental development.

Man has reached a stage at which he feels that the instrument he has made has become a robot by which he is in fact being controlled. Another aspect raised is that man feels that the world he lives in has become a place of misery for him. These people are described as paranoiac. Another aspect is the extreme uncertainty in which people live.

Lastly, they refer to the lack of mental stability and lack of anchors to give strength and steadfastness to the morbid spirit.

We should like to make contact with these people, but how are we to do so? In this regard we owe the Department of Forestry, the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of the department a great debt of thanks for the areas they have opened to us to attract those people and introduce them to the scenic beauty of our country. In this connection I want to refer in particular to two areas. The first is the opening up of the Wilderness areas.

To appreciate this we must really understand the philosophy behind this idea. The wilderness area is not a half finished picnic place with all kinds of facilities for us. We should like to see the wilderness area as raw nature, as the Creator gave it to us: untouched and in its natural state. We want to make that opportunity available so that people can encounter nature as it was centuries ago. We want to see man accepting the challenge of nature. We want to put a little of that wildness back into our people, and that is surely necessary, because if we cut away the wildness in our nation, then we cut away much of its soul. If we take away that part of our boys that makes them boys in the life of this nation, then we would fight terrorism in vain. If we send our boys out into the world as a bunch of dandies, we could just as well send our daughters. I should like to see our sons going camping in the wilds and sleeping in the midst of nature, and seeing around them the rocks of ages. If our sons could have the privilege of being in these beautiful Hottentots Holland mountains at two o’clock at night with the man carved out of rock, the man who is sitting here in front of me, the hon. member for Carletonville—and also, may I say, with our respected Secretary of the department, Mr. Ackerman, who sits over there—they will appreciate the wealth of our country and they will hear the message that pulses through nature. At such a time one forgets one’s troublesome little problems in the wide open spaces which the Lord has given us in our country. We want to bring this home to our youth, our adults and our small children. Some may say that these are places for fit people, but that is not so. At Stellenbosch there is a little fellow of four years who has walked 33 km on that hiking trail.

Yes, but Stellenbosch people are tough guys.

How will this man, who comes from the area of the big bird, know what that part of the world looks like when it unfolds like a flower before his eyes? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should rather refer to the hon. member’s constituency.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. We are grateful for certain areas which have already been made available to us in wilderness areas in Natal and also in the Cape, and we expect further areas to be opened up. We trust that that department will operate those areas in accordance with the ideal, viz. with only the minimum facilities for emergency services, such as facilities for fire prevention, for example, so that they may remain a challenge to our youth.

Another sphere is the provision of our hiking ways under the guidance of our National Hiking Way Board. In this connection I just want to refer briefly to the aim behind this project. I quote from the report of our Hiking Way Board as follows—

That is putting it in a nutshell. I should also like to quote from a speech by Mrs. Tini Vorster at the opening of the Hottentots Holland section of the Boland Hiking Way—

That is what, to us, is fine and worth preserving in those places. These hiking ways and wilderness areas form part of our tourist attractions which we can sell, but we must first sell them to our people in this country. We must sell them to our own people, because these are healthy areas. We are grateful to the department and the hon. the Minister for the appointment of two people who can be of help to us in getting our groups of people moving in those areas. In this connection I have in mind the appointment of Mrs. Levy and the possible appointment of a Mr. Grobler who may be of service to us in opening up these areas. They will give attention to the planning of the hiking ways and will furnish guidance in regard to hiking tours so that we can teach our youth and show them the wealth of our country.

I should like to conclude with this idea. For their great hiking way network the Americans chose the slogan “take only photos and leave only your footprints”. However we want to say to our youth and to all our people who go to those beautiful areas to seek healing: “Hike and nourish your soul.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton has raised a matter which is near to my heart and which I have often raised in the past, and that is to create the opportunity for our young people to enjoy our wonderful nature.

It seems to me the parties represented in this House have few political differences in the forestry debate and that there are few problems in connection with forestry. However, the Department of Forestry has tremendous obligations to meet and problems it has to try to overcome. One of these problems is the question of weeds in those beautiful mountains and areas of scenic beauty of which we have just been told. No matter where one goes in our mountains, one is always aware of this tremendous problem. It seems to me the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and even the Department of Forestry have already given up hope to a large extent of ever overcoming this tremendous problem. It seems we can no longer cherish the hope of eradicating those weeds. All we can hope to do now, is to create island reserves in which we can protect our natural indigenous flora and protect them from encroachment by foreign vegetation.

Earlier this year I attended a symposium at which an exposition was given of the magnitude of this major problem. It seems to me we shall possibly have to establish national parks or nature reserves in order to protect our indigenous flora. This means that one is fighting with one’s back to the wall. I know that a great deal of work is being done in connection with biological control, but if we do not have a major break-through in that sphere, we shall have to wage an extended struggle against this problem, which is growing and becoming progressively more serious.

The other important problem which the department has, is to protect our wonderful flora, especially in the areas falling under the control of the Department of Forestry. I want to congratulate the department on the excellent work it has done, especially in recent times. In the time the Department of Forestry has been in control of these areas things have not always been as favourable as now in some of the areas for the rare plants of South Africa, those beautiful madonnas of our mountains. Like gallant gentlemen, however, the Department of Forestry started protecting these madonnas. I am pleased to say that some of our threatened plants are assured of a much better future today. There are, inter alia, protected protea varieties like Mimetes hottentotica, growing in the forestry areas. In addition there is the marsh rose which was so rare at one time that it was regarded as the most threatened plant in the world. Roundabout 1967 there were only nine growing plants left in the Kogelberg. Of those, four were healthy and five were diseased plants. Today there are more than 1 000 plants, because once control measures were introduced, the area was fenced in. This was followed by the hoeing of the vegetation and block-burning. Thanks to these measures and the interest of scientists, wonderful germination was achieved and today we are sure that these beautiful plants will be preserved for our children.

The other important aspect to which I should like to refer, is the solution of the Table Mountain question. I am pleased to see that a one-man commission has been appointed to investigate this matter and to see who is in point of fact responsible for the control of that beautiful mountain, one of the most beautiful of our national monuments.

I am very pleased to see that during the past year or so the Department of Forestry has already accepted its responsibility of trying to combat soil erosion on Table Mountain. I was very pleased to see on various outings I made to the mountain, the way in which soil erosion was being combated at places like Skeleton Gorge, round the back of Devil’s Peak and at various other places by means of logs being placed across the paths and by various other means. This mountain affords hundreds, if not thousands, of South Africans a great deal of pleasure every year. There are also people who come from overseas to see and enjoy this beautiful mountain of ours. We should like to see Table Mountain returning to its original splendour of indigenous flowers, plants and species of game. That is why it is extremely important for us to restrict and destroy the foreign Indian thar in order to make way for our own beautiful, indigenous species of buck. The thar also destroys many of the rare species of plant life which have to be replanted. In spite of the sensitiveness of some people who have no real knowledge of the balance of nature, we must continue with a programme for eradicating that thar. I am very pleased to see the tremendous interest the Secretary for Forestry has in Table Mountain. I know that he is a frequent visitor to Table Mountain. I have met him there or have seen him there from a distance on various occasions. It is pleasing for us to know that this beautiful mountain is receiving so much attention from the Department of Forestry and other departments because there is a great task to be done there.

One of the biggest problems of the Department of Forestry, however, is the marketing of our timber. We have heard from various members here what the problems are as regards the decreased demand as well as the reasons for that, for example the slump in the building industry, timber being replaced by other materials such as steel, etc. I am absolutely convinced, however, that we shall again experience a shortage of timber in future as the population grows, and I hope that the Department of Forestry and other prospective planters will not sit back and be discouraged by these short-term problems and stop their afforestation activities. There will be a demand in the future. I know it is difficult to try and propagate something like this in these times, but I consider it essential. We should like to support the Department of Forestry in its difficult task of encouraging people to continue with their afforestation activities. We also hope that the Department of Forestry will continue with the very valuable research it is doing in connection with improving tree cultivars adapted to South African conditions. I know the department has already done a great deal of work in order to improve the growth and adaptability of our species of trees in specific areas. However, there are also the marginal areas which should be given more attention. I realize that we should see to the most important priorities first, but we should also see to those marginal areas and the species of trees which we can possibly plant in those areas in order to meet future demands for timber. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister the extent to which he has been able to give his attention to these marginal areas and what his plans for the future are in this regard. I know this is rather out of fashion, in these times of depression and dejection, but we know that the time is going to come when there will be considerable economic activity once again and more interest in building houses, and that prices will improve at that time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton has just made mention in this debate of his great appreciation for the important educational value of wilderness areas and hiking trails. He praised and thanked the hon. the Minister and the department for what has been accomplished in this regard. I want to associate myself with everything which the hon. member said in this regard. That is why I find it a pity that hon. members of the Opposition, especially hon. members of the PRP, involve this fine, praiseworthy attempt in their all-absorbing obsession about colour. The hon. member for Benoni has just made the remark that there is political peace in this debate. This is usually the case, but unfortunately not always. That is why I want to return to what has been said by the PRP in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, on 25 January this year, the hon. member for Bryanston put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with providing facilities for non-Whites on these hiking trails—a question which revealed the approach of the hon. member and that of his party to this matter. The question read as follows (Questions; Tuesday, 25 January 1977; col. 6)—

The hon. the Minister replied as follows—

The hon. member was not satisfied with that and put the following complementary question—

The hon. the Minister’s reply to this was—

It seems that the hon. members of the PRP cannot help seeing every matter from the viewpoint of colour. They simply have to drag everything into the colour arena and pollute it there with their own petty political narrow-mindedness about colour. In any event, who do hon. members think they represent in this House? Do they not also represent constituencies of White voters? Nevertheless one never hears them expressing any understanding or concern for the interests of their White voters. It is always the interests of the non-White which enjoys the highest priority amongst them.

The same also holds for the English Press which supports that party. A report on hiking ways appeared in The Argus on 5 March this year under the heading “White by Night for Cape Hikers”. I quote from the report—

Then the report goes on to say that a group of Coloured hikers could not gain access to that hiking way, because there are no overnight facilities for Coloureds, and that they were not allowed to hike there during the day either, even though they were prepared to provide their own camping equipment.

As one could expect, there was an immediate reaction to this report from a reader who wrote the following in a subsequent edition—

It is a bad speech.

The letter goes on to say—

This is the reaction which one gets from a reader of that newspaper after he has received that type of guidance from that newspaper.

Now what are the relevant facts in this regard? Two overnight huts have already been built for Coloureds along the Outeniqua hiking way and these huts have been in use since November 1976. Statistics show that Coloureds make much less use of these facilities than is made by Whites of the facilities which have been created for them. The official figures for November 1976 were 423 Whites and 90 Coloureds, a total of 513; in December 1976 there were 1 932 Whites and 32 Coloureds, a total of 1 964; in January 1977 there were 870 Whites and no Coloureds; in February 1977 there were 290 Whites and no Coloureds; in March there were 386 Whites and no Coloureds; in April there were 1 936 Whites and 20 Coloureds and in May 1977 there were 247 Whites and no Coloureds. Over this period there was a total of 6 084 Whites and 142 Coloureds. This is the ratio in which these facilities are used by Whites and Coloureds. Since the Hottentots-Holland section of the Boland hiking way was opened at the end of February this year until the end of May 1977, it was used for 1 639 visitor’s nights by Whites. The existing two huts were therefore each occupied by an average of 10 persons per night over this period.

It would therefore have been completely unrealistic to postpone the opening of this section until overnight facilities were available for non-Whites, or to put one of the existing two huts at the disposal of non-Whites. However, two overnight huts are to be built for Coloureds this year in the Hottentots-Holland area of the Boland hiking way. In fact, all the money which is available this year for building overnight huts along the hiking ways of the country will be spent on these two huts for Coloureds.

The Government in general and the Department of Forestry in particular realize their duty towards the Coloureds of our country and they fulfil their duty towards these people. Therefore it is not necessary for hon. members of the PRP to act as spokesmen for the non-Whites. I think that the time has come for the voters of the hon. members of the PRP to take note of the way in which they neglect to look after the interests of their voters, because they are always obsessed with the interests of the non-Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Humansdorp spent a great deal of time on the trend towards monopolistic conditions in the timber industry, through which the timber industry is falling into the hands of certain people and the small farmer is being forced out. I should like to follow up on this and point out that we are not only faced with that problem in the bigger production areas, but that this monopolistic trend is already emerging to a large extent in areas where less timber is produced. Our small farmers, who can make a very major contribution to the timber industry, are being forced out of that industry completely just because a small farmer has to beg the buyers of timber in those areas to buy his product. Consequently any price is offered him, which makes it entirely unremunerative for him to sell his timber. This therefore constitutes a very discouraging factor.

During the discussion of this Vote last year, I appealed for control of wattle penetration in the Eastern Transvaal, and in order to clear up a misunderstanding, I should like to point out that since the hon. member for Vryheid who spoke directly after me, was under the impression that I was referring to the old silver wattle, I want to put it very clearly that, as far as our area is concerned, I was referring specifically to the black wattle and the green wattle. These two cultivars are normally cultivated for tanning bark. We also have the problem with the silver wattle, but in our specific area the silver wattle is not as big a problem as the penetration of those other two cultivars. I do also want to put it very clearly, in agreement with the hon. member for Vryheid, that wattle bark cultivation is a major source of income and is vitally important for many farmers in Natal. Penetration is not a problem for those farmers, because specific forestry practices are applied there and the plantations are properly cared for and controlled. This is not the case in our area.

A forestry undertaking is a long-term investment. It takes many years before the timber planter receives an income from his undertaking or can expect a dividend on his investment. During those years of waiting, large amounts must be invested and the risk involved in forestry practices is very great due to various factors. I should once again like to refer to the dreaded danger of forest fires.

In the annual report of the Department of Forestry, the Secretary puts it very clearly that new plans to provide for the safety of various State plantations have been drawn up for various Government forests and that plans for a number of centres are receiving attention. Mr. P. J. le Roux, Deputy Director of Forest Management said the following at a fire prevention meeting at Sabie, and I quote from a newspaper report under the heading “Bosbrande kos S.A. ’n skrale 10c per ha”—

Then the report goes on to point out that firefighting by means of aircraft is extremely expensive and that R15 million is required for the purchase of aircraft alone. From this report it is clear that firefighting equipment is extremely expensive.

The Department of Forestry is well equipped to fight fires, but some of the hon. members who have had to do with forest fires, will know that it is terrible when a fire breaks out on a plantation. The wind which is caused by the fire, throws the flames hundreds of metres and this makes it difficult to fight the fire. The year before last, a fire broke out on the Government forestry plantation at Pan in my constituency. In one afternoon, 350 ha of that plantation was destroyed, despite the forestry equipment which was on the scene immediately, and which was also supported within the space of a few moments by fire-fighting equipment from surrounding forestry stations and farmers with large teams of labourers.

According to this newspaper report which I referred to, forest fires cost South Africa a mere 10 cents per hectare per annum. This figure can be very misleading, because it is calculated on the total forestry area in South Africa. However, if one thinks of the fire damage caused in a plantation like the one which I mentioned, one realizes that a great deal of damage is caused on one specific place which cannot easily be recovered. I appreciate that the figure mentioned in the report concerns Government plantations only. We must also take the damage to private undertakings into account. Valuable money is going up in smoke and I believe that if we had to take into account the amount which has to be spent to re-establish plantations, it would amount to a much larger figure.

I request today that, apart from the measures adopted by the Department of Forestry and private planters, consideration be given to an educational plan or a campaign to make aware of the danger of lighting fires. I believe that if the public is made more aware of this, a great deal more would be achieved than is achieved by buying a lot of unnecessary and very expensive equipment. The public can make a very large contribution towards combating and preventing fires which occur in plantations.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a very interesting debate in which several hon. members expressed their concern as well in regard to the problems in the South African forestry industry. In view of this I wish to read out the following statement which I have also made available to the Press:

The forestry industry not only provides the country with timber in its recognizable form as sawn timber, poles and mining timber, but also, and perhaps most important of all, with the raw material for the manufacture of pulp and paper. It is consequently of strategic importance to the country that this industry should continue to function on a sound basis.

According to a conservative estimate the capital value of the country’s commercial timber resources at present amounts to R807 million, of which R549 million represents the share of the private sector, R185 million that of the State and R73 million that of other public bodies. Of the total capital investment of R363,5 million in primary processing industries for timber in the round, the private sector has contributed R356 million and the State the remaining R7,5 million.

By the nature of its activities the forestry industry is labour-intensive and serves as an important source of employment. Estimates indicate that the timber growing industry offers a livelihood to 3 200 Whites and 31 300 non-Whites, while primary timber processing industries provide 5 380 Whites and 47 000 non-Whites with employment, a total of 86 880 people.

The country is at present experiencing problems with sawn timber and pulpwood surpluses. A re-appraisal on a regional basis of prognosis studies conducted in 1972 indicates that the over-supply cannot be attributed exclusively to the levelling off of the economy.

Sawn timber surpluses have begun to accumulate recently as a result of the fact that exploitation was lower than the average annual growth of sawtimber stands. With an expected growth-rate of between 2% and 2,5% per annum for the intake of timber by the sawmill industry, the demand for sawtimber ought to draw level with the average annual growth in the year 1995, after which the surplus will gradually be absorbed until, in the year 2010, it ought to have been entirely eliminated. However, it will be necessary to establish new plantations for sawtimber production from as early as 1985, in order to prevent the demand exceeding the supply from 2010 onwards. However, it will be possible to utilize part of the sawtimber surplus to meet the demand for pulpwood, in which shortages are expected, with the result that it will probably be necessary to commence the establishment of further plantations for the production of sawtimber even earlier than 1985.

Since the surpluses are in the meantime creating a problem and are leading to instability in the sawtimber market, I requested the sawmilling industry to indicate before the end of July 1977 what steps they were themselves contemplating in order to overcome this problem. If a satisfactory solution on a voluntary basis is not possible, there will unfortunately be no alternative but to investigate measures for controlling sawtimber sales within the framework of existing legislation.

The demand for pulpwood continues to show an upward tendency at an expected rate of approximately 6,5% per annum, which makes a considerable expansion of afforestation for the provision of pulpwood essential. If the expansions which are being planned by local pulping industries and which, in fact, are deemed essential to meet the increasing domestic demand for pulp and paper become a reality, pulpwood shortages will undoubtedly arise if the establishment of new plantations does not continue. The expansion plans make allowance for the export of pulp and paper until such time as the local demand for these commodities has drawn level with the supply. However, the cost of establishing pulping capacity in this country has, just as in other parts of the world, increased so drastically that private bodies find it almost impossible to do so entirely from their own resources without financial support from the authorities in the form of loans at a low interest rate.

†The marketing problems presently experienced by timber growers must be resolved urgently if the forestry industry as a whole is not to suffer a permanent setback. At my request the statutory Forestry Council appointed a committee towards the end of 1976 to investigate the possibility of a system for the orderly marketing of timber in the round and any legislation that may be required to implement this recommendations. The committee is progressing well with this highly complex task and I am fully confident that acceptable solutions to the problems will be found. There are good prospects for more substantial exports of sawn timber, exports which are already being undertaken on a modest scale. Although the prices which are fetched are only marginally profitable, these exports yet bring relief to the saw-milling industry and enable a fuller use to be made of the available saw-mill capacity. The exports are earning valuable foreign currency, and serious consideration should be given to undertaking further afforestation on a scale adequate to ensure that a permanent export trade can be retained.

All things considered, I can see no reason to lose faith in the forestry industry, and I believe that the present problems, whatever hardships they may create, are of a passing nature.

*I hope that this elucidation will give hon. members, particularly those with interests in the forestry industry, a balanced picture of what is happening in the industry, what the problems are and what the State plans to do in this regard. I think it was essential that I provide guidelines for the community and those interested in the industry. It is an industry which represents a large investment and which, as hon. members heard, provides large numbers of people with work. In addition to that the industry deals with a strategic product. Therefore I hope that we shall succeed by means of this statement, and by means of the work that is being done by the department, the Forestry Council and the private organizations, in retaining confidence in and expanding and stabilizing this very fine industry, an industry which is of such present and future importance.

In this regard I also wish to convey my appreciation to the department and to its staff for another year of first-rate service in the interests of the country in general. I think that, as far as the activities of every branch of the department are concerned, we can look with pride at what has been achieved. I want to convey my congratulations and appreciation to Mr. Ackerman, as well as to the staff in general.

In regard to the estimates, I should just like to point out that, although an amount of R38 939 000 is being appropriated for the department, an instruction has in the meantime been received, in terms of which this amount is to be reduced by 3%. Therefore, the amount which will be available to the department is in fact R37 770 830. What I particularly want to bring home to hon. members and also to the public is that there will be an expected revenue of R23 445 200 available to the Exchequer this year from the products of this department. Therefore, the Department of Forestry is also making a major contribution to State revenue. Apart from the fact that its products are of strategic importance, the department is also making a financial contribution, and the amount mentioned in the Estimates is not an amount which should be regarded only as expenditure. The department is also making its contribution to the State revenue.

I also want to add that the forestry industry is indeed an industry in which the department and the private sector are, to a great extent, co-operating successfully. Hon. members will recall that the House passed the Weza Timber Company Limited Act last year. There we have a case of a private undertaking co-operating with the State. The annual report of that company will, as was provided in the Act, be made available. I glanced through it quickly, and I can say that it was a successful year in spite of difficult conditions for the company. I envisaged a rationalization in the sawmilling industry in which the State will be involved. I spoke to the Secretary and others in the department—Mr. Sontag is also present here today as the next senior official in the department—and asked them to consider where we could rationalize as far as sawmills were concerned.

In this regard it is perhaps necessary for us to consider the history of the matter for a while. The forestry industry in South Africa was actually started by the State because in the beginning private organizations were not interested in such a long-term investment. That is why the State has extensive interests in this industry today, and I think it is necessary for the State to retain those interests, although it is perhaps necessary for us to ensure, particularly when it comes to processing, that rationalization takes place and that we co-operate to a large extent with the private sector.

I want to say nothing further in general, except to reply to questions which were put, and react to representations made by hon. members. At this stage I want to thank hon. members for their positive approach and for a very fruitful debate.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about the railway tariffs on chips from Cato Ridge. He said that it was impossible for the industry to absorb the increased rail tariffs. I wish to point out to the hon. member that the telegram which he had in his hand is the same telegram that was handed to me by the hon. member for Vryheid. It was handed to the Secretary for Forestry, who took up the matter with the Railways. I can therefore give the hon. member the assurance that we are taking this matter seriously. After hearing from the General Manager of the Railways it may be necessary for me to take the matter further and consult with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Transport, in connection with this matter.

I hope you will talk to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs as well.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs listened to the hon. member’s argument while he was speaking, but if necessary I shall certainly take up the matter with him as well.

*In this regard I should like to indicate that that department budgets for export subsidies and it is unfortunately the case that we only approached them in the middle of the year and found that that department had not budgeted because they had not been approached early enough. Now we find ourselves out in the cold, but the problem was not foreseen. I should also like to mention that the Department of Forestry, not in detail but in general, discussed the matter of chips and the export thereof with those organizations which in fact export timber, apart from chips. They felt that it might not be necessary this year. But as far as the chips are concerned, negotiations are under way in connection with a second contract. The increased railage may of course create problems.

†We shall have to make a very careful study of this matter. This whole matter is also being discussed with the Railway Administration. It is not only a question of rail tariffs; it is also a question of facilities in Durban or Richards Bay and further facilities for loading at Cato Ridge.

Therefore, if we do go in for a second contract with the Japanese, all these matters will have to be sorted out. Mr. Craig Anderson had a discussion with me recently and he asked us to try to expedite matters, because if the second contract does go through, they will have to make final arrangements early next year. I have to point out that we will have to be very careful. In spite of what I said to hon. members in my statement, we cannot commit ourselves to export over a period of 10 to 15 years and thereby cause a shortage in the country. I asked the department to make a very careful study of the whole industry. We are going to have a thorough look at this in order to establish what the local demand will be, both as far as sawn wood and the pulp industry are concerned before we can decide on the second export contract.

*It is very important that one should consider the whole matter very carefully. A problem arose as a result of the first contract, because the owner of one pulp mill alleged that he could absorb 250 000 tons of the timber that was being exported in his mills. Another problem is that in other areas, other kinds of hard wood are available, but the mills are not favourably situated for it. Therefore I want to convince hon. members that it is very important that we should have a thorough look at the distribution of paper mills, what their timber intake is and what the timber intake of the mining industry is. As far as sawn timber is concerned, it has to be established how much construction timber the building industry can absorb and what quantity of industrial timber is going to be required.

I want to point out to hon. members that an increase in the consumption of industrial timber is being experienced. We are examining the entire matter very thoroughly, and it seems to me even at this stage that if the paper mills can be persuaded to introduce a modest increase in their timber consumption—these people are already looking into the matter, but we want to ensure that it will in fact happen—they will be able to absorb this surplus within the next five years. However, if I were to allow the industry to commit itself for 15 years through export contracts, without any assurances, hon. members will of course realize that the department and I could be at the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. But I want to give the assurance that we will institute a thorough inquiry in the interests of the industry. If we are not able to receive the assurance from the paper mills, or from any other internal consumers for that matter, that they are able to absorb this timber, I shall have to allow that timber to be exported. Of course this applies in particular to timber chips.

†I do hope the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is satisfied with what I have told him. As far as the trouble between Satga and the forest owners is concerned, I must say that this is a very difficult matter. They have established something which hon. members in the Opposition are very familiar with, namely a federation on a trial basis, and they are going to see whether this will work out. People demand that I bring these various growers’ organizations together under one umbrella. I have actually set them a time limit within which to achieve this. I must admit that it is very difficult for the Government to just demand things from the private sector.

*I want to assure the hon. members, however, that I am doing my best, and the same applies to the department. I directed Mr. Ackerman, who has the ability to work with people, to try to get these people together. I am pleased to be able to say that he has succeeded and that they have at least formed a federation in which they are trying, on a trial basis, to reach an agreement. This will enable the department and me to negotiate with only one body. I can assure hon. members that it becomes impossible if one has various bodies. The same problem occured in the agricultural industry. There it was Sampi and the South African Agricultural Union. There, too, it happened that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture had to listen to one story the one day and another the next. It makes matters impossible for a Minister and a department. Therefore I want to assure hon. members that we are doing everything to straighten out this matter.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the commission of inquiry appointed by the Forestry Council in regard to the marketing of timber in the round. I hope that I will be able to take action by the end of July, when that report will be available. As I indicated in my statement, it is no longer only timber in the round with which we are experiencing problems, but also sawn timber. Together with my department, I shall therefore give attention to both these commodities. As far as the manufacture of petrol from timber is concerned, it is a matter which the CSIR has investigated. Actually it is ethyl alcohol which is being manufactured, i.e. another form of fuel. Even at the present petrol prices it appears that it is still hopelessly too expensive. However, I hope that we shall find other solutions.

The hon. member also referred to monopolistic conditions. This is something which hon. members in general were rather concerned about. I have already discussed the matter with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. We are watching the situation. There is a certain Dr. Mouton who is also investigating this phenomenon on instructions from that department. This might give rise to the establishment of a special tribunal to decide whether monopolies are being created or not. In any case, this is definitely a tendency which in general causes us concern in the timber industry.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the fact that the voluntary co-operation, which was also obtained in regard to the marketing of timber by the timber marketing bureau, had collapsed. I have indicated that this is an additional problem which is being created and that I shall, apart from the attention which I shall give to timber in the round in that context, devote my attention to this as well. We should see whether we should not create a measure of statutory control over sawn timber because it could do tremendous damage to the timber industry if we were to allow price-cutting in respect of the larger organizations that can hold out financially. It will not only be the inefficient saw mills which will go under. There are saw mills in certain areas which could go under without that having been the result of inefficiency. They would go under because they do not have the funds to hold out long enough. One has problems of this kind. Perhaps I should also refer to what he said about contracts for sawlogs. The department is granting these people a slightly longer period in regard to the intake of the timber. Their intake need not be completed so soon. However, it does not appear desirable for the department to grant a price reduction for exports. But this is a matter to which we can give attention again on a subsequent occasion, if it should appear to be necessary.

The hon. member for Vryheid once again advocated orderly marketing and warned against monopolistic tendencies in the industry. I think this is the first and the last occasion on which he and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-South will be able to agree on a matter, but it is a good thing that they are able to agree on one point as far as the timber industry is concerned. He indicated that one group wishes to have representation on a unit basis. What they want therefore is that each producer should have a vote, in accordance with the practice adopted in corporations. On the other hand the group representing major interests wishes to vote in accordance with the area of the forests which they control. This morning the Secretary and I looked at an analysis of the forestry industry. What it amounts to is that approximately 50% of the plantations are represented by approximately 2 000 units. Unfortunately we do not know who controls these 2 000 units that have interests in the forestry industry and that grow timber. I am quite optimistic that we need not be too concerned. But I do agree that we should make certain that this large number of people involved in the industry continue to have a say and that we do not get monopolistic conditions.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to the market situation.

† According to him the timber producers are wavering. He said in view of the housing shortage more timber should be used in the erection of housing. He said that could assist in the speed in which houses are erected.

*Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the forestry industry is working on this matter itself. The question of timber houses was also raised last year, when brick-veneer housing was discussed. Unfortunately we came up against the position that many local authorities have ordinances which do not permit it. We made representations, and I even made personal representations to the Administrators. I think that with the necessary extension, more people will make use of timber houses. I also requested the industry as such to make more active publicity for timber houses and the advantages of such accommodation. But I want to point out in this connection that I think that timber has become relatively expensive as a construction medium for houses.

I have already warned the forestry industry that we should be very careful that we do not price ourselves out of the market. I am bringing this to the attention of the hon. members because it is a matter which we have to consider. If one wishes to construct housing for the same number of people on the same area in future, what is the unit cost going to be? It is an economic factor which is becoming increasingly important, and the forestry industry will have to realize this as well. However, I do not think that we have yet reached the stage where we are behind, and I think that we are still able to compete. But it is necessary for us to have a thorough look at this matter.

The hon. member also referred to the training of labour. He referred to the training at Sabie, and to the fact that I had said that Coloureds would also be trained at Saasveld. I just want to tell him that as a result of a curtailing of funds, it has not yet been possible to commence the training of Coloureds at Saasveld, but I hope that it will not be long before we do so. Instructors will be trained in the Eastern Transvaal at Sabie—this is of course a decision of the Forestry Council in which I was not directly involved—and those instructors will render their services throughout the country.

†According to my information a training manager for Natal will be appointed by the Timber Industry Manpower Services during the current financial year.

*In any case, this gives indication that instructors who will be available for the entire industry are being trained. I must point out that although Sabie falls in my constituency, I had nothing to do with this decision. Of course there are major forestry interests there. It is a decision of the forestry industry itself. There was some disagreement, as one can understand, as to where this training should take place.

†I do not know whether they wanted to please the Minister by putting it at Sabie. I do not think that was the consideration. I think it was placed there on merit. I have no doubt about that and I think Mr. Ackerman can bear me out.

*The hon. member for Ermelo pointed to problems in the forestry industry in that conflicting interest groups are exploiting the position. He pointed out that the State also has major interests. The hon. member made a fine contribution to this matter in his usual calm and well-reasoned manner. I should like to thank him for that. I think that I have, through my statement, more or less furnished him with a reply to his questions. We must have an organization with teeth so as to clamp down on this industry a little, so that there can be more confidence in its future.

I should now like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Standerton. He raised an aspect of the activities of the Department of Forestry in a very well-motivated and eloquent way. I was impressed by it, and I must thank him for it. I feel that this type of approach on his part, and his clear view of the matter contributes much to bringing the recreational aspect of the activities of the Department of Forestry to our attention. Recreation is of great value in these modern times, not only to our young people, but also to our older people. He can make greater use of his insight and his eloquence not only to be of assistance to us in this respect, but also to bringing these matters to the attention of people who should use these facilities. He referred to the wilderness areas and to the hiking trails and suggested the striking slogan “Hike and nourish your soul”. I think the department should take note of this. It will probably make an impression.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to weed encroachment. I want to tell him that the department is constantly giving attention to weed encroachment. Unfortunately, however, a lack of funds prevents one from winning the battle completely. Like the poor, weeds will always be with us. There is the question of weeds in the mountain areas. It has become irritating and problematical. However, I can assure the hon. member that attention is being given to the matter to the extent to which our funds allows. In this regard I think that we should make use of our young people, on a voluntary basis, to make a contribution in regard to the hiking trails, as they are doing in the case of Table Mountain. I would welcome it if more youth groups would come forward, not only to make recreational use of our nature reserves and wilderness areas under the management of the department, but also to use the hiking trails in order to perform a national service in this way. Such proposals have already been addressed to the department. I think we should make it our task to develop this aspect.

The hon. member also referred to tree-planting in marginal areas. I do not think that I should say much about this under the present circumstances. At present we do in fact have greater production in the afforested areas. But in future, further attention will probably have to be given to this matter.

He also mentioned research. I think we should agree that we are making great progress in that respect as well, particularly in respect of tree improvements and that valuable service is being rendered by the department.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay, speaking about the hiking trails, referred to the agitation which had developed. He furnished certain figures. I want to associate myself with him because I feel that in this country attempts are sometimes made to turn anything under the sun into a political issue. His figures indicate that we were, owing to limited funds, in fact justified in making the amenities available to Whites first. I wish to express the hope that non-Whites will make thorough use of the two huts which will be built on the Hottentots Holland hiking trail and that they will make better use of these than they are making at present of those on the Outeniqua hiking trail in which 142 Coloured spent the night during the period November 1976 to May 1977. To my mind this figure seems rather low and almost fails to justify the amenities which exist. I hope that in this case these huts will be better utilized. I thank the hon. member for the analysis, although I think it is necessary that one should point out that occasionally unbalanced criticism is levelled, criticism which is not always well-intentioned. In fact, this kind of criticism is only intended to create more problems, rather than solve problems.

The hon. member for Middelburg also referred to monopolistic tendencies. He also emphasized the risks which exist for the small grower. I want to thank him for his contribution. He also made an interesting contribution on forest fires. As I have said, I hope that my department and I, in consultation with the private sector, will be able to establish bodies with the necessary statutory powers to ensure the small growers to which the hon. member referred of stability and a future in the forestry industry.

Hear, hear!

In conclusion I thank the Chief Whip, who occasionally says “hear, hear” to indicate that I should stop. Then, too, I thank the hon. members for their contributions to a very interesting and positive debate. Once again, I also want to thank the officials of the Department of Forestry. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Government sector and the private sector are co-operating and that we have the will to solve the temporary problems we are experiencing in the forestry industry, in the interests of everyone in this country.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 41 and S.W.A. Vote No. 26.— “Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations”:

Mr. Chairman, just allow me to make an announcement or two at the beginning of the discussion of this Vote. I have heard that an agreement has been reached with the Leader of the House to the effect that time will be found in the discussion of this Vote for a discussion of the Government White Paper arising out of the Erika Theron Report. The matter has been discussed on earlier occasions during this session, as well as during the discussion of some of the other Votes in so far as recommendations of the commission affect the departments concerned. Nevertheless, there will also be an opportunity during the discussion of this Vote to discuss the recommendations of the commission once again.

I should just like to mention that in contrast with the impression that has taken root in various circles, the Government has accepted the overwhelming majority of the recommendations. For those hon. members who have not yet taken the trouble to make an analysis of it, I should just like to give the relevant figures. There was a total of 178 recommendations, some of them having subsections, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central knows. If one includes these subsections, there was a total of 220 recommendations. Of those 220 recommendations, 103 were accepted without any qualifications. A further 63 recommendations were accepted with certain qualifications. Patterns of thought still have to be adjusted and certain investigations still have to be made. Concerning a further 23, a final answer will be given later, because we are not yet in a position to give a final answer about them. Only 31 of the 220 recommendations were rejected in toto by the Government in the White Paper. I am releasing these details because it can be deduced from them that, for example, some work remains to be done in respect of the 23 on which a final answer will be given later. Apart from that, nearly 200 recommendations now have to be implemented.

I should like to announce today that shortly after the appearance of the White Paper, the Cabinet decided that my department would co-ordinate all other Government departments and other parties involved. There are many organizations and societies not represented in this House which are also affected and which must therefore be involved in the co-ordination. In the implementation of the recommendations that have been accepted and with regard to those which are to be investigated further, my department will therefore act in a co-ordinating capacity, in respect of other Government departments as well, and from time to time it will report to the Cabinet. I am releasing this information so that hon. members may know that the recommendations which have been accepted will be implemented in a co-ordinated manner.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. We start this, what I consider very important, debate at a late hour and at a late time in the session. It is possibly unfortunate that it is so, but that is the way the cookies crumble. It had to come this way, but I nevertheless think it is unfortunate that it should be so. We follow a debate on the Department of Forestry, and I hope that by the time we have finished our debate, we shall not be in a position where we cannot see the forest for the trees. However, I hope we are going to have a fruitful and constructive debate and that when it is over, a clearer picture will be portrayed of where the Government intends to go with the Coloured people.

To suggest that no progress has been made during the past year would be incorrect. We in these benches are aware of positive steps that have been taken, and positive steps that are contemplated. In these the Government has our full support. Only yesterday, for instance, I visited the Training Centre for Motor Mechanics, which is an impressive project which produces fruitful results. I am also aware of the extensions to the universities and that many facilities that were not open before are now open to Coloured people. I am also aware of the extensive undertakings of the Coloured Development Corporation and one appreciates the fact that on our present budget a considerable sum of money has been set aside for Coloured housing. We on these benches appreciate these facts. I myself am fully aware of them. I have tried to keep myself well acquainted with the progress that is being made. I have no doubt that members on the side will tell us much about these things.

However, in spite of these steps, it is with a great deal of regret that I must say that I observe a spirit of greater and more intense frustration building up amongst the Coloured people. This hostility is not towards people, but towards the dispensation which this Government is mapping out for the Coloured people. I say this with deep regret, because essentially the Coloured people are patriotic South Africans who wish to play a full and unrestricted part in all the activities of our country.

White-Coloured relations have not improved, and I cannot help but say that we must hold this hon. Minister and his policy responsible for this. I believe that no Minister has ever been placed in a better position to give a bold and imaginative lead. He has a massive majority in Parliament. He has in his possession the Theron Report, which has spelt out for him in the clearest possible terms the direction to follow in bringing about a new and better dispensation for the Coloured people. He also has available to him the Pek van der Merwe report, which indicates very clearly that the people of South Africa—that hon. Minister’s very own electorate—are prepared, if there is a bold lead given, to see White and Coloured people moving closer together. Speeches from hon. members opposite have indicated that many of them desire this. If one reads the Press, one sees that there are many important people indicating that a change is urgently needed.

As I have said, the Theron report is an important document. It has been said, I am afraid, by Government spokesmen that the Theron Commission was not in a position to lay down Government policy. It was never its intention to lay down Government policy. Nobody ever suggested that, nor did any of the commissioners ever claim this. It has been said by certain Government spokesmen that certain members of the commission went on the commission with preconceived ideas. That is a standpoint which I totally reject. It is also said that many of the commission’s members were not supporters of the Government. This may or may not be so; I do not know. However, the facts which it produced are irrefutable.

I believe, in all sincerity, that the Theron Commission, after three years of objective, unbaised, impartial study, reported faithfully and responsibly to the Government on the very minimum that is required to be done to accord the Coloured people their rightful place in South African society. I say “responsibly” because nowhere in that report does it suggest or indicate that what has been built up—and let me acknowledge that much has been built up—or what has been achieved should be broken down. What it does suggest is that what has been set up should be used as a foundation to work from. The major thrust of the commission is clear and unequivocal, i.e. that the rigid separation and compartementalization of the Coloured people in terms of the policy of parallel development, should be phased out and replaced by a policy of fuller participation at all levels of activity by the Coloured people of South Africa. That is the message the Theron Commission report brings to us. The message becomes abundantly clear in the following major recommendations. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister that he has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the Government has accepted a great number of these recommendations. He gave us statistics as to how many of the commission’s recommendations have been accepted, and it looks impressive when one looks at the statistics. Certain of the major recommendations have, however, been rejected. The Government now tells me that they are going to reconsider these recommendations and I can only hope that the Government will reconsider the recommendations that I wish to deal with. They are the recommendations which I consider to be the most important and to the best of my knowledge, at this moment in time, they have not been accepted by the Government. I am going to deal with five of these recommendations. I shall not go into great detail, because time does not permit me to do so.

I want to start with recommendation number 153, which I believe embodies and indicates the main trust of the Theron Commission report. Recommendation 153 says—

The commission then recommended that—

1. (a) the idea be abandoned that the Coloured population is a community which is culturally different and culturally distinguishable from the White population groups;
2. (b) the advancement and pursuit of culture be dealt with within the same organizational framework as for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites in South Africa.

I believe that is a major recommendation and, to the best of my knowledge, the Cabinet has not accepted that recommendation. In recommendation 155 the Commission goes further and says—

I now wish to deal with other major recommendations in the field of education. Recommendations 85 and 95 suggested that the University of the Western Cape and the Peninsula College for Advanced Technical Education should fall under the Department of National Education. These are recommendations which the Government at present does not accept. Recommendation 150 states that social welfare services should fall under one department. In the field of agriculture it was felt that no restriction should be put on Coloureds in respect of agricultural land and that agricultural services should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I see the hon. the Minister is amused about something. I am not quite sure what it is. However, as far as I know the Government has not accepted that recommendation. [Interjections.] In the field of business the recommendation has been that the central business districts be opened up for Coloured businessmen and that membership of chambers of commerce and employers’ organizations be encouraged.

There has been a half-hearted acceptance of this particular recommendation in that certain areas could be demarcated for Coloured businessmen. The Theron Commission’s recommendation was that the central business districts be opened up for Coloured entrepreneurship. In these recommendations, which the Government has not seen its way clear— and most regrettably so—to accept, the Commission has made its standpoint quite clear that the time is at hand for us to bring people together when they do want to work together. The commissioners made it quite clear that this should be done in the interests of both Whites and Coloureds.

I believe very seriously that the policy of separation applied by the Government has been so effectively applied that dialogue, understanding, co-operation and goodwill between Whites and Coloureds are breaking down. If the policy of separation was designed to eliminate race friction, I believe that at this point of time in our history, that policy is becoming counter-productive. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has admitted it. He has admitted it himself by his very actions. He knows that contact has been breaking down over the years in terms of his own policy. He knows it because he has had to appoint liaison committees throughout the country. He might have appointed 100 of them. I do not know exactly how many there are. However, the hon. the Minister realizes that dialogue has dwindled, that contact has been breaking down, and he himself has taken the step of appointing liaison committees to re-establish dialogue between his department and the Whites of South Africa on the one hand, and the Coloured people on the other hand.

I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister …

Do you still carry on dialogue with the PRP?

The hon. the Minister should not worry about the PRP and our dialogue with them. I am worrying about the hon. the Minister’s dialogue with the Coloured people. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should know that I do not criticize him for having appointed the liaison committees. I commend him for it. However, at the same time I say he is admitting, by appointing those committees, that dialogue was in fact breaking down. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members may well argue in this debate that the commissioners were not unanimous in their findings. It was significant, however, that there was complete unanimity in so far as all the Coloured commissioners were concerned. As far as I can make out, what they really want to do is to move away—I am talking about the Coloured commissioners, who were unanimous—from this credo of separation which is taking us nowhere. It is my contention that the Government was privileged—and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—in having serving on that commission Coloured people of the very highest calibre, conservative people interested in serving only the interests of their community, and not only the interests of their community, but the best interest’s of South Africa as a whole.

This brings me to the most important recommendation of the whole report, viz. recommendation No. 178. This recommendation deals with the future constitutional and political dispensation in respect of the Coloured people.

It is not the most important recommendation.

In my opinion it is the most important recommendation. I am convinced that it is the most important one. [Interjections.] Flowing from this recommendation, I am aware, the hon. the Minister is presently undertaking two important investigations. The first one is an investigation undertaken by the Cabinet Committee investigating constitutional matters. The second investigation is that by a Committee looking into matters relating to local government.

However, I must point out that it is four years since the appointment of the Theron Commission. The Government has reacted to that report by way of a White Paper, but I ask the hon. the Minister: Where is the blueprint for the future? That has not been spelt out in the White Paper. The hon. the Minister owes it to this House and to the Coloured people in particular to tell us how he sees their future. In 1961 the late Dr. Verwoerd produced a paper in a major speech in which he indicated how he saw the way ahead for the next 10 years. It was a clear and concise statement of what should happen. Much of what he predicted has come to pass, although I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him. He stated what he saw and he said that by 1972 Coloured Ministers would be appointed. I wonder whether it should not only be Coloured Ministers, but whether the time is not ripe to have a Minister of Coloured Affairs who himself is a Coloured man. I believe we may well have reached that stage. Other things have come to pass, but there are no Coloured Ministers. I think it is high time that this matter received consideration.

Furthermore, we are in the dark about what is taking place in the Cabinet Committee. This committee has been active now for several months. It has a term of reference. I believe that term of reference is to examine the constitutional dispensation of the Coloureds and Indians, taking into account possible and desirable changes to the constitutional order of the Republic. In their deliberations I hope that committee is giving due and proper consideration to the many advantages which will flow from extending those federal or semi-federal elements which are already built into the constitutional framework of this country. I refer specifically to the provincial council system. Bearing this in mind, it appears to me to be logical that as a first step the CRC and the Indian Council should sit as an electoral college and elect, say, 10 members to represent their communities in the Senate. I wonder whether that committee is considering that possibility. This would be a step in no way inconsistent with present practice whereby provincial councillors are directly involved in electing members to the Upper House, although such a step could hardly be said to give effect to the majority recommendation of the Theron report, which says that a satisfactory system of direct Coloured representation at all levels of government is the least step that can be taken. I believe that the step which I have mentioned here would be a step in the right direction.

What is your policy?

I am not interested in my policy now. I am discussing your policy and the failure of your policy. That is what this debate is for. [Interjections.]

The hon. member should stick to ballet.

Can you not suggest alternatives?

What I have suggested is at least a step in the right direction, a step which could be a basis for real discussion. With the recent success of the Turnhalle conference in mind, this could well be the starting point for a major breakthrough in the present deadlock. Such a step could well serve to break the ice, and I believe that that ice needs to be broken, as has happened in the sporting world, where things thought to be impossible a year ago are now freely and enthusiastically accepted.

I want to go even further and say that if as a result of consultation it appeared that representation in this House should be arranged, on the basis I have outlined for the Senate, it would enjoy the support of hon. members in these benches. I know full well the arguments that the hon. the Minister will raise. There is the argument about the balance of power, and there is the argument that the Coloureds are being used as a political football. We have heard all that before, but if the hon. the Minister accepted my suggestion, he would bring a new dimension into Coloured politics and could possibly eliminate some of the frustration which presently surround the CRC. Furthermore, if the Government removes all discriminatory measures, the Coloured people are ready to participate “in die groot politiek van ons land”. This is what they wish to occupy themselves with, i.e. the big politics in our country. Under the circumstances I believe that the Coloured people’s political affiliations would be widely dispersed and they would not simply operate as a pressure group which is the position at the present moment. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to take the steps that I have suggested, to bring the Coloured people into the “big politics” of our country, they would no longer be a pressure group and they would be in a position to play their rightful part in the affairs of our country.

Does that imply direct representation in this House?

I have said that they could sit as an electoral college and elect representatives to this House. That is what I am saying and that is what I mean. In the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee, I hope they are also duly considering doing away with this hon. Minister’s department, i.e. the Department of Coloured Relations. Apart from the financial saving that would be brought about, it would streamline the whole process of administration. Then, I believe, the responsibility would be placed in the place where it belongs at this time, in the elected leaders of the Coloured people who, at this juncture, should automatically be vested with ministerial powers. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that what I am, in effect, saying is this: As far as Indian affairs are concerned, there is no Department of Indian Relations. Why then do we have to have such a department as far as the Coloureds are concerned? There is no need for such a department for the Indians and they seem to be managing perfectly well. If the hon. the Minister takes into account the constitutional progress that is being made in respect of the country on our western border, there can be no argument why this hon. Minister must plead for the retention of his department. This is a matter to which the Cabinet Committee should be giving consideration in the interests of streamlining and efficiency.

This brings me to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Council. If I read the signs correctly, this is the most advanced constitutional body that has been provided for the Coloured people. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us more about the functioning of this body and its possible future development and extension. Flowing from the meetings that have already been held, I shall be glad to know what machinery the hon. the Minister intends setting up in order that this Parliament, the Coloured Representative Council and the Indian Council can be told of the decisions that are taken, the agenda that is prepared and the matters that are discussed by the Cabinet Council. We are in the dark about this matter and the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to tell us what is happening in that regard. It is my very grave concern—and I have no doubt that it is also the hon. the Minister’s concern—that the elected leaders and executive members of the Coloured Representative Council have not elected to serve on that body. Only recently the hon. the Minister made an effort to bridge the gulf which exists between his department and the leaders of the Labour Party. I regret that greater progress was not made. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if he is prepared to take a different stance in regard to the Cabinet Council, and turns the Cabinet Council into a consultative council, he may achieve greater success with the Coloured people. When one presents the Coloured people with a Cabinet Council, one is giving it constitutional finality. It is this aspect that I believe the Labour Party rejects.

Obviously any consultations that do not involve the elected leaders are futile. I am fully aware of the genuine efforts of nominated leaders, but talking to nominated leaders, however genuine the efforts of those people may be, cannot succeed. When the Government talks to nominated leaders it is, to a large extent, talking to itself. The Government has to talk to those people who have been elected by a properly constituted electorate to represent them, to speak on their behalf, to act on their behalf, and then to report back to them. I believe very strongly that the hon. the Minister knows how important it is to act on behalf of the people who have elected one in an election. I hope that the day will come when the hon. the Minister will be able to achieve that objective of again talking to the elected leaders of the Coloured community. I made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He must forget about the Cabinet Council. He must turn that Cabinet Council into a consultative body. Together he and the elected leaders must work out a future that can hold out greater prospects of success.

It is very regrettable that greater progress has not been made in the fields of technical and technological training for the Coloured people. I have asked several questions which have been on the Order Paper recently. It is with a measure of disappointment that I find that in the South African Railways, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Water Affairs, there are hardly any Coloured artisans. I think that out of a total of about 10 000 artisans employed in those departments, there are possibly no more than 160 Coloured artisans at the present time. One can also examine the question of apprenticeship training. There one finds exactly the same pattern. In those Government departments there are very few Coloured trainees. I believe that this is a very important matter because, as I see it, the Coloured people are eminently suited to play a tremendous part in the future supply of artisans and technicians in this rapidly developing country of ours. I do not have time to go into this in detail. Other speakers will raise this issue, but I believe that is a matter of cardinal importance that the Government give the lead by employing those people in far greater numbers and training them as apprentices to a far greater extent than is presently being done so that they can be given the opportunity of taking their rightful place in the economy of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat once again advanced what I am tempted to call the hackneyed argument that the Government’s reaction to the report of the Theron Commission amounted to a rejection of all the most important recommendations of that commission. At the same time, however, he stated that it was by no means the idea or aspiration of that commission to interfere with or dictate Government policy.

Since the hon. member has said that, I want to point out to him that those recommendations in the commission’s report which were rejected by the Government or which were found to be unacceptable lay specifically in the sphere of Government policy. It was only in those parts where the commission began to negate the cardinal policies of the Government in respect of the Coloured population that the recommendations were rejected. For example, the commission pronounced judgment and made recommendations about matters such as the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. The commission made recommendations relating to the cultural advancement of the Coloured population, to welfare and agriculture. What all those recommendations amount to is that the Department of Coloured Administration and the various departments controlling certain aspects of the life of the Coloured population should be done away with entirely so that they can be put back under the control of the existing departments of the central Government.

When one looks at those things, it is obvious that the difference lies in the very fact that the commission presumes to interfere with Government policy and dictate certain courses of action which entail the rejection of that policy, and then the Government, which has been elected on the strength of a specific policy statement, is expected to accept this without demur. That, of course, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, but there are other very good reasons for rejecting it, apart from that one. There are some other reasons apart from the fact that when all is said and done, a government is at least bound to the declared policy on which it was elected. Let us take a closer look at a few of these things.

Let us look at recommendation 153 which the hon. member mentioned, which relates to the advancement of the culture of the Coloured population. We do not mean to suggest that the Coloureds are a totally different cultural group that has nothing in common with the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking White population groups. We recognize the fact that there is most certainly a large common factor. We have no objection to that whatsoever. But what is important is that the Coloured population has lagged far behind on the road of cultural advancement. A relatively small group has been able to participate and even fewer have been able to participate in the guidance of that cultural advancement, in its organization.

But why?

I shall tell you why. Because the Progressives in particular, with that type of mentality, want to drag in the people so as to create the impression of integration, but when it comes to the Coloured person taking the lead or taking precedence, then there is no place for him. Then he must occupy an inferior position. The hon. member may think about it, but it is a fact which is to be seen in Rondebosch and other areas, particularly the élite urban areas of South Africa. I might tell him that investigations conducted by, inter alia, Dr. Untherhalter of the University of the Witwatersrand, indicate that those people who live in Houghton—and I might add Rondebosch and whatever areas he likes—are the ones who are supposed to be broadminded, but who know the non-White only as a servant.

That is nonsense; that is absolute nonsense!

I know it upsets the hon. member; it upsets his entire viewpoint.

No, it does not upset me. When a man talks nonsense, then it does not upset me.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to return to the point I should like to make. The fact is simply that the Coloured population as a whole has lagged far behind as far as cultural advancement is concerned. Once again it is a fact that even in spheres controlled by the Government—and this goes back a long way—the Coloureds have been given very little opportunity to take over the leadership, have very seldom been placed in a position really to take the lead at the organizational level and cater for cultural advancement. The same thing holds true in respect of welfare. Whites have been running the welfare services for the Coloureds. That development covers a very wide field. The handicap of the Coloured population does not lie only in the factual position in which the Coloured population group finds itself, but also in the fact that its leaders have never been able to come into their own in the existing set-up and develop into a leadership position, because they have had to do so in competition with the White man who has a tremendous lead on them. This dispensation which the Government has created in respect of the various aspects of the life of the Coloured population, whether it be culture, welfare or agricultural advancement, has this very end in view. One of the recommendations of the commission is that we not only do certain things for the Coloured, but that we also organize him and enable him to do them himself. We have to train people and put them in leadership positions, people who can undertake, stimulate and determine that development themselves. They must not only carry out instructions issued by Whites. At this stage that may be true to a large extent, but it will not always hold true. We are making progress on that path.

That is why I want to point out to the hon. member who spoke just before me that their objections to the standpoint of the Government in respect of the commission’s report actually carry no weight, because they expect the Government suddenly to reject its policy and to give effect to the report of the commission on specific points. The Government has accepted the bulk of the report of this commission. The standpoint of the Government on this matter is very, very positive.

The hon. member also referred to recommendation 178, which we have discussed many times. He spoke of a “depressing deadlock”. I just want to point out to him that as far as the Government is concerned, there is no deadlock. On the contrary, some intensive work is being done on a new constitutional dispensation for the future.

What does it look like?

What that hon. member does not know is that that information has already been released. The hon. member who spoke before me is very welcome to commit his plans to paper and submit them to that commission. One could not have a greater prerogative. I regarded it as a privilege to make a contribution.

I have invited him to do so.

The hon. the Minister says that he has invited the hon. member to do so. Why does he not do so? That is precisely the problem with those hon. members.

They do not even have a policy for themselves.

They do not have a policy for themselves or for the country. Time after time the electorate has rejected whatever they have produced. The situation has become so grave that today they are sitting in three parties on the opposite side. They do not even have the courage to commit to paper what they want by way of a new dispensation. Surely the hon. member knows very well that the report of the Theron Commission did not work out a policy.

They indicated a good direction.

There was serious opposition when the recommendations were made. He is one of the people who had a serious reservation. In the same way, quite a number of the members made supplementary remarks to the opinions they had expressed. Try as he may, the hon. member will be unable to name anyone who could make anything of that recommendation of his without a de novo investigation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the prilege of the second half-hour. The hon. member who has just sat down, also participated in a similar debate last year. It is also almost exactly a year ago that we conducted the first debate on the report by the Theron Commission and a debate on the original White Paper. In that debate similar arguments were advanced as to whether or not the Theron Commission could prescribe a policy to the Government. Of course, no commission can prescribe in the sense that it can commit the Government to accept an alternative or a new policy. However, there are recommendations which should be seriously considered. As I understood the hon. member, he said that because the Government had decided on a certain policy, it could only accept the recommendations that were in accordance with that policy.

Obviously.

If this is so, why does the Government appoint a commission? Do they appoint a commission only to affirm that they are right? This is a commission that worked for three years and, although some of the recommendations of the commission were in favour of the Government’s conduct of affairs, many of the cardinal recommendations were contrary to the general direction in which the Government is moving. We do not wish to know what has been accepted where it is in accordance with the Government’s policy— we want to know from the Minister which changes or adaptations have been made in Government policy as a result of the recommendations of the Theron Commission. Or must we accept that it is still the same old story and that the Government will continue with the same policy, without adaptations or changes?

†Let him tell us what recommendations involving changes in Government policy the Government has been prepared to accept. If that is not done, the commission was simply a rubber stamp for a policy that has failed.

Secondly, seeing that a year has gone by since the commission published its report and the House debated it, I do hope the hon. the Minister will come with information on specific action taken by the Government to implement aspects of the recommendations of the Theron Commission. Other members on this side of the House will deal with the commission’s report in further detail.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to areas in which progress has been made in the socio-economic development of the Coloured community. If there is one thing on which members of the House should be in agreement, it is that, when one looks at the social, economic and political position of the Coloured people as a whole, it is apparent that it is totally unsatisfactory, irrespective of whether it is looked at by the NP, the PRP or the UP. I believe that nobody in the House will argue that the position of the Coloured people in South Africa today is satisfactory. Hon. members opposite and especially the hon. Chief Whip opposite, for instance, will know that, especially in the Cape, the NP was originally elected on the strength of the whole Coloured issue. They said they would put right the Coloured issue.

*I can still remember that the hon. member for Parow travelled around here with the hon. the Minister of Defence and others and, in order to win votes, said that they would rectify this position and would deal with the problem of the Coloureds in the Cape.

We are going to do that.

But it is now 29 years since they said that and the position still has not been rectified. Neither the Government nor the Coloureds know where they stand today with regard to the political scene in South Africa. Nor do they know in which direction they will be moving in the future.

†There is an uncertainty about this. Hon. members opposite do not know what is going to happen; neither do we or the Coloured people.

Sir, I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the Government’s case. I believe the uncertainty to which I have referred is having a serious adverse effect on the Coloured community. The effect uncertainty has upon any community and, in this case, on the Coloured community is that they are not playing the part they would play in normal circumstances in the overall political leadership, either at the community level or at the national level. Because of this uncertainty, the 2,5 million Coloured people are not being allowed to make their contribution to the total political leadership of the South African community. I believe we are all the poorer for what is happening as a result of the uncertainty over the political future of the Coloured community. I do not think any of us should try to interpret the frustrations and the agony of the Coloured people—they must do that themselves. However, if one looks at what has happened as a result of this uncertainty, one sees that many of the Coloured people have opted out of politics and community responsibility entirely. This has been their reaction. Many of them, as we know, simply turned their backs on politics and political parties.

Why?

Because of the uncertainty the Government has created as far as the future of the Coloured people is concerned. Other Coloured people are undoubtedly sitting and watching the politicians at play, but they are doing so with a tremendous degree of cynicism. A tremendous degree of cynicism has entered into the hearts of the Coloured people. Others have simply turned their backs on politics and moved into other fields such as education and business. I might add that some of them have made a great success in these two fields. There is another group of Coloured people who are working within the system. A small number of them actually work within the system because they approve of it and want to see it grow and develop.

Others are working almost grudgingly within the system because there is really no other alternative. They feel that there is no alternative and that therefore they are compelled to work within a system of which they do not really approve. Then there is another very important group amongst the Coloured people who are working within the system in order to try to defeat the system and to rid South Africa of apartheid and separate development.

There is another trend which we cannot ignore as far as the Coloured community is concerned. This is a trend over which I do not believe there is any dispute, especially if one looks at the attitude that is developing amongst the rising younger generation of Coloured people. All the evidence is that they are moving emotionally further away from the Whites and are developing an increasing degree of emotional and political solidarity with Africans. I state this not to criticize or to approve, but to mention a phenomenon, a trend, which is developing as a result of the policies of the Government. Instead of the Coloured people, in this heterogenous society of South Africa, playing some synthesizing role between the White community on the one hand and the African community on the other, and instead of the Coloured people being allowed to be some kind of bridge between the two poles of power, the African pole of power and the White pole of power, we find that Government policy is destroying the role which the Coloured community could play. In fact, Government policy is causing the polarization of which that side of the House complains, between a White power structure on the one side and a Black power structure, comprising all the Black communities in South Africa, on the other side. This is the consequence of the policy of the Government. Let me refer to an article written by Dr. Allan Boesak in which I think this trend is expressed very succinctly.

*Dr. Allan Boesak, as all the hon. members know, is the students’ chaplain at the University of the Western Cape. He is also a minister in the sister DR Church. He is someone who, on account of his position, his studies and his close links with the younger Coloured generation, is in a position to interpret their standpoint. I wish to quote from an article which he wrote in the June edition of the journal Deurbraak which has been quoted in the House before. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Oudtshoorn as well as another hon. member quoted from this journal during earlier debates. Dr. Allan Boesak writes as follows—

That is Black Power philosophy.

He is expressing the opinion of many of the young Brown people, especially those at the universities who will be occupying leadership positions one of these days. The article continues—

This is the statement made by Dr. Allan Boesak and I believe he reflects the attitude of an increasing number of the Coloureds who will one day be in positions of leadership in their own community.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time for the Government and the hon. the Minister to clarify certain basic issues in relation to the Coloured people. I think much of the confusion arises out of the fact that the Government has not yet defined its attitude towards the question of the Coloured people and nationhood, because when one listens to the Government, the Department of Information and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and when one takes note of what the Prime Minister says overseas, then the whole philosophy is that in South Africa there are separate nations. Based on this concept of separate nations the Government devises its policy of multinationalism. Let us examine this for a moment. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the other day: “Dit gaan nie oor rassisme nie. Kan agb. lede sien dit gaan oor nasionale sisteme en stelsels en waardesisteme binne die stelsels?” In speaking in the Other Place, the hon. the Prime Minister, in referring to the Black nations, said that we are not giving territories independence, but that we are giving nations independence. The concept of national sovereignty, as I understand it, is fundamental to the philosophy and the policy of the National Government. The philosophy is that separate nations should have separate sovereignty, even if they do not have a total territory such as Qwa-Qwa, Bophuthatswana and others. Where do the Coloured people stand in terms of Government philosophy in respect of the philosophy of nations? Are the Coloured people a separate nation, or do they form part of the same nation as the White people of South Africa? That is all we want to know.

What do you say?

I put this to the hon. the Minister, because if they are members of separate nations, I believe they must be given sovereignty in the same way as the NP says it is going to give sovereignty to the various other Black nations. If they are not regarded as a separate nation, I believe they do not only have to share the territory, but they also have to share the sovereignty, and the sovereign decision-making process with the White people of South Africa. The Government has to state quite emphatically what the position is. If they are separate nations, give them separate sovereignty, but if they are not part of separate nations, I believe we have to face up to the consequences of their sharing the decision-making and the sovereignty of the country which we share with them. I would hope that the hon. the Minister is going to be able to clarify this issue in a crisp way so that people can understand it and so that when people overseas read the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made in Vienna when he dealt extensively with the whole concept of separate Black nations, they will not say afterwards that it is all very well in so far as the Africans are concerned, but where do the Coloureds fit in? I think the hon. the Minister must tell us whether they are a separate nation or whether they are indeed part of the White South African nation of which South Africans are also members.

What is your answer to that?

I now want to deal with the question of the Cabinet Council. This matter has a long history. It was first referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister when he opened the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council way back on 8 November 1974. That was a long time ago. In 1974, when opening the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, he said that he was contemplating this Cabinet Council. The hon. the Prime Minister, in the course of his address on that occasion, made three specific points, points which indicated that the Government was intending to take action. The first point that the hon. the Prime Minister made was—

That he said on 8 November 1974, two and a half years ago. I want to know what legislative steps have been taken, following the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement to the Coloured people, which have in fact over this two and a half year period transformed the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to a positive instrument with concrete powers. I am not aware of this House having debated any extension of powers to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council during this period. Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated that there was a problem to the effect that the Coloured people felt that they were not receiving sufficient funds. We have had the consequences year after year, i.e. that the majority of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council refuses to approve the budget submitted to them by the Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister said the Government would be quite prepared to take—and in this regard is already taking—steps towards making a thorough and in-depth investigation into the contribution of the Coloured people to the revenue of our country and towards making suitable fiscal arrangements accordingly. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us what these specific steps towards an in-depth investigation are and what specific changes have been made persuant upon the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement made way back on 8 November 1974. Thirdly, the hon. the Prime Minister said that, proceeding from this principle, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council should command executive power to shoulder full responsibility for enforcing its legislation by means of its own administration. I want to know what specific steps have been taken to see that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is clothed with that kind of executive power which provides that it can implement—and we must remember that finance is a critical factor—its own steps.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central mentioned the question of the Cabinet Committee. The Cabinet Committee—and there has been a vagueness about this—is investigating something. What exactly is it investigating? Apparently it was set up before the Theron Commission reported. Subsequently, after the Theron Commission had reported— whatever the Theron Commission had recommended—-the question of the investigation of a departure from the Westminster system seemed to be tacked on. It seemed to be tacked on to the general investigation which was taking place. One would like to know in more specific terms what the terms of reference are, and what exactly it is about. What is it examining? More particularly, do we understand—because it is a Cabinet Committee—that the future of the Coloured people is being determined by White people? Does this in fact extend beyond the Cabinet? Are Coloured people involved? Can we know which Coloured people are involved? Can we know to what extent they are going to participate in the recommendations and in the decision-making regarding their own future? Let the Government tell us. After all, the Theron Commission included on it Coloured people. Do we understand now that the Cabinet Committee, or an extension of that committee, will exclude Coloured people from any formal decision-making in this regard?

The hon. the Prime Minister, a few months later, on 7 February 1975 here in Parliament, gave some further details about his Cabinet Committee or his philosophy. The general tenor of that was that it was more important to have a say at the place where expenditure was being discussed, and where decisions were being made, than in Parliament. The point made was that Parliament would be a place where one could criticize, but where one would not have any effective say. I think this is a remarkable assessment of the relative function of Parliament and of a Cabinet Council. Clearly, a Cabinet Council derives its authority from Parliament—Parliament does not derive its authority from a Cabinet Council.

If one looks at it in further detail, one has to ask oneself what the areas of decision-making are that are left to this Cabinet Council. The evidence is that it is matters of common concern. While one can discuss anything, the area of decision-making as far as the Cabinet Council is concerned, is confined to matters of common concern. It is defined in a memorandum that such matters as defence, railways and harbours, foreign affairs, labour matters, financial matters and group areas, but not such matters as Coloured education and Coloured rural affairs, are included. The latter two are already subject to the control and jurisdiction of the CRC.

Meanwhile the Coloureds cannot implement the decisions of the Cabinet Council, because all the matters of common concern fall directly under the authority of the White Cabinet of the White Parliament. So we have here a Cabinet Council which cannot take decisions on matters which could be implemented by the Coloured people. Apparently all it can do is take decisions which can become recommendations to the White Cabinet and subsequently to the White Parliament.

The next question that arises is the question of whether it will be handled in the same way as a Cabinet. It is said that there will be no voting and that members will seek to arrive at consensus. I think this is a fundamental mis-statement of the functioning of a Cabinet system. There is no voting in the sense that members do not divide. However, the majority principle must apply. One cannot only have decisions when there is consensus among three groups, because the Government is required to make decisions. It has to make decisions. Certainly, while one does not take votes on these matters, one cannot wait until one gets consensus on key issues before the Government decides whether or not one is going to deal with them.

The final point I want to make relates to the effect of these decisions. To what extent are they binding? Certainly, as long as the Cabinet Council has no statutory authority, as long as it is an informal body, almost by invitation of the hon. the Prime Minister, it cannot have any binding effect on any of the constituent elements. It is not binding and it cannot be binding. It can be no more than a very important influence in consultation and in directing the course of the decisions of the White Parliament. However, it certainly cannot be binding. We believe that this is all that has emerged since November 1974. This is all that has emerged in concrete terms from the other side of the House as far as the future political dispensation of the Coloured people is concerned.

What has also become an obvious factor is that the Coloured people, certainly represented through the majority party in the CRC, resent the concept that the urban Black person should be excluded from any participation in a Cabinet Council. Once again, strange arguments are advanced for this. One of these is that the Bantu cannot obtain self-government and independence in his own country and territory, and at the same time obtain the right to participate in decision-making with Coloureds and Whites and Indians in their shared part of South Africa. There are many Black people who are not asking for independence. They are not calling for independence. The Government says: “Because we say you must have independence there, therefore you can have no joint participation.” To carry this still further, the memorandum from the Government says—

I must ask the hon. the Minister—the hon. the Prime Minister is here too—is this correct? Is it up to him to ask for it? If the African people ask for participation in the Cabinet Council, would that be permitted or not?

The reply is “no”.

Therefore there is no point in asking for it. A time has been reached when a significant number of Coloured people believe that they should not be isolated from the urban Blacks and that the urban Blacks should not be isolated from the White communities. Does the hon. the Prime Minister not accept that the Coloured Labour Party can make up its own mind on an issue like this?

That is what you have told them at Jan Smuts time and time again.

It may well be that the hon. the Prime Minister was somehow wired in and knew what was being said there, but I can tell him that we said nothing of the sort. We were ascertaining their attitudes. Our attitude is quite clear. [Interjections.] However, what is important to us, is that we should know and you should know what the other people are saying. It has become very important that a growing number of people in South Africa—and this includes the Coloured community—believe that a sensible arrangement of the Cabinet Council should include the urban Africans. It is not only the Coloured people. It includes people such as the editor of Die Burger, Mr. Piet Cillie, who says that those Africans who cannot be accommodated in a homeland have to be accommodated in a single political structure within the rest of the area. That is so, but the statement of the Coloured Labour Party was quite clear. They dismissed the Cabinet Council as “a fraudulent devise for debarring Black South Africans from exercising political rights on an equal basis with Whites.” This is a statement issued by the executive members of the Labour Party on 2 June, only a few days ago.

I want to conclude by saying that I really do believe that the time has come after 29 years for the Government at least to clear up the confusion. It may be that the Government will take a wrong path, and we shall criticize them for it, but nothing can be worse for a society, the Coloured people or the Whites, than not to know in what direction one is moving as far as the Coloured people are concerned. One may ask: What is the answer? Perhaps none of us will know what the final answer will be, but I do believe that two factors have to be accepted. Firstly, if the Coloured people are not going to be given full citizenship in their own homeland, they are going to have to be given full citizenship in that homeland which they share with us. I think this should be fundamental. Let us start off as Government and Opposition and say: We can differ on detail, but let us agree on this one thing, viz. that if we cannot give them citizenship, or we do not want to give them citizenship in a separate homeland, then we have to share full citizenship with them in one homeland. Secondly, I believe the other point that has to be accepted, is that in the nature of things as they have developed in Africa and in Southern Africa, whatever solution we are going to find for Coloured-White relationships or Coloured-White-Black relationships, it is going to be necessary for Coloured people and White people to sit down together and to work this out. A solution designed by Whites and then presented to Blacks or to Coloureds has little chance of being accepted. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to accept these two basics. If full citizenship cannot be granted to Coloured people in their own homelands, let us accept full citizenship for them in a common homeland with the Whites. Secondly, if that is the case, let Coloured and White people sit down together and decide on some pattern of co-existence for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with some interest to the hon. member for Sea Point. He placed particular emphasis on “uncertainty” existing in the minds of the Coloured population. However, if there is one man who has “uncertainty”, then it is him, the leader of the PRP. He is not only uncertain and confused, but also terribly frustrated.

Recently he took strong exception to the hon. the Prime Minister quoting from the publication Deurbraak. He said at the time that the article to which reference had been made, was someone else’s personal standpoint and not his. An article entitled “Meerderheidsregering is ’n simplistiese slagspreuk” was published on the back page of the June edition of Deurbraak and continued on inside pages, and the author was Mr. Colin Eglin. In other words, it is the real McCoy. When one looks at this article, it strikes one that not only is there great confusion in the PRP about this matter, but also a lack of courage on their part to put their policy to South Africa. That is precisely where they stand and I want to quote it to the hon. member from his article.

In this article he outlines six principles “wat ons voorstel ten einde hierdie konstitusionele raamwerk te bereik.” He mentions various points on which I should like to express a few ideas. We have no objection to the third point, because it refers to an independent judiciary, etc. He says however, that they believe in a Senate “wat nie saamgestel is op grand van die getal kiesers in die land as ’n geheel nie, maar wat bestaan uit bepaalde lede wat elke Staat verteenwoordig.” And in his first point he refers to those States. In other words, the hon. member wants to establish a complete rearrangement in South Africa but he is unable to come forward with any proposals as to how this is to be done and this is quite an important matter; it is fundamental. In the fifth point he raises, he says—

I want to ask the hon. member who the judge is who decides what affects a man’s basic right and what not. Who is to be the judge? Where in the whole wide world has anyone ever heard of a referendum being held when there is talk of legislation or when legislation is presented? That renders effective government in any country ridiculous, and I regard the hon. member as being ridiculous for making such proposals. It is absolutely astonishing that a leader of a party could come forward with such nonsense. He said—

How is that to take place? Will he not tell us how such a minority, being a minority, could provide such an impediment? Those are the things we expect to hear from him. If he clears up the confusion in his own mind and wants to enlighten us, the population and the electorate, he can really give us more clarity in regard to these points. He also said the following in the article—

Therefore, what the hon. member is actually insinuating, is that a Turnhalle conference be held about the details. What chance does a party like that and a leader like that have of winning the confidence of the White man in South Africa? As against the Black majority—not to mention the Coloureds—the Whites are an absolute minority. What chance of self-preservation would they have if they were to subject themselves to such a Turnhalle? On the other hand, we have an established dispensation, a Government which is maintaining law and order, which is working continuously for the advancement of the Coloureds and the Blacks which is seeking the co-operation of these groups and receiving it to an increasing extent. What Government with a mandate, a past and a record, would subject itself to something of this nature? After all, there is a world of difference between our situation and that of South West Africa. Is he equating us with South West Africa? In what he writes, however, he is revealing just such stupidity. There is something else I want to tell the hon. member, and in this regard I am referring to his behaviour here today and to the way they always behave. There is no other group apart from the communists in South Africa that does so much harm as far as good relations between population groups and human relations in South Africa are concerned as the PRP does. In this regard I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Houghton. Whenever there is talk of unrest and riots, we note that those hon. members usually disappear, and if both of them do not disappear, then certainly one of them does. This is probably to check on particular contacts. This is doubtful conduct on their part. I gain the impression that they are entirely unpatriotic and un-South African. The ideas they put forward are by no means in the interests of South Africa. If we look back at what has happened to the Coloured population since 1948, we realize that there are things that have hit them, or at least a part of that population, hard. I admit that. I have seen, heard of and experienced them.

There is a considerable number of Coloureds who, as a result of the declaration of group areas and the moving of people, have been caused considerable inconvenience and have perhaps even suffered losses. However, when we look back we see that over the years Coloured communities that have survived those things have become established and today they will be pleased to admit that what happened was in their interests. One could go to almost every Coloured community in the whole of the Western Cape and one would find that to be true in every case. Wherever group areas have been established, development has been stimulated. I have a reasonable amount of contact with Coloured businessmen, and they tell me that the money is no longer in the White areas, but in the Coloured areas. They are becoming aware of the opportunities and they are making use of them. Of course, the hon. member for Sea Point always wants to suggest that those people are moving away from us. That is by no means true, however. He mentioned the example of the Rev. Boesak. However, the Rev. Boesak stated emphatically at a symposium at the University of Cape Town that he was a Black Power apostle. [Interjections.] That is what he has been trained for and that is his aspiration. In other words, he is dissociating himself from the Coloured population. I am certain that that hon. member takes some notice of the report even if it does not suit him. When one looks at the report, particularly at the question as to whether they wish to associate with the Bantu and Black Power, one finds that there is something like 24% of them who hold that view. In other words, that man of whom that hon. member boasts so much and whom he regards as a leader of the Coloured population, has dissociated himself from the Coloured population. He is an agent of Black Power, someone who is searching for the salvation of the Coloured population in that movement whilst the average Coloured says that he wants to move next to the White people on the road that has already been taken.

I am convinced that this Government will work out a system with the present dispensation. If the thinking of that hon. member does not want to go beyond integration good and well. However, all of us are engaged in some hard thinking about a new dispensation to bring about sensible and substantial changes. Let him shake his head. It does not matter to me. I do not expect any contribution from him. The day when the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians possibly meet to talk about the new dispensation, he will not be there. [Interjections.] He will not be there because he does not represent the Whites of South Africa. He asked some questions about where we were taking the Coloured population. The Coloured population need have no doubt that the direction has been indicated and that it will be able to make its own decisions on matters relating specifically to its own interests. The attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister in relation to the Cabinet Council has been stated clearly in the past, and I predict that in due course the Coloureds will have a meaningful say in matters of common interest.

Mr. Chairman, I think we now have an opportunity that must be seized upon by all political parties. We can now sketch for each other in this House more or less what we think about what course we should adopt with the Coloureds in South Africa. I am pleased that the hon. member who has just spoken, said at the end of his speech that the White man and the Coloured were moving together on the same road. I think he subsequently added the words “side by side on the same road.” I am also pleased that the hon. member said that a system would be worked out here by the Whites, together with the Coloureds and the Indians. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Piketberg that in the final analysis, when the final route has to be determined, that is what will happen in South Africa. There is almost total unanimity in South Africa in respect of the position of the Coloured.

Except amongst the PRP.

I am prepared to concede that there are problems with hon. members on my right and that they have their differences.

There is something from the report of the Theron Commission which I find important and which, in my opinion, may be accepted as being true. That is that we in South Africa are made up of different communities. The Coloureds form a community of their own and are unmistakably identifiable, even though they have much in common with the White language groups in South Africa. Over a period of many years, a pattern has developed whereby as a community they stay next to the White man, but have their own ambitions and aspirations. They are a group who also want to carve out a certain path for themselves in life. There is no doubt about that. I think they have always had the feeling that they want to stay as close as possible to the White man and his culture, and that we in South Africa should work out the salvation of our two groups together. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

What worries me most, and what, in my opinion, ought to worry all the members of this House, is how we are going to form a final system—apart from the Cabinet Council of the hon. the Prime Minister which, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction—so that there may be a constitutional form of joint planning, discussions and thought with those people. That is the whole issue; not whether the Coloured wants to accept our identity or we his, or whether anyone wants a fully integrated community in South Africa. It is clear to me that although they may not accept the Group Areas Act as such, they do accept that they are communities which want to administer their own affairs and pursue their own community life there.

We are separate communities.

That is right. I do not think there is any doubt that they accept that. What worries these people is the question as to whether the form of development which they are getting is equivalent to ours and whether they will be able to reach the level where they will have to take decisions jointly with us and discuss matters with us. That is why I say the hon. the Prime Minister’s step as regards the Cabinet Council is not an incorrect one, because it contains the nucleus of joint planning and discussion.

I find it unfortunate that there are some Coloured leaders in South Africa who are not prepared to accept this step. I find this extremely unfortunate because I do not view the step as a form of oppression or inferiority, but as a way of giving opportunities to the Coloured leaders. The more they show their willingness to serve on this type of body and to hold discussions, the more they will find that there is also a willingness on the part of the Whites to listen to their point of view. They will undoubtedly get a greater share in the decision-making. Although they may not be satisfied with that step, in my opinion it is not the end of the line.

I want to take this opportunity to make one statement very clear. There are some people who think we can skim off the cream of the Coloureds and bring them ever closer to the Whites. That may be a praiseworthy idea and there may be some merit in it, but we must think of the remaining thousands of Coloureds who are not on the same level of development as their leaders. There is only one group in South Africa which can educate, bring together and give the right leadership to the vast majority of the Coloureds. It cannot be us as Whites. It is simply impossible. In any event, we do not have all the facilities at our disposal. Nor do we want to do so any more because we want those people to have the opportunity of doing so themselves. The only group that can do it itself, which can take the vast majority along with them—not only to liaise with the Whites—is their own leadership group. This is irrespective of whether it be in the field of education, welfare, agriculture, culture or the economy. They will have to be the people who guide the Coloureds to greater maturity at every level of the national economy. I want to agree with what the hon. the Minister of Transport once said, viz. that as the level of civilization in South Africa is raised, the more it will be found that the importance of skin colour will diminish. The Coloured leaders— and I want to emphasize this—must declare that they are willing not just to reject and despise, but to serve on some of the bodies such as the Cabinet Council which the Government is offering them. They must seize upon those opportunities so as to give their people real guidance and leadership.

The Government made its standpoint very clear in last year’s interim White Paper. I quote from paragraph 5 on page 2—

That is a very clear statement. There will be no representation in this Parliament, in provincial councils or local institutions. At the same time there will be no establishment of a Coloured homeland either. That is why it amazes me to read the following headline in The Argus tonight relating to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education: “Treurnicht proposes Coloured homeland.” I accept that it could be incorrect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park made a very responsible speech. I have not read the newspaper report to which he has just referred, but I can give him the assurance that it is not the policy of the NP or the Government to establish a Coloured homeland.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to the hon. member for Sea Point, I want to say that he has once again come up with a very irresponsible speech. He asked a thousand and one questions in the course of his speech. In the course of his speech he made the statement that the NP came into power because one of its slogans was that it would set right the position of the Coloureds. I want to ask the hon. member what had been done for the Coloured population before 1948. If one pages through the Hansards of those years, one sees that precious little was done for the Coloured population group at that time.

They had the vote.

At that time precious little was said about their interests and the furthering of those interests. I wonder whether the hon. member who is now talking about the franchise knows who was on the voter’s roll before 1948. Does he realize that only certain Coloured males in the Cape had the vote? Did they have the vote in Natal or the Transvaal?

It was better than nothing.

It is this Government which has given the vote to every Coloured who complied with the qualifications so that today they can vote and take decisions concerning their own interests.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked innumerable questions. He asked inter alia what we planned to do in respect of the citizenship of the Coloured. I want to refer the hon. member to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, to which the hon. member himself also referred. However, he read only certain parts of the speech. There are other parts which he left out. The hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement very clear—

The hon. the Prime Minister went further and said that a dispensation had to be worked out in South Africa together “waar u binne die raamwerk van ons beleid u regte as volwaardige burgers in Suid-Afrika ten voile kan uitleef”. If the hon. member for Sea Point wishes to take the trouble to read the speech, he will find the answers to all his questions.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central hurled the accusation at the Government that we did not have a blueprint for the Coloureds. He made the statement that the late Dr. Verwoerd made a speech in 1961 and that that was the blueprint for the NP. I want to refer the hon. member to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 8 November 1974. I want to state that the path the Government was to follow with the Coloured population group, was indicated in plain language—it could not have been plainer—in that speech.

I want to come back to my standpoint in respect of the Theron report and the White Papers a standpoint which I have already stated in this House as well as outside, and which I want to repeat. My standpoint is that the report of the Theron Commission and the White Paper are not diametrically opposed. They by no means clash with each other. In fact, they supplement each other. The report and the White Paper must be read together. I believe that the Government White Paper is a great embarrassment to the Opposition parties. They did not expect the Government to accept so many of the recommendations. They were under the impression that the Government would reject the recommendations. Because the Government accepted so many of the recommendations—this afternoon the hon. the Minister indicated the number of recommendations that had been accepted—there is dissatisfaction in the ranks of these people. I want to state that those people who do not regard the White Paper and the report as a unit, are being absolutely wilful. When we read them together, we find in them a very clear course along which the Government wants to take the Coloured population group.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to recommendations 178 as the most important one and said that the Government should consider giving the CRC the right to send members to the Senate. It is an absolute mystery to me where that hon. member and his party stand in respect of the Coloureds, and exactly what their policy is. Before 1972, and at the Oudtshoorn election, they announced that if they came to power, they would give the Coloureds the right to elect six Coloured representatives to Parliament. After the Oudtshoorn election they came up with a federal policy in which they held out the prospect of two legislative councils, or whatever you want to call them, for the Coloureds. In 1973, however, they made another about-face and declared, through the Leader of the Opposition: “Nou moet ons die weg baan”; they were going to help the Government. But now it is they who need help and I do not think anyone wants to help them. But at that time they stated that if the Government wanted to allow Coloureds in Parliament, they would lend their full support to this move. As a member of the Theron Commission, the hon. member voted in favour of the recommendation that the Government appoint a committee to conduct an investigation into the Westminster system. This afternoon, however, he says that the Government should allow the CRC to elect members to the Senate. No one knows what that hon. member and his party stand for. No one in South Africa has any clue as to what their policy is. [Interjections.] I repeat that if one reads the report in conjunction with the Government White Paper, one finds that it indicates a very definite course. What is more, I want to emphasize that a vast field of work is outlined in the report and the White Paper. Who would want to deny this afternoon that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done in all fields in respect of the Coloureds? There is work to be done in the economic field, in the field of welfare and upliftment as well as in the educational field. One also finds in it the sincere intention of the Government to help the Brown population group of South Africa, as well as the intention to stabilize the relations between White and Brown.

What do we need to make these things a reality? In this regard, two factors are of absolutely cardinal importance. The field of work has been pointed out to us and now, first of all, we need manpower and leadership. The NP Government and the majority of Whites are prepared to do their share. It is vitally important that everyone of us does his share. I want to agree with an article in Die Burger of 13 April 1977 which reads—

That brings me to the leaders in the Coloured society. Allow me to express at once my appreciation to the teachers, the clergymen and the social workers who are doing their share, often under very difficult conditions, in the interest of their people. I want tp give them the assurance that their contributions are not going unnoticed and that no one is indifferent towards them. It is true that a people needs strong, positive leadership in the political sphere. In this regard the question arises: Why are the Coloureds not making any progress in this sphere? Must all the blame for this be laid at the door of the Government? I am convinced that the Coloured political leader is making certain fundamental mistakes. The first and most important is his practising of irresponsible confrontation politics. They will never get anywhere with that type of politics. One will not promote the interests of one’s people by means of confrontation politics. The hand of sincere friendship has time and again been extended to the Coloured leaders and the Coloured population and just as often, it has been pushed aside. One will never get anywhere with continual boycotts. That is no good to anyone. Nor will one get anywhere by refusing to endorse a budget that is in the interests of one’s own people. After all, the money was appropriated to promote the interests of those people. That is the first basic mistake that has been made, and from the depths of my heart and in all sincerity and honesty, I want to make an appeal to the Coloured leaders this afternoon on behalf of my people to cease practising confrontation politics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the debate so far the Theron Commission Report has been dealt with in somewhat general terms while specific questions have been put to the hon. the Minister. What is evident from what has been said in the House this afternoon— despite the numbers game which the hon. the Minister himself played this afternoon—is that some 25% of the recommendations of the Theron Commission have either not yet been decided upon or have been rejected. According to the hon. the Minister’s own figures 53 out of 220 have either not yet been decided on or have been rejected.

23.

I have said that 53 have not yet decided upon or have been rejected. The only explanation we have received from the hon. member for Piketberg with regard to the rejection of these recommendations is that they were contrary to NP politics. But as yet no one has said that the recommendations have been rejected because they are considered as being unreasonable in expressing the views of the Coloured people. I hope when the hon. the Minister deals with the debate, he will deal with this particular aspect, i.e. his approach and his assessment of the reasonableness or otherwise of these requests exclusive of and away from the question of their conflict with the policy of the Government.

I do not wish this afternoon to indulge, as the hon. member for Newton Park did, in telling the House what I think the Coloured people think. I believe—I have said it often from this side of the House—that we should hear from them themselves what they think. We are not here to tell the House what we think they think. What I want to do, however, is to deal with certain aspects of what is happening, under the Government’s policy, to various Coloured communities in the various different categories. I shall do this by referring to three categories of the Coloured community which exist in my constituency, i.e. the Green Point constituency. I do this because there are categories and communities different in nature, each with different problems and in different stages of neglect so far as their needs are concerned.

In the first place I want to refer to the community that is resident in Schotsche Kloof. This community includes the Malay quarter, which has been declared as a national monument. The community is characterized by a strong sense of community sentiment and community cohesion. Basically it is an artisan community, having at its disposal almost all conceivable skills which could be utilized in the interest of the community itself and in the interest of that part of the city. That community is denied a meaningful participation in the preservation and even in the uplift of the area in which they live. They do not have any municipal franchise except for the small residue of those who were on the roll some years ago. Without consulting them decisions which affect them are taken and their needs are neglected. The area was declared a slum in 1938. Then came the war years and the delays subsequent to that in having the buildings and the houses renovated. This work has not yet been completed and we are already in 1977. The foundations for the extensions to blocks of flats have been allowed to be eroded by the weather and they have been washed away. What is even more important, in recent times—the hon. the Minister will be aware of this—the recreational-cum-liquor outlet in the Strand Street quarry was decided upon by Government departments without any regard for, or consultation with, the people themselves and without regard to the situation of their mosques in relation to the proposed construction.

A symposium was held last weekend which I was invited to attend and I sent the hon. the Minister the papers which were delivered, responsible papers, by the people living in these areas. For years these people have used the Green Point Common for recreation, but they cannot use it any more, because it has been closed off fenced in and is being used for White sport. I might remind the hon. the Minister that in the 1940’s Basil d’Oliviera learnt his cricket while dodging traffic up in Bree Street. In 1977 aspirant d’Oliviera’s still have to play around in Schotsche Kloof because they have no sports fields on which to play. For five years I have pleaded about the Green Point cycle track and I have been moved from Minister to Minister, from Planning to Community Development, from Community Development to Coloured Relations and back again to the first one, and even down to departmental level, but what happens? The Coloureds use it, but they use it on permission of a permit which is extended year by year because the hon. the Minister of Planning is not prepared to do the necessary zoning or to exempt it from the Group Areas Act. It is being used now by the Coloured people, but it is being used on a permit system, without any sense of security. No money is being spent on development and the city council will not spend money on it while that position pertains. This community is showing what it can do for itself. It was without a community centre, but it has restored a dilapidated school building. It has established a nursery school. It runs a Muslin Jaycee and it runs various other activities in that school building which was made available. There are 1 500 school children in this area and those school children, together with the soccer clubs, the rugby clubs, the tennis clubs and the netball clubs that are trying to function in that community, are entitled to a better treatment than they have received, and I hope this hon. Minister will use his influence to see that the Green Point Cycle Track—which the Cape Town city council have approved should be made available for Coloureds—is made available as a Coloured sports centre for these people.

There is a second area to which I wish to refer, namely the Walmer Estate area. This is an area of a different type. It is different in some respects, but it consists mainly of businessmen and artisans. Recently, they were pleased when their area of ground was expanded by a proclamation under the Group Areas Act. The area was expanded, but what happened? The very moment that it was expanded, the Community Development Board gave notice that it wished to have a pre-emptive right on every property that came up for sale. Immediately one had uncertainty and indecision. These people do not understand that this right will probably only be exercised on the occasional slum property. I now have to go to these people and explain to them what the effect of this proclamation actually is. Let me add that as far as they are concerned, the sport and community facilities are virtually non-existent for Coloured people in that area. Next door lie the waste, barren, open spaces of District Six, which could be utilized at least at the present time until someone can find a White buyer to buy the property. It could be used for sporting facilities for the Coloured people.

Thirdly, there are many thousands of families living in my constituency who have been uncertain about their future ever since the Group Areas Act was introduced. They are unable to develop a settled family life. This has extended over a period of 25 years. They have no sense of security whatsoever. They are either living in controlled areas—and hon. members know what that means—or they are living as disqualified persons in other areas, with the threat of removal hanging over their heads. This includes at the moment 2 500 Coloured families who are still living in the District Six area, and also 137 Indian families who are living in that area. In that area they have endured the threat of removal hanging over their heads for nearly two decades. The City Council of Cape Town wanted to get rid of those slums in 1963, but the all-knowing Government from Pretoria said: “No, we shall do it.” The result is that these families are still waiting to be resettled. I want to mention that the Eoan Group was born in this community. They are decent, law-abiding citizens, and with very few exceptions, they are seeking a better life. They are willing to contribute their skills to their own upliftment. They seek opportunities for self-help, but not for charity. Surely that recognition cannot be denied them? Today, as in past decades, they are being denied the basic considerations which are the very minimum that are consonant with their rights and, in fact, their citizenship of this country.

If the present trends and attitudes are allowed to continue as far as these people are concerned—I give them as an example; it is mirrored in other parts of the country—the Government will be responsible for the inevitable bitterness which will arise from the legitimate frustration of these people. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to these matters.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point referred to a number of relevant matters. Strictly speaking, they are matters that fall under the Department of Community Development. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to them.

I should like to continue my argument of a moment ago. I was making the statement that we are asking the elected Coloured leader to play his part as well. We are asking him to put an end to the politics of confrontation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said earlier today that the Government only talks to the nominated members of the CRC. He then made the statement that the Government therefore only talks to itself. He said the Government does not talk to the elected members. I want to give the hon. member and his party my assurance that the Government has a burning desire to talk to the elected members of the CRC.

I know that.

I again quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech of 1974—

And this “we” is not only the White Cabinet. It also includes the elected members of the CRC. The hon. the Prime Minister continued—

In other words that is an invitation to the elected leaders to come forward with proposals. The hon. the Prime Minister also said—

We are there. The hon. the Prime Minister is there. The Cabinet is there. The Cabinet Council was established and the meetings were arranged. Therefore I want to know from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central where the elected members of the Coloured population are. They are people who were lawfully elected and who receive their salaries every month. An invitation is now being extended to them, but they are not there. [Interjections.] I ask in all sincerity that we cease to practice the politics of confrontation and that we continue seeing to the interests of people.

However, I want to make another statement.

I know that I am approaching delicate terrain. I am convinced, however, that these Coloured leaders are gambling with the future and with the happiness of the Coloured population. I now want to quote Dr. Allan Boesak who wrote in Deurbraak. He says—

Note, he talks about the “so-called” Coloured. I would hang my head in shame here tonight if I had to speak of my nation as the “so-called” Afrikaner nation. One should be proud of belonging to a nation. One should constantly see to the interests of your people. Dr. Allan Boesak then says—

In other words, Dr. Allan Boesak, student lecturer at the University of the Western Cape, writes in this article in Deurbraak that he wants to influence his people so that they can form a non-racial community in South Africa. That is his ideal. I regret to say it, but it is also the ideal of many other Coloureds today. If that is not so, those Coloured leaders should come forward and should dissociate themselves from that ideal.

When one does such things as these, one is gambling with the future of one’s nation. It is clear that these people do not take note of the composition of the population in South Africa. It is also clear that they do not take note of what has happened elsewhere in Africa. It is my contention that if we apply this sort of thing in South Africa, if we implement the policy of the PRP—the policy of “one man, one vote”—we will be ploughed under. The first population group which will be ploughed under in the process, is the Coloured population. I am convinced that the White man will still defend himself and will be able to hold his own, though it will be difficult and bitter. The Coloured population group, however, will under no circumstances be able to hold its own and will therefore go under in the process. [Interjections.] I should like to appeal to responsible Coloured leaders to stop gambling with the future of their people. I talk to many Coloureds. Not only do I talk to Coloured leaders, I also talk to the ordinary Coloured on the street. I did so only last week. I know that the Coloured does not want to be associated with the Black man. I can give the House an example of that. It is something which happened to me and my family earlier this year. We brought a Coloured servant with us from Oudtshoorn to Acacia Park, where most of the servants are Bantu. After a week that Coloured servant asked me please to send her back to Oudtshoorn.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment, I said that in my opinion the Coloured leaders were making certain fundamental mistakes. The first mistake to which I referred, was the irresponsible confrontation politics being practised. I also said that I believed that they were gambling with the future and the happiness of the Coloured. I should like to go even further and mention another fundamental mistake. I want to refer to what Mr. Sonny Leon said during an interview with Die Huisgenoot on 10 June 1977—

He then says—

I want to say in all sincerity tonight that when people argue like this, they are totally wrong. There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Whites to push the Coloureds aside and to leave them in the lurch. There is indeed a sincere and honest intention to help this population group in our country. If Mr. Leon says that this policy was discarded and that they were left completely in the lurch because somebody else took over, it is an incorrect statement and a basic mistake which is being made. Over the years the NP’s policy has simply developed and unfolded …

Oh, there he goes again.

No, it is not a question of going. It is the whole truth and I could tell the hon. member many other things but the hon. member should only be honest, should face up to it and should admit it. After all, we have made progress in all these fields and are still making progress. That is why we have this Cabinet Committee which is in all sincerity considering the constitutional and political development of the Coloured.

But we accept that.

This is not a fig leaf we are hiding behind. That hon. member who is kicking up such a fuss, requested himself that a Cabinet Committee be appointed and now the Committee is at work.

The Coloureds are making a fundamental mistake when they argue that the Whites are leaving them in the lurch. When I am on my political platform I speak frankly and honestly to my people. My people are willing to follow. However, when a Coloured leader stands up in the CRC or anywhere else and speaks in an irresponsible way, many of my people are not prepared to follow that path. I want to ask tonight that we should not adopt the point of view that we are leaving each other in the lurch, but only that we be responsible towards each other. I also want to ask tonight that there be recognition on the part of the Coloureds for the fact that the Whites, too, have the right to possess certain things which belong to them and which they have built up over the years. It is his earnest desire to cherish these things and he wants to pass them on to his people, because every nation in the world has the right to retain certain things for itself. We also grant the Coloured population that right. They have their own institutions and those things which they have built up themselves. Not one of the members of the PRP has helped to build up those things but the Coloureds have built them up over the years. I am convinced tonight that they want to retain those things and do not want to give them up.

I want to refer to another fundamental mistake made by the Coloured leaders. It is a lack of insight into the determining of priorities by their own people. What does the Theron report tell us in this regard? Surely the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central ought to know. When Coloured respondents from the urban population are questioned, they say that housing, land, public facilities and services are of primary importance to them. The Government has committed itself to provide housing in order to establish a healthy community. Priority No. 2 is the improvement of their financial position. No. 3 is the combating of crime. Political and civil rights are only in the fourth place.

I want to conclude by asking that we should all act positively. I want to ask the Coloured leader not to allow himself to be misled by a dishonest element in White politics. These are people who are not sincere, but who are misusing the Coloureds for their own gain and are trying to make progress in that way. I identify that element in our politics as the PRP. If I were to be a member of a party which publishes a journal such as Deurbraak …

Mr. Chairman, earlier in his speech the hon. member made a remark about people who are dishonest in their politics. He pointed to us and said it was the PRP. Is that not unparliamentary?

Order! If the hon. member refers to other hon. members he is not allowed to use the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member feels that it applies to him, I withdraw it. If I belonged to a political party which associated itself with this magazine … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who has just resumed his seat, for a positive contribution to the debate. [Interjections.] I hope that hon. members opposite have and will continue to have the objectivity to appreciate a positive speech. The plea advanced by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn was that leaders of true quality should come forward in our Coloured community. There is no subject which is of such great concern to me as that very plea of his. The situation in our Coloured community cries out for leadership of significance, and there are such leaders. But sometimes such leaders, too, are thrown into confusion—and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn—by people in our White politics who still want to use Coloured leaders to further their own causes.

Who are they?

I shall deal with the speeches made by the other hon. members later on.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who was the main UP speaker. I want to express my appreciation for his positive approach by saying that he is aware—he and his party—of very positive things which have been done and are being done, and also of the very positive things in the Government’s White Paper on the Theron Commission report. I have known that hon. member for many years, and I have appreciation for the fact that he can at least recognize positive things, and does not conceal them but admits when something is positive. The hon. member also said this in a speech earlier this year. I think it was under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, when he also discussed this matter. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for that as well.

While we are on a positive note now, let us see what positive things the report of the Theron Commission points out. Let us look at chapter 19 of the report. It contains a representation of the view of the Coloureds themselves on their own circumstances, their needs, their priorities and other matters. Let us see, with this in view, what the Theron Commission points out elsewhere to be able to form a picture of what is in fact happening on the labour market where people have to earn their livelihood. In this regard I want to furnish certain information. Almost 35% of the economically active Coloured population at present comprises 8,8% of the South African labour market. At first glance this appears to be a rather small percentage, but it must be borne in mind that the Coloured population is relatively youthful, and if that is borne in mind the low percentage is readily understandable. 56% of the total population of 2,4 million Coloureds is 20 years of age and younger. 45% is below 15 years of age. Of the total labour market 93% is below 54 years of age. Only 1,4% is older than 64 years. During 1973 the Coloureds occupied 10% of all posts for professional people, 15% of all posts for artisans and approximately 17% of all apprentice posts in our country. The actual figures were in 1962 33 161 artisans and 7 880 apprentices. If it is borne in mind that in 1962 only 3% of all apprentices were Coloureds, it will give us an idea of the progress that has been made in this sphere.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the historical event that took place at Bellville yesterday, when the first group of Coloured motor mechanics qualified under the new dispensation created by my department without having been apprentices. There is therefore a progressive tendency in various fields. Between 1970 and 1973 the number of Coloureds in professional posts increased by 12%. Of the 440 000 Coloured professional people in 1973 28 000 held professional positions. It is in the manufacturing industry in particular that the Coloureds play an important part. In the Western Cape, for example, they comprise 95% of the total labour market in the clothing, textile, leather and footwear industries. In 1960 66% of the total number of workers in factories in the Cape Peninsula and in 36 adjoining districts were Coloureds. Last year, 1976, this figure had grown to 84% or 180 441. During 1974 Coloureds, with the exception of farm workers and domestic servants, occupied positions in 462 different spheres of activity. Remuneration for the Coloured workers’ corps has increased phenomenally. In 1959-’60 itv was R177 million; in 1969-’70, R449 million and in 1974-’75 it was R979 million, i.e. almost a R1 000 million. It is expected to increase to R2 083 million by the year 1979-’80, and that is in two years’ time. From September 1970 to April 1973 the consumer price index in South Africa rose by 17,9%. Over the same period wages for Whites rose by 17,5% and those of Coloureds by 38,3%. The average income of Coloured households in the Cape Peninsula rose from R1 586 in 1970 to R3 131 in 1975, i.e. within a period of five years. This appears from a survey made by the Bureau for Market Research of the University of South Africa. Therefore, there has been a 97% increase over a period of only five years, while the income of Whites over the same period increased by only approximately 60%. In 1975 the Coloureds in the Peninsula represented a consumer market of R484 million, which is considerably more than the gross domestic product of many African States. These particulars give an approximate indication of the labour mobility of the Coloured workers’ corps in the private and the public sector. As the report of the Theron Commission pointed out, all these things mean progress, and we should welcome them and focus attention on what a potential asset the Coloured population of South Africa constitutes for us. Looking at the present situation in respect of employment, or the lack of it as a result of the present difficult economic times, we find that unemployment is causing concern among all population groups. At present 5 277 Coloureds are registered as unemployed at the office of the Department of Labour in Cape Town. What causes one even greater concern is that these people are offered work from time to time—frequently with very good wages, as the hon. the Minister of Labour indicated here the other day—but that it is not accepted. I want to give a good example of this. Recently a firm building houses for Coloureds at Mitchell’s Plain approached the Department of Labour for a 100 unskilled workers. In spite of a wage of R0,77 per hour, or R30,80 per week, only 63 unemployed persons came forward. 56 of them boarded the truck and 50 alighted from it when it had reached its destination. Apparently six had jumped off the truck when it stopped at stop streets or robots along the way. The following day only 22 turned up for work.

That is a hackneyed story.

But it is good to hear it again. Does the hon. member not wish to hear what the facts are? Here we are discussing a problematical situation of the present day, and not of the future. I hope that the hon. member for Green Point will also listen. Twenty-two turned up for work the next day, but at the end of the day there were only 16 left. A day after that only four turned up. It is things such as these which sometimes make one doubt whether the unemployment situation is not sometimes being exaggerated a little or even make one wonder whether it is not being exploited.

Do you believe that it is being exaggerated?

I believe that it is being exaggerated. That hon. member is one of the members on the opposite side of the House who say that unemployment is increasing. But he is also the one who tells that type of Coloured what to say. [Interjections.]

I want to refer again to the figures furnished in the Erika Theron Commission report. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please make fewer interjections.

The commission found that at the end of 1975 there were approximately 100 400 Coloureds whose occupations could not be identified. It is calculated that this number will increase to 179 000 by the year 1980, i.e. within two or three years’ time. This gives rise to concern. The interdepartmental committee on labour for the Western Cape gave very serious consideration to this matter at its meeting in April of this year in Cape Town. No country can afford to have such a large number of passengers. Consequently steps are being considered for activating those people into service.

I can refer to another instructive example of progress, i.e. the growth in Coloured entrepreneurship. According to estimate there were between 12 000 and 15 000 Coloured enterprises in this country in 1970. Most of these were active in the construction industry, in commerce and in the service industries.

The Coloured Development Corporation, which is directed at rendering financial assistance to the Coloured businessman, had between 1962 and September of last year granted loans of more than R34 million to Coloured businessmen. Numerous Coloured business undertakings have been established. Since the Government has now indicated that no group character will in future be given to industrial areas, it can be expected that the Coloureds will in due course enter the industrial world on a more intensive scale.

According to chapter 20 of the report of the commission one of the great priorities for Coloureds is housing. In that respect a large backlog exists.

But if one looks at the matter positively, one can see what progress has already been made. At the end of 1970 the backlog in respect of Coloured housing was approximately 100 500 residential units. That backlog had dwindled to 58 600 at the end of 1976. In 1975 30 times more houses were built for Coloureds, or were under construction, than in the 40 years between 1920 and 1960.

[Inaudible.]

These figures are authentic. If the hon. member does not believe me, he is at liberty to verify them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister on what occasion he made this speech for the first time, and how many times he has subsequently repeated it?

Of course I have used this data before. If the hon. member is concerned about it, let me say that he has not listened to it before.

I know it already.

Very well then, if the hon. member knows it …

We have also read about it before.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that. I said at the outset that there was a negative note in references to the Coloureds and their position and also on the part of the organs which are going to support that hon. member and his new party. I shall make use of this occasion to give prominence to the positive aspect.

This is a second-hand speech.

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance.

In 1972 a total of almost 10 000 dwellings were completed for Coloureds at a cost of R20,67 million and last year 17 897 houses at a total cost of R86,57 million. On 31 December 1976 there were 12 271 houses under construction, at a cost of R86,4 million, while on the same day the construction of a further 19 861 residential units had been approved, at an estimated cost of approximately R169 million.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I can see that some hon. members are afraid of the truth. When the positive image is presented—the opportunity to do so does not occur every day—they object.

We expect a little originality from you in the discussion of your Vote.

The hon. member will hear originality if he will only listen to me. The positive aspects which I have mentioned, have been singled out by the Theron Commission report, but I know that the hon. member for Durban Point has never read that report.

I have.

That is my problem with most people who level criticism at the standpoints of the Government: They have not yet read the Theron Commission report, nor the Government’s White Paper on it.

Do you want to bet?

That is why I am pointing out these things tonight. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did not refer to the positive things which I pointed out here. And what is more, I have referred to only a few of the positive aspects. The hon. member did at least admit that there were in fact positive things. However, he then proceeded to say that certain important recommendations of the commission’s report had not been accepted and that this was leading to frustration among the Coloureds. The hon. member for Durban Point said that he had heard what I had to say before. But I, on my part, have had to hear on numerous occasions, and I shall probably still have to hear this even more repeatedly, that there are five recommendations in particular which are allegedly so negative that they destroy everything else. I looked forward to the discussion of this Vote with great expectations, particularly to hear from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central what these five recommendations are.

The first he mentioned, was recommendation 153. This deals with cultural matters. The hon. member should forgive me if I play the schoolmaster a little tonight, but I have discovered that it is sometimes necessary to do so, particularly for the edification of hon. members who have not read this report. What is the hon. member’s grievance? For the sake of clarity, let me quote what the commission has recommended here. The commission recommended that—

1. (a) daarvan afgesien word om die Kleurlingbevolking as ’n gemeenskap te beskou wat kultureel anders is en kultureel van die Blankebevolkingsgroep onderskei kan word;
2. (b) die kultuurbevordering en -beoefening binne dieselfde organisatoriese opset en saam met dié vir Afrikaans-en Engelssprekende Blankes in Suid-Afrika behandel word.

What is the hon. member’s grievance? He is implying that the Government takes a different view of this matter. But what does the White Paper say? Has the hon. member read it?

Yes, definitely.

In the White Paper one reads—

The Government accepts it—

So where does the hon. member’s sense of grievance come from?

Read further.

I shall gladly read further—

What are those cultural needs?

Those needs exist. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn spelled them out this afternoon. I am not, therefore, going to spend time on this again.

What are the particular cultural needs?

There is a particular need for the furthering of culture in a community which is lagging behind, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said … [Interjections.] Please give me a chance. If the hon. member wants a reply, he must give me a chance. The particular need is the extent to which these people are lagging behind in this respect, and it cannot be furthered by a paternalist like the hon. member for Rondebosch. It has to be furthered by their own people and by means of their own structure. That is the Government’s standpoint.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am sorry, but there are still a lot of matters I have to deal with. The hon. member still has another turn to speak. He can return to this matter then.

The next point which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made, was with reference to recommendation 155. That recommendation also deals with cultural matters. The plea there is that Coloured cultural organizations should be incorporated into the National Cultural Council.

Yes.

Why does everyone say “yes”? What does this entail? Has the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central ever analysed the recommendation? Has the hon. member ever read what the Government’s standpoint in this regard is? No matter how much the hon. member for Durban Point complains, I am nevertheless going to read out the Government’s standpoint in this regard. He has not read it yet.

That is untrue.

On page 101 of the White Paper the Government’s standpoint is set out as follows—

They want to be part of the co-ordination. That is very important.

Co-ordination is something else again. The Coloured community has a specific need for a functional organization. The White Paper goes on to state—

The next objection of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central dealt with recommendations 85 and 95. For the sake of convenience I am omitting them, because there was the complaint that the Government’s White Paper was unco-ordinated and was written haphazardly. However, I am telling the hon. member that thorough work was done here.

I never said that.

I did not accuse the hon. member of having said that. Certain bodies outside this House implied that. Recommendation 85 deals with the Peninsula College for Advanced Technical Education at Bell ville and the plea of the commission was that the control of this college should fall under the Department of National Education.

The university as well.

In case the hon. member does not know it, recommendation 95 deals with the university. I shall come to that.

He knows it because he said it.

The Government’s standpoint on recommendation 85 is set out as follows on page 58 of the White Paper—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was a member of the commission and I am therefore speaking to him as one of the commissioners. The hon. member is discussing this matter in the House, but the Administration of the CRC say that he did not even verify his facts with the officials of the Administration or the Executive.

I was with them many times.

The hon. member may have been with them, but he did not discuss this particular matter. The White Paper goes on to state—

I am very pleased about that.

I am pleased that the hon. member is pleased. I share his pleasure. The Government’s reaction in regard to recommendation No. 95 is one of the major bones of contention which the hon. member has with the Government. The recommendation states that the University of the Western Cape should also fall under the Department of National Education. The Government’s standpoint in this regard is that the recommendation cannot be accepted. The university should not be seen in isolation, but should be part of the development and the expansion of the community which it serves, in all spheres. The statement in the commission’s report in connection with the financing of the university is also inaccurate. The permanent advisory committee for the financing of non-White universities, Pacfun for short, did not recommend that the control over this university should be transferred to the Department of National Education. Did the hon. member verify this matter?

The other complaint of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central related to the non-acceptance of recommendation 150, dealing with welfare services. In that recommendation it is requested that all State welfare services should fall under one department. The hon. member supported the recommendation and is now taking it amiss of the Government because we do not want to accept it. However, the recommendation goes on to state that there should be directorates or divisions connected to this department, inter alia, a directorate for Coloured welfare. For what reason? The directorates will give special attention to the specific welfare needs of the various population groups. At present there is a directorate for welfare services with the Administration of Coloured Affairs, a directorate over which the Coloureds themselves have control and which is exercising this very function. The hon. member is now reproaching the Government because we do not want to accept the recommendation that all welfare services should fall under one department, but at the same time proposes the establishment of a directorate which will simply have to be administered in the same way as the directorate fór welfare services of the Administration of Coloured Affairs.

Why must everything be duplicated?

The hon. member for Durban Point should just listen for a while. I am speaking to a commissioner, a member of the commission. It is known that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said at their congress in East London last year: “If the UP were governing, the recommendations of the commission would have been implemented almost verbatim.”

Yes.

The chorus says “yes”, but I want to speak to the hon. member as a commissioner.

Those were the recommendations of the commission …

I have already dealt with a few of these matters with the hon. member, and there are others which I still have to come to. Point (e) of recommendation 150 reads that civil pensions should be transferred to another department. I know that at least the hon. member for Durban Berea and the hon. member for Umbilo know something about pensions. [Interjections.] But for the edification of all the other hon. members on that side of the House I want to say that civil pensions are the pensions of all of us who are sitting in this House, of all of those who work in the Public Service and of all of those who are teachers and all of those who work for State corporations. Can the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central bring me any evidence to prove that civil pensions—the Department of Social Welfare have been working with civil pensions for as long as 40 years now—should be taken away from this department and transferred to another department? Can the hon. member bring me any such evidence?

I cannot do so at the moment.

The hon. member said that the recommendations of the commission would be implemented verbatim if they were in power. I want to ask the hon. member something else, for surely he ought to be thoroughly conversant with this matter. I said in a speech last year that the commission had made mistakes as far as its meritorious proposals were concerned as well. I quoted this specific matter as one of them. I explained why I differed with the commission in certain respects. The hon. member must now tell me to which department control over civil pensions should be transferred if he wishes to remove the control from my department.

To the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Surely there is such a department.

The hon. member is now admitting that we have such a department. Yet the commission recommends that the control over civil pensions should be taken away from that department and transferred to an unnamed department. There we have now heard the truth from the lips of the hon. member.

You have a department doing the job now. One is enough.

Surely the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing it in any case. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is under the impression that another department controls the civil pensions of Coloureds, he is making a mistake. It is all controlled by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. However, the hon. member supports a recommendation which amounts to this task being removed functionally from one department and transferred to an unspecified department. I am now asking the hon. member which department it should be, but he cannot answer me. In the meantime, however, he says that his party will implement these recommendations verbatim.

I shall reply to the hon. the Minister in my own speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that recommendation No. 66—dealing with agricultural land—should be implemented. He wants Coloureds to be able to purchase agricultural land freely.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear!”. The hon. member published his own document in regard to the Erika Theron report. I shall discuss the matter with him further in a moment. In regard to this specific recommendation the hon. member wrote as follows, I believe it was he who framed it—

Then surely the hon. member has not accepted it either, at least not completely. Then he has surely not implemented it verbatim either! Then, surely, he recognizes problem situations which he never thinks about in his politics. Then, surely, he recognizes the problem situations with which the Government has to deal. That is what the hon. member also perceives when he does his homework a little further.

Yes, but I have now decided that those problems no longer exist. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is now my opportunity to discuss matters with the hon. member. Some time ago, by way of an interjection, the hon. member told me that he was very proud of this document.

I am very proud of it.

That was when I asked him to inform this House which things in this document he would omit in a discreet way. The hon. member said that they would implement the report of the commission verbatim.

Most of the recommendations, yes.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what the hon. member did? He even sent me this document, with his compliments. However, he thought that I would not study the document, and that I, too, would perhaps not …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must please refrain from making constant interjections.

When I studied this document of the hon. member, what did I discover? I then discovered that the hon. member had, in a discreet way, effected numerical changes to the recommendations in the commission’s report. He caused certain parts of it to be reprinted virtually as it was, and stated succinctly at the end that the UP accepted all the recommendations of the commission’s report. However, this is something which the public will never discover, because the recommendations in the commission’s report differ numerically from those in the hon. member’s document. [Interjections.] When I read through this document, I discovered how many things the hon. member had omitted in a discreet way, things which he included under other numbers. Recommendation No, 30, which deals with the National Manpower Board, was omitted entirely. Recommendation No. 31, which asked for consideration to be given to the reorganization of the labour bureau system, was also simply omitted. [Interjections.] Recommendation 32 deals with the establishment of an orientation centre and geographic centres where a reasonable concentration of Coloureds occur. This, too, was simply omitted. The same applies in the case of recommendation No. 33. [Interjections.] Recommendation No. 34 was changed in a discreet way because the numerical similarities are missing.

The position in regard to recommendation No. 80 will amaze hon. members. When the session began this year, it was a topical matter in the news. It dealt with the admission of non-Whites to private schools for Whites— and recommendation No. 80 of the commission’s report covered this matter. Whether there is any problem or not, recommendation No. 80 is conspicuous by its absence in this document. Recommendation No. 91, too, is conspicuous by its absence.

We thought there were certain things which went without saying.

Recommendation No. 92 is conspicuous by its absence. Recommendation No. 126, as well, which deals with the training centre for Coloured cadets, is conspicuous by its absence.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what he is trying to prove now?

That you left out so many important recommendations. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please stop making these interjections of theirs.

I shall tell the hon. member what I am trying to prove. I am implying that people who imply that they are conversant with the commission’s report, are not all that conversant with it.

Nor do they accept it either.

Yes. The hon. member said that it would be implemented word for word.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister where I said that it would be carried out word for word.

Here I have a report from East London dated 19 August last year, in which the hon. member said in regard to the Theron Commission report that if the UP were governing, it would have implemented the recommendations of the commission almost verbatim.

“Almost”. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making a final appeal to hon. members to maintain silence.

In conclusion I should like to deal with another recommendation which the hon. member discussed. Recommendation No. 43, which was accepted by the majority of the commission—there was only one dissenting vote—deals with a matter which this side of the House is in very great earnest about, namely preference to and the protection of Coloured labour in the Western Cape. The commission expressed itself strongly in favour of this policy being implemented even more vigorously than has been done up to now. I am very grateful to the commission for that. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central supported that recommendation of the commission, but when it came to the documents which the hon. member published, he stated that, for various reasons, the UP could not support the above-mentioned recommendation of the commission. I have now dealt with the hon. member who said that he would implement virtually everything verbatim.

Virtually everything, yes.

But here in his document he is rejecting a recommendation which he supported in the commission, under his own signature. That is where the problem of matters such as these lies, matters which people sometimes talk about easily, but do not understand in essence.

I should now like to deal with another matter which the hon. member also raised here, namely the question: What does the Cabinet Council entail? The hon. member for Sea Point also raised this matter, but to my regret he is not here this evening. However, he apologized for unfortunately not being able to be here this evening. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Sea Point implied that they wanted to know more about the Cabinet Council, as if I had not spoken about this matter—for the edification of the hon. member for Durban Point—on umpteen occasions.

†Mr. Chairman, for the convenience of hon. members, I am going to give the background of the Cabinet Council. I am going to quote from a particular document which was handed to the members of the executive of the CRC a couple of weeks ago and which reads as follows—

1. (a) Five Cabinet Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister;
2. (b) the five Coloured representatives mentioned in the paragraph above; and
3. (c) the Chairman or the Speaker and four members of the Indian Council.

I can assure the Committee that this is also the opinion of those Coloured members now serving on the Cabinet Council. They will be only too prepared to make way for the members of the executive to serve on that particular council. I now want to explain the procedure at Cabinet Council meetings—

This particularly applies to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon—

Paragraph 9.3. The representation …

—

Do not worry, I am just keeping pace with you.

No, that interests me, Mr. Chairman. It interests me because up to this very moment this document has been a private one, a document which has only been available to members of the executive of the CRC.

You had better put BOSS onto me.

It therefore rather surprises me that the hon. member for Sea Point is in possession of this private document. [Interjections.] I am sorry, the hon. member for Durban Point. But the hon. member for Sea Point was also in possession of this document.

You may do anything you like, but do not insult me.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge the hon. member for Sea Point also made use of this document this afternoon. I wrote him a letter to ask him from what document he was quoting. He did not reply in writing, but told me privately that he got his information from his party office and that it was not a document of this kind. Yet I have my suspicions that the hon. member for Sea Point was reading from this very document, which up to this moment was a private one and only in the hands of my department and members of the executive of the CRC. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether a document remains private when it is read out in Parliament?

I have the permission of the Cabinet Council to circulate this document on this occasion. I am in the right when I read from it now. I am afraid that the hon. member for Durban Point has a lot to explain. How did he manage to get hold of this document ?

Put BOSS onto me.

Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with BOSS. I will come back to this particular issue. The mere fact that while a document is confidential and only for the use of particular people, other people make use of it, spells out something.

It is sinister; it smells.

I read further—

The hon. member must now follow what I read, but I think he owes it to me to explain to me afterwards.

Will you please show me where it is marked “confidential” either on the cover or in the document itself?

I read further—

Now, Mr. Chairman, at a previous meeting with the members of the executive the request was made to me, after discussing the issue of taking part in the Cabinet Council, to supply them with a blueprint. This is the document that was supplied to the members of the executive. Two days later the following report appeared in The Cape Times, and I quote—

This was a very positive reaction, although he pointed out that there would be another meeting with me to discuss the possibility of serving on the Cabinet Council although he had indicated to me that they were bound to the executive of their party to consider their opinion too. I must inform hon. members that one day prior to the next meeting, I was informed that the members of the executive complained that they only received this document, which the hon. member for Durban Point seemingly also has, on that particular day. According to my information it was made available on the previous Monday. Hon. members can see that this document is not very lengthy, as I have read it out tonight. They then informed me that they were not in a position to discuss this document on that particular Wednesday and that they would ask me for a further discussion at a later stage. As in 1975, here too I learnt soon afterwards, through the Press, that the Labour Party had decided not to take part in the discussions of the Cabinet Council and not to make themselves available for the Cabinet Council. That rather surprised me as the idea was that we should have another discussion. It is customary with discussions of this kind, that one informs the other party about one’s decisions formally and not send a reply via the public Press. Because of developments I thought I had to inform the House about this. I am not blaming the gentleman. Perhaps they will have another look at the situation. I can say in all honesty that I have been meeting members of the executive on several occasions. They were quite prepared to come to my office on several occasions for discussions. I have told them then privately that I would never drop them politically; in other words, make outside announcements about our discussions which can harm their political standing with members of other political parties. I do not think that any member of the executive of the Labour Party can accuse me tonight of ever having done that.

*I have done my part in this matter. My comment with reference to these first reports which appeared in the newspapers was that my standpoint throughout had been that I did not talk about matters which had been discussed in confidence. In that respect I have kept my word. I want to say again tonight that this will continue to be my approach to members of the Executive, people whom I respect in the offices which they occupy. I shall deal in this way with confidential matters which we discussed between us. I do not even want to make a further reference to what I discovered this evening.

I wish to express the hope that leaders, on whatever level, will play their true role as leaders, for there is a need for leadership in this country.

The Theron Commission report pointed out one thing, namely that there is more work to do in respect of this community, a community with a tremendous potential, than can be done in a lifetime, not only by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and me, but by all of us and by the entire Coloured community, from top to bottom, from the leaders down to the humblest of workers. That the Theron Commission made very clear to us, namely that there is work to be done. There is no time or place for playing politics with these matters. There is work to be done, and since this is the case, there is a need for leadership of stature.

To other hon. members who have participated in the debate so far, I want to say thank you very much for their positive contributions. I shall deal further with the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point at a later stage. I shall react to his speech on Monday. I should like to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I have taken cognizance …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how we as members of Parliament and members of the CRC can obtain the information regarding decisions which have been taken by the Cabinet Council? We are in the dark about this matter. There appeared a Press report about it, but we cannot verify it.

I think I made it clear from the document which I quoted that discussions of the Cabinet Council are confidential until the Cabinet Council itself decides that something may be announced. What I did this evening was in terms of a decision of the Cabinet Council, i.e. that these details may now be made public. The hon. member will simply have to be satisfied with it. Our Cabinet also makes its resolutions known from time to time, but only after it has been decided that the information may in fact be made public. The hon. member should try to engender confidence. He should also help to nurture this young structure, the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, people with potential, but who still have to learn the meaning of all these things. He should help to nurture them in that process. Things should remain confidential until it is decided that they may be released. While I am dealing with the hon. member, I just want to tell him that he will simply have to pardon me for only having dealt with a few policy aspects. I shall reply on Monday to other matters which he raised.

The hon. member for Green Point raised three matters relating to his constituency. I have taken thorough cognizance of them. I have made a note of them and, though they are in fact matters which fall under the department of one of my colleagues …

Yes, there are two of them, but none …

Wait a minute. I shall give the hon. member some information which he is not even aware of.

This has been happening for five years now.

If the hon. member wants to be ungrateful, I shall have to deal with him in an ungrateful manner and say that the hard facts of the matter are that it is not owing to the plea he made this evening, but owing to the plea and the actions of a member of the CRC that a delegation from his constituency in regard to this matter has been to see two of my colleagues in the Cabinet and me. A further discussion is to be held with them soon.

I have been asking for that for five years.

Well, Mr. Chairman, in that case, let me tell the hon. member that he should simply leave that matter to the member of the CRC in question, who knows how to act on behalf of his people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In the course of his remarks the hon. the Minister referred to a document which was referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point. He suggested that it was a confidential document and that it was a breach of confidence for the hon. member to have referred to the document. I hope the hon. the Minister is prepared to withdraw that, because as far as I am concerned, neither the document nor the covering letter indicates that the document is confidential. I see the hon. the Minister is shaking his head. If he is not suggesting that there was a breach of confidence, I shall leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can look at my Hansard. I did not accuse the hon. member of anything. I merely stated the fact that, up to that stage, the document had been confidential.

What difference does that make?

Those are the facts of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister suggested there has been a breach of confidence because the document was in the hands of the hon. member for Durban Point. The Minister owes the hon. member an apology. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has spoken for just over an hour, and during that time he has successfully avoided answering any of the pertinent questions which were put to him by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Sea Point.

Well, he said he would reply further to their speeches on Monday.

Sir, he mentioned towards the end of his speech that he had dealt with certain matters of policy. As far as I am concerned, he avoided any real question of policy. He talked about improvements in the socio-economic field and the Theron Commission report, and he also gave us some information about the Cabinet Council, but the heart of the matter, namely the future of the Coloured people in South Africa, he avoided entirely. In what can only be described as an attitude of benign paternalism towards both this side of the House and the Coloured people at large, he has tried to answer tonight. I think it is perhaps the greatest insult one can ever direct at a community when one seeks not to engage them, but rather says right at the very end that they have a great deal to learn, that we must deal gently with the Cabinet Council, that it is a structure to be carefully nurtured because the people connected with it need to learn.

This kind of attitude towards the Coloured people is reflected not only in the hon. the Minister’s reply, but also in the speeches made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. The hon. member called upon the Coloured leaders to refrain from irresponsible confrontation politics, and urged them not to gamble with the future of the Coloured people. The fact of the matter is that the Government has had the future of the Coloured people in the palm of its hand. This has been the position for 29 years, and at long last there are Coloured leaders who have dared to stand and do the very thing the NP asks them to do, i.e. to stand up and speak for themselves and be proud of who they are. However, as soon as they do that, their action is regarded as confrontation politics. There is no question about it, this Government … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Government describes leaders as those people who are prepared to do what the Government wants them to do. Anybody who takes another line is not a leader at all: “hy is nou ’n opstoker.” [Interjections.] The Coloured community in South Africa demands nothing less than full citizenship which includes civil, social and political rights. This is a fact which needs no debate.

How do you know?

This hon. member on my left, for whom I have quite a lot of respect, is obviously either blind, dumb or deaf, or all three. For years the Coloured people have been making this kind of point in newspapers, public addresses and in consultations. If the hon. member does not know that, that explains the mess this Government is in.

It is also beyond debate that this Government has continually denied this demand for full citizenship.

And raped the constitution.

It needs to be said again that this denial is nothing short of what I can only describe as indescribable folly at a time when we need peace and harmony at home.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order : Is the hon. member for Pinetown allowed to say that the Government “raped the constitution”?

Mr. Chairman, I said that because that is what the Government did in the ’fifties to remove the Coloureds from the voters’ roll.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement that they raped it. They only changed it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I will be granted extra time to make up the time that has been wasted by the two hon. members. At a time when we can least afford internal dissention, this Government in its attitude towards the Coloured people continues to fly in the face of history and in the fact of the facts of geo-political life in South Africa.

Why do you say that?

Because in terms of history, geography and the social and economic facts of life, the Coloured and White peoples’ destinies are as my two hands are now: one inside the other; holding hands together. No one can deny this. The Erika Theron Commission, after three years of study, makes it abundantly clear that our destinies are inextricably joined together. Those who continue to operate as though this is not a fact, are flying in the face of fact, rather than the reverse.

Even if we take the Government at its word that it seeks separate freedoms for Coloured people, we find in practice a basic contradiction running throughout. It is this kind of contradiction to which I want to refer now. The Coloured community is supposed to enjoy sovereignty, but at every hand we see Whites and White institutions, including the White Minister who has just spoken for an hour and the White officials who assist him, making the final decisions which effect the lives of the Coloured people. Let me list some specific illustrations: Firstly, there is the appointment of Dr. Arendse as the new Deputy Commissioner for Coloured Affairs, despite the fact that the CRC executive had recommended Dr. Frank Quint. Once again we see that the department of Coloured Relations …

Are you not ashamed of yourself, discussing a private matter …

Not at all. The hon. the Minister should be ashamed of himself because he continually ignores the recommendations made by the CRC executive. The hon. the Minister ignores the very institution which he has erected.

Secondly there is the invitation of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi to open the next session of the CRC. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter, whether these hon. gentlemen like it or not, is that the CRC executive made this recommendation. [Interjections.] Mr. David Curry said the following: “It is still the same old problem of Whites taking decisions for us on what they think is good for us.” Where is this freedom and this sovereignty that the hon. members tell us about? We are told that there is not going to be a Coloured homeland, that they cannot share power with us, and that therefore they should have their own power and their own sovereignty. It is nothing more than a masquerade. The Coloureds have no representatives on the Public Service Commission where far-reaching decisions are taken regarding the promotion of or the denial of promotion for Coloured people. A further example of the contradiction is that the Coloureds have no final power concerning educational institutions, including the University of the Western Cape. The retrenchment of Prof. Mohammed is a case in point. The request by the CRC executive that District Six should be made an open area has been consistently ignored by the hon. the Minister and by the Government. The fact that the Government through the Department of Coloured Relations, still makes all the important decisions and leaves the CRC executive very much as merely a recommending body with no power rather than an executive body, further illustrates my point. The fact that the majority of the top positions in the Department of Coloured Affairs are still filled by Whites, simply exacerbates the situation. It was a White Minister who could depose Mr. Sonny Leon as chairman of the CRC and appoint someone who is not even an elected member. We could add to the list, but it all amounts to the fact that on the one hand the Government will not accept that the future destiny of the Coloured people is tied with White South Africans, while on the other hand they talk about separate freedom and sovereignty when in reality it is the Whites who continue to rule the lives of the Coloured population. What is more likely to bring about the kind of confrontation that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. the Minister himself said they did not want to see—they want to see true leadership—is the fact that the Coloured people want to see true justice and they are not seeing that.

As a direct result of this, they are standing over and against the White Government. That is what brings about the confrontation. If the Government is not prepared to shift from its basic policy—and I venture to suggest here and now that the time will come when they will have to—then I urge the Government to give the Coloured people of South Africa more bargaining power than they have right now. They have no participation in decision-making bodies like municipal councils, divisional councils and provincial councils. They are merely consulted. Whilst having no participation in this Parliament the CRC cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be described as a substitute. So long as they are denied full autonomy and freedom, so long will this Government’s policy be described rightly as a continuation of White “baasskap”. That is the kind of thing that contributes to hostility in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the hon. member for Pinelands expects me to react to his arguments with regard to the constitutional growth of the Coloured population because he knows as well as I do that there is a Cabinet Committee which is seriously considering these matters. [Interjections.] Hon. members can laugh about that but I think they will be surprised about what is going to come.

You are hiding away again.

A committee has also been appointed to investigate the Coloured’s share in local government. The hon. member for Pinelands exposed himself again tonight as an arrogant “bitterbek” …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Sir.

He is sour.

I think he is sour.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to make personal remarks about other hon. members.

I am speaking politically, Sir, but if you wish, I shall withdraw that. The hon. member reminds me—if I may say so—of some of his soulmates who plodded and ploughed here in our fatherland in earlier times and later left and went to live in other countries.

If the hon. member had read the report by the Theron Commission, he would have seen, inter alia, on page 450—he is not listening any more, because he has finished dispensing his poison—that an informative exposition is given of the priorities of Coloured leaders and of the Coloureds settled in rural areas. The Government is requested to implement these priorities. It is written on page 450—and I do not believe the hon. member for Pinelands has read it—that the Coloured leaders in the rural areas, as well as the leaders in the urban areas, stated certain preferences. According to the preferences of the Coloured leaders, the improvement of their financial position was given the highest priority. Second on their list of preferences are housing, land, public facilities and services. Political and civil rights only follow in the third place.

The list of preferences of the urban Coloureds was as follows: Highest priority was given to housing, land, public facilites and services. In the second place was the improvement of their financial position. Their third preference was the combating of crime and social disruption, and political and civil rights only appear in the fourth place on their list of preferences.

It suits the liberalists not to see that!

That is correct. It suits the liberalists not to hear these things and not to take them into account. Much has been said today about the hon. the Prime Minister’s opening speech at the 1974 session of the CRC. I should like to talk about a liaison committee which made contact with the hon. the Prime Minister. It does not matter who the members of that liaison committee were. What is important is that the people who were willing to serve on that liaison committee were leading figures who were acknowledged by their Coloured compatriots as their social and economic leaders. They negotiated with the hon. the Prime Minister in a civilized way and said to him—

Efforts have been made today to shoot down the Government. There have been attempts to accuse the Government of all sorts of political sins. However, who is the Government of a country? Who forms the Government of South Africa? The Government of South Africa is personified and concentrated in one man. That is the hon. the Prime Minister. He personifies the Government, the overall authority of this country. He consulted with the liaison committee. They said to him—

That is the way in which civilized people speak to each other, people who do not seek confrontation but who believe in dialogue. What did they say to the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to constitutional growth?

The hon. member for Pinelands should please listen now. These people say to the hon. the Prime Minister—

Then they say to him—

I do not believe that the Coloured leaders are satisfied with the present phase in the development of the CRC. Of course not. A possibility for the future has been held out to them, however, in the form of the investigation by the Cabinet Committee. That is something which is going to bear fruit. These people already say—

And that is important to the NP. The NP has created a body in which it is possible for Coloured leaders, and any national leaders, to stand up and to state their people’s case. They go on to say—

I quote further—

If we had not wanted these people to have an opinion and to express it, why would we have created this political body and helped it to develop so that people could talk there and express their opinion there? I think the hon. member for Pinelands has to concede that the CRC is an organ which has been created by the Government and by means of which a population group has been given the opportunity to grow politically and to state their point of view politically. We do listen to them because we are on the road of evolution and not of confrontation and polarization. These same people say to the hon. the Prime Minister—

Surely that is true. Why then is the Government accused of being arrogant and of ignoring the requests and of the needs of these people? Then the committee concludes by saying—

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

My time has nearly expired. Where these people speak with great appreciation of the hon. the Prime Minister’s “involvement and close concern with the well-being of the Coloured community”, this is characteristic of my nation and of my church, which through the ages and through the decades have played an immense part in helping these people on the road to faith and on the road of economic and social development. Our hon. Prime Minister and the nation to which he belongs can proudly say to each other and to the world outside: We have done what we had to do, to the best of our ability.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. I believe that the hon. member made certain statements that cannot be left unanswered. The hon. member devoted a large part of his speech to the political dispensation of the Coloureds in the constitutional order, and I have to say honestly that to a great extent the arguments advanced by the hon. member were irrelevant. They are irrelevant in the sense that the hon. member is aware of the Cabinet Committee which is specifically studying this dispensation.

Who serves on that committee?

I want to ask the hon. member a question which he has to answer on behalf of himself and his party. Does the hon. member and his party regard the cause of the political dispensation of the Coloured within the South African structure in such a serious light that they have taken the trouble of submitting a memorandum to the Cabinet Committee? [Interjections.] If they take the political future of the Coloured so seriously, have they presented the Cabinet Committee with a memorandum? [Interjections.] I want to ask a further question. Can this party speak as one on the future of the Coloureds?

Never!

Can the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton speak as one with the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Rondebosch?

Yes.

I challenge the hon. members to send a memorandum to the Cabinet Committee in which they state their party’s point of view with regard to the Coloured people. [Interjections.]

Please answer my question first.

I want to come back to another matter …

No, first answer my question.

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

No, I do not have the time. I should like to refer to certain statements made by the hon. member for Pinelands. Hon. members will pardon me if I repeat …

But how many …

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must stop interjecting.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

I want to repeat certain statements made by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands said—

He spoke sneeringly of “full citizenship” and “sovereignty” and he also referred to the “final decision which affects the lives of the Coloureds which will remain in the hands of the Whites”. I want to make the statement that this kind of irresponsible remark coupled with the confrontation politics practised by Coloured leaders today is an embryo of the polarization between Blacks and Whites. It does not contribute in any way to the stabilization and the improvement of race relations in this country. I want to point out to the hon. member that those are highly irresponsible statements and that their purpose is not the progress and the development of the Coloured community.

Relations between Whites and Coloureds form part of the problems of domestic relations. It is a matter of highest priority that Whites and Coloureds should get together with respect to certain cardinal matters as regards the Theron Commission. It is absolutely essential that Whites and Coloureds should present a united front to the onslaught made on civilization here at the southern tip of Africa. The Coloured community is as much a part of the civilization of this country as the Whites.

In the struggle for survival at the southern tip of Africa, it is not the responsibility of the Whites only to defend the integrity of our national borders, but it is also that of the Coloureds and of the Blacks. To defend this civilization which has been built up together by the labour, sacrifice, and initiative of Whites as well as Coloureds, we need the co-operation of the Coloured community as such. I think it is high time a message was given to the Coloured community. It should be made very clear to them that the struggle here in South Africa, internally as well as externally, does not revolve around the fact that the NP is in power. It should be made very clear to the Coloured community that the struggle is essentially intended to prevent a take-over by a Black majority Government according to a particular Marxist model. In the struggle against radical Black extremists, the Coloureds as a community—whether they want to admit it or not—stand to gain or to lose as much as the White community. As was clearly indicated by my colleague, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, the Coloured leaders are being used as instruments in a way which will ultimately harm them and bring about their own downfall.

The Theron Commission highlighted certain areas where Whites and Coloureds have to become reconciled. Without going into detail, I only want to refer to two aspects in a general way. The first is the socio-economic position of the Coloured and the second, as already indicated, is that a satisfactory formula must be found to accommodate the political aspirations of the Coloured community. With regard to the socio-economic position, it was found that virtually half the Coloured community lives in a state of chronic poverty and is subject to the problems peculiar to such communities. The main problems arising from the socio-economic position of the Coloured can be traced back to a single key concept, i.e. the lack of systematic family planning. On the other hand it was found that the present political framework does not leave enough scope for the political aspirations of the Coloured community. If we reduce these two matters to single issues, we see that the crucial problems in the Coloured community are a lack of healthy, systematic community development and the lack of a satisfactory formula for political expression.

Why?

I am going to say why. These two problem areas are often linked as though the one were the cause of the other. I think, however, that the hon. member for Rondebosch will agree with me that it is not so. If we were to allow Coloured representation in this Parliament today, the socio-economic problems of the Coloured community would remain what they are. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rondebosch denies it, but it is a fact from which there is no getting away. I want to conclude my speech with this one thought, that the key to the solution of the socio-economic problems as well as the political problems of the Coloured community can be reduced and—to use the word of the hon. member for Carletonville—funnelled into one single aspect, and that is healthy local authorities of their own for the Coloured community. I say that because a system of local government forms the foundation of a future political and constitutional dispensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville posed certain questions to members of the PRP and he also dealt with the socio-economic position of the Coloured people. I also intend dealing with that subject in the course of my speech this evening. The hon. member for Worcester is unfortunately not here. He also participated in the debate earlier on. One would like to ask whether the powers of the CRC should not be able to cover the situation of persons having the right to attend mixed ballet classes in Worcester. [Interjections.] Obviously this must have been a very important matter which went all the way to the Cabinet. We heard the hon. the Minister of Community Development giving his reasons just recently, in this Committee, to illustrate why they should retain their identity and what a terrible thing it was that there had been mixed ballet classes for a period of 10 years in Worcester. The hon. member for Worcester, as I have said, is not in the House at the moment. It is therefore not possible to ask him to answer that question.

He has had an invitation to a ballet performance.

I see. I do not know whether he will accept, however, because he has shown his opposition to ballet in Worcester. No, I do not think he will accept.

The matter I wish to deal with concerns the welfare services for the Coloured community. The hon. the Minister indicated various matters relating to the Theron Commission report. I should like to ask him, particularly in regard to welfare planning, what he has in mind in order to assist the Coloured people. Here I should like to refer to the March 1977 edition of Social Work. The editor is Prof. Erika Theron who, as everyone knows, was the chairman of the commission. Referring to the commission, it is stated—

Then Prof. Theron detailed certain matters that were contained in the recommendations of her report. It is particularly in regard to the recommendations concerning welfare boards that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions.

Recommendation 149(c) deals with the question of welfare boards. It states that Coloureds also should be appointed to the regional welfare boards and the National Welfare Board. We on this side of the House believe that this is an important recommendation in view of the fact that there are welfare services that are administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions by way of the National Welfare Board. The registration of these organizations, however, has to cover all racial groups. When one looks at the White Paper that was issued by the department and by this Minister, one finds that in terms of that particular recommendation, on page 96, the Government is of the opinion that it should be Government policy and that the Coloured people should have their own national board and their own regional boards for the Coloured community. If one takes this policy of the Government to its logical conclusion, one has to look at that National Welfare Board because obviously the Minister of Indian Affairs will adopt the same policy, with that national board consisting of 16 people with four commissions of seven members each. That makes 28 people who are members of the commission. There are 10 regional boards with 10 to 16 members each, making a total of 129 members of the regional boards. There are consequently 173 persons appointed to this National Welfare Board, the commission and the regional boards, and if the Government’s policy is to have separate boards for each population group this would then be quadrupled and we will have in the region of 692 people doing the same work in regard to welfare services in South Africa. Nearly 700 people would therefore have to be appointed for the White group, the Coloured group, the Indian group and the Bantu group. This is the position as stated in the White Paper. It therefore becomes obvious that there is some justification for the complaints of Prof. Erika Theron, who happens to be the Vice-Chairman of the National Welfare Board and Chairman of the W.P. Regional Board, when she indicates in her report, and in the articles that have been written, that the whole situation, as far as the control of these welfare services are concerned, is unco-ordinated and completely inefficient at the present time due to the multiplication of the various bodies that are handling welfare services. Obviously this is a very difficult matter, but it would appear from Government policy that it is the intention to multiply and indeed quadruple the number of people serving on these boards.

I now come to the other aspects of these recommendations dealing with the socioeconomic position. We know, from the reports that we have seen, of the high degree of illegitimacy, the problems of children declared to be in need of care, problems leading to juvenile delinquency, the large number of Coloured people who are in reform schools— there are over 1 000 in the three reform schools—alcoholism, abuse of liquor. These are matters that virtually affect the whole situation as far as the Coloured community is concerned. If these recommendations are to be put into effect—the hon. the Minister has indicated and the White Paper indicates that it is the intention to carry out some of these recommendations—the upliftment of the Coloured people is going to involve a large number of social workers. Consequently there will be considerable expense involved in bringing about the upliftment of these people. If one looks at other reports, one is struck by the fact that amongst the Coloured community there is a tremendous shortage of trained social workers and it is necessary to increase the number of social workers amongst the Coloured community to ensure that the whole position of bringing about a more satisfactory situation is, in fact, given effect to.

There are also other aspects that show that the Government is perhaps not fulfilling its obligations in terms of some of these recommendations. The White Paper also indicates that there is an endeavour to narrow the pension gap between the White and the Coloured communities. This means that positive steps have to be taken, which in turn will cause a considerable amount of expenditure to be involved. If one looks at the position, one will find that the narrowing of the pension gap, which is declared to be part of the Government’s policy in terms of the White Paper, is indeed very slowly becoming a reality. If one looks at the figures, one sees that previously the Coloureds received about 50% of what the Whites received in social pensions, but that this has been slightly increased. There is still a considerable difference, however, because from 1 October the Whites will be receiving a maximum pension of R79 and the Coloureds will be receiving R42,50. This is 54% of what the Whites are receiving. In every other respect, however, they receive only 50% of what the Whites are receiving. In terms of the recommendations they have asked specifically for an expeditious narrowing of the gap which exists between the Whites and the Coloureds as far as these pensions are concerned.

If one looks at war veterans’ pensions, one sees that the White war veteran receives an extra R10 per month, whereas the Coloured veteran receives only an extra R5 per month. The White receives an attendant’s allowance of R10 per month and the Coloured receives one of R5 per month. Supplementary allowances of the Coloureds are also only 50% of that of the Whites. As far as the means test is concerned, there also has been no narrowing of the gap whatsoever. The difference still remains 50% in respect of the allowances received by Whites and Coloureds.

This leads me to another important point which is mentioned in the recommendations of the Theron Commission, and that is that the Coloured people must be included in any contributory pension scheme. The White Paper indicates that following an inquiry by another department the Coloureds and all race groups are to be included and have indeed been included in that investigation.

I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to support this issue when this principle is eventually discussed by the Cabinet, because this is obviously the only way in which we can move away entirely from race discrimination as far as the social benefits are concerned.

I initiated the investigation.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister says that he has initiated the contributory pension scheme. This is the only way in which this discrimination will disappear. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo raised matters to which I am convinced the hon. the Minister will reply.

There are a few questions one would like to put to the hon. members of the PRP in particular. I am sorry that the hon. members for Sea Point and Pinelands are not present. The hon. member for Sea Point asked this afternoon whether the NP recognized the Coloureds as a nation. Yes, because the entire thrust of the policy of the NP is towards the recognition of the Coloureds as a nation. In order to have a meaningful dialogue, I want to ask whether the PRP recognizes the Coloureds as a nation. If not, does the PRP recognize the Coloureds as an integral part of the White population?

I am going to speak just now.

If the PRP recognizes them as an integral part of the White population, does it imply that they will appear on a common voters’ roll with the Whites? And, if they appear on a common voters’ roll, what has become of the policy of qualified franchise?

It is a common voters’ roll.

Is the PRP going to apply their qualified franchise to Coloureds only or to the Whites as well?

No, surely it is quite clear.

We would like to know. The focal point of their policy was qualified franchise. Now we want to know whether they regard the Coloureds as an integral part of the White nation.

They regard themselves as such and we agree with that.

We are asking what your point of view is and not that of the Coloureds. If you regard them as an integral part of the White nation, then just answer my question why qualified franchise is applicable to Coloureds only and not to the Whites.

The hon. member for Pinelands made the statement that the NP and the Government allegedly refused to talk to or recognize the Coloureds who did not echo the policy of the NP slavishly. I want to contend that it is only the policy of the NP which has created opportunities for Coloured leaders to come forward. I want to contend that it is the NP’s policy of separate development which afforded someone like Dr. van der Ross the opportunity to become the rector of a university for his own people. I want to contend that the opportunity was created, through the CRC, for leaders to come forward and to state the case of the Coloureds, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the Government. I also want to contend that without the policy of the NP, but with the policy of the PRP and, for that matter, also that of the UP, there would not have been a corps of leaders able to speak on behalf of the Coloureds today.

They will side-track the Coloureds.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the thought expressed by the hon. member for Bellville with regard to the development, creation and extension of local authorities for Coloured communities. The general pattern today is that virtually every town is a double town. That is true especially of the Cape Province. In other words, there is a White town and next to it or very near to it is a Coloured town. Now it is true that up to now these twin towns—we can call them that— have been controlled and managed by the White municipalities or town councils only. The municipality or town council is aided by a non-White management committee, but up to the present such management committees have had no executive authority, and have been acting in an advisory capacity only. We are grateful to learn that in this sphere, too, there are tremendous advancement possibilities for the Coloureds. We know that as soon as September, these management committees which are partly elected and partly nominated at the present time, will be fully elected bodies. We also know that the hon. the Minister has appointed a technical committee to investigate this whole aspect of independent municipalities and town councils for the Coloured towns; firstly, to effect the necessary contact and, secondly, to determine where there are Coloured communities that will be viable as municipalities. We also know that this committee has indicated 31 possible points of this nature.

I know the accusation will be made that it is going too slowly, but one should crawl first, then walk, and then run, rather than wanting to fly first and then crashing to earth. That is the policy this department is following. To manage a community, is not something which drops down from heaven and can be applied the next day. The groundwork has to be done first. There are many matters that have to be taken into account. The co-operation of the provincial administration has to be obtained. There has to be consultation with the provincial administration. The fact remains that this department is on its way to achieving this ultimate object. It is very necessary that the Coloureds be afforded the opportunity to manage their own affairs. It is a fact that managerial ability and managerial expertise are developed only through practice. The more practice one gets in the art of management, the better one will become at it and the more easily one will be able to accept the responsibility inherent in managerial ability. That is why we see an opportunity for the Coloureds in these local municipalities and local authorities. We know the Coloureds are anxious to avail themselves of these opportunities, because it will mean more job opportunities for the Coloureds themselves. It will also be a training-school for them in managerial ability and managerial expertise, something which is urgently required, especially if one thinks of the subsequent development of the Coloureds. When people are appointed to councils that have to take important decisions, such managerial ability and managerial expertise are very essential.

However, these municipalities will also create pride—even more than at present—in that which is their own, their own town … [Time expired.]

I am particularly pleased to be the next speaker after the hon. member for Kimberley North. I respect him as a person. I have no intention whatsoever to make a vicious political attack on him. At the conclusion of my speech he will agree with me that I have replied in substance to the questions he raised. I shall not deal in detail with those questions at this stage, but if he is not satisfied, I shall come back to them at a later stage.

The Government’s policy in respect of the Coloureds, or rather the lack of it, is the moral breaking-point of its general policy in respect of race relations in South Africa. The way in which the Government’s policy in respect of the Black population groups and the Indians is formulated, has a certain measure of logical and ideological consistency, even though one is able to criticize it on practical grounds to the point of destruction. In respect of the Coloureds, however, the Government’s policy is a logical, ideological and practical mess. [Interjections.] The Theron report illustrated what a mess it is. Subsequently the mess was merely perpetuated by the White Paper on the Theron Report.

Fundamental to the Government’s general relations policy is the point of view that the White man does not want to be dominated in his own country. It is a natural and human reaction that the White man does not want to be dominated. So one can put it positively and even say that the Government’s homelands policy is an attempt at moving away from the Blacks being dominated. To put it in a nutshell, logically and ideologically, the Government is at least trying to indicate to some extent that if it says the White man does not want to be dominated, the Black people should have the right to appropriate to themselves that very same right, at least as far as spelling it out logically and ideologically is concerned. Nevertheless, one is still able to level quite a lot of practical criticism against it.

If one looks at the Coloured policy, however, and one strips it of all pious rhetoric, the naked fact is that in the case of the Coloureds, it is the policy of the Government that the White man can only maintain his own self-determination by dominating the Coloured. [Interjections.] There is no other way. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs cries with passion in this House that the Government does not want to dominate anyone in South Africa, the credibility of his utterance runs aground on the Government’s Coloured policy. “Domination” is an emotive word, and I want to try and give it a sober and practical content today. Supposing I sat talking to a Coloured man … [Interjections.] I kept perfectly quiet tonight while the hon. member for Kimberley North was speaking. He is an older man than I am, and should not teach me bad manners tonight.

Just answer my questions.

Supposing I was discussing the question of our coexistence with a Brown man. In the course of the conversation I say, “As a White man I say to you: I am prepared to negotiate with you on all things, but as a White man I am not prepared to be dominated in the country in which I was born.” Thereupon he asks me, “What do you mean by that?” If that happens, we have reached the heart of the matter and then I have to give him a reply and tell him what I mean by that. It is in point of fact a simple question to answer. What will I say if he asks me what a White man means when he says that he does not want to be dominated?

I shall give him the following reply: Domination means to me, because I am a White man, that others unilaterally appropriate to themselves the right to decide whether I may have access to the defacto government of my country and that they have the right to deny me such access. That is domination. Domination also means to me that others entrench themselves in a position from which they decide, without my approval or my co-operation, where I and my children may live, work and eat; with whom I may associate; and whether I may be paid more or less for the same achievements than another man who is not a White man. Domination also means to me that others tell me that it is their right to decide whether I am mature enough and sufficiently developed to live freely in my own country, how, where and when I may fight and work for my own country and that I have to be satisfied with the facilities and the privileges the Government of the day provides separately for me and my children, whether I like it or not. That is what I shall tell that Coloured.

If someone tells me, as a White man, that that is the prerequisite for peaceful coexistence, I shall say to him, “You are quite crazy, because that is domination, pure and simple, and I as a White man will fight that to my dying day.”

But that is exactly the situation with regard to our Coloureds. That is also the problem from which the report of the Theron Commission tried to escape. We all know that it is true. As the hon. member for Pinelands pointed out, those people do not even have the right to take decisions on the most elementary level. The appointment of Dr. Quint was rejected. The CRC wanted to appoint him …

Are you not ashamed of yourself to mention the name of an official across the floor of this House?

I did not interrupt the hon. the Minister while he was speaking. He should give me a chance now, because I only have ten minutes at my disposal and he has a full hour.

You are dragging an official’s name across the floor of this House and that is improper.

It was reported in the Press that the CRC requested the appointment of Quint and the Government said, “No, we are appointing Arendse.” The Executive of the CRC said it wanted Buthelezi to open the next session of the CRC, but the Government refused and said it would select someone itself. Even the Cabinet Council that the hon. the Minister held up as the show-window of the NP … [Interjections.] Even the Cabinet Council which is regarded as the show-window of the Government, is nothing more than a host who invites friends to a birthday party and tells the guests, “Here is the cake I made; here are the ingredients of the cake; you may look at the cake; I have the knife in my hand and now I am going to show you how I slice the cake. Here is your slice and you have to be satisfied with it.” That is all that happens there.

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

No. The budget is the cake and the Government now says that the CRC may complain about its ingredients and about the distribution of the slices, but the knife is in its hands and it is going to slice the cake; they just have to be satisfied with what they get. That is all there is to it. All that is necessary so that the White man may preserve his own identity. In this regard I want to quote Prof. Sampie Terreblanche himself, and I quote from his book Gemeenskapsarmoede. It is said that Prof. Terreblanche hits hard at times. For example, when he writes about the efforts of the Whites to dissociate themselves, he puts it as follows—

There we have it. These are not my words. They are the words of one of the commissioners, a good Nationalist from Stellenbosch. And he is saying it to all of us. Prof. Terreblanche says that the preservation of White identity, as it is presented here, is nothing more than an excuse to dominate the Coloured. Therefore I want to direct a word of warning to the hon. the Minister who spoke this evening with a feeling of good-natured paternalism about the extent to which the Coloured still had to develop. If the domination of the Coloured is stated as a prerequisite for the preservation of the White’s own identity, the legacy of our descendants will be strife and conflict, and possibly even bloodshed. We have to prevent that. [Interjections.] We must prevent it. The confrontation does not come from the Coloured community itself. The confrontation arises from the policy and from the lack of it of the Government who is not prepared to say what direction it is going to take with regard to the Coloureds. The Government is making a football of the Coloureds, in its own caucus as well. I will indeed talk about this later. The Coloured is nothing more than a football in the caucus of the NP. The Coloured is a football which is ignored by the Government, and the Government is too scared to declare publicly what its policy is, because it knows that it causes strife and tension within its own ranks. [Interjections.] That is the truth. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch took this debate to a level to which I am not inclined to follow him. Therefore I do not want to react to his speech. I think that as an academic the hon. member surely has a vocabulary which enables him to use more elegant terminology than what he used here this evening. To me his presentation provided evidence of the same qualities as those which were discernible earlier on this evening in the speech made by his benchmate, the hon. member for Pinelands. It provided evidence of the frustration which they obviously experience. And then they are the people who talk about frustration amongst the Coloureds. It is only a reflection of their own frustration which they see there.

It is quite understandable that conflicting claims should be made with regard to the Theron Report. It is also quite understandable that the Opposition in particular will look for arguments in this report with which to substantiate their points of view—the obscure points of view they sometimes dish up to us here. However, there is very little justification for their points of view. In the state they are in at the moment, the official Opposition has very little reason, in any event, to feel comforted. In terms of this report the NP has much more reason to make certain claims than the Opposition has. For the NP in any event there is complete justification in the report for its claim to the support for and confirmation of the basic points of view it has. I shall indicate that presently.

If we want to have a bountiful discussion of the Theron Report, there are a few fundamental facts which we have to take into account. If I have the time, I want to elucidate a few of them in brief.

In the first place I believe that to see the Theron Report in perspective and to evaluate and judge it correctly, it is necessary to distinguish between two concepts in particular. One has to distinguish between the Government’s stated policy to assist the Coloureds and to guide them to the greatest possible measure of independence and self-determination on the one hand, and the Government’s programme in terms of which that policy is being implemented in practice, on the other hand. That is what we have to realize when we want to evaluate this report and get it into perspective. We have to take into account the fact that what the Government subjected to investigation with the appointment of this commission, was not the policy, but only that programme in terms of which its policy was being implemented. That programme was specifically submitted to the commission for investigation.

It is also significant—the hon. the Minister gave us the figures—that roughly 76% of the recommendations have been accepted, that 10% are to be considered later and that approximately 14% have been rejected. It is also significant that it is mainly the recommendations regarding the question of policy—here I am associating myself with the hon. member for Piketberg—which have received the blessings of the Cabinet. The Government was prepared to subject its programme of progress concerning the implementing of its policy to a penetrating, objective and scientific investigation of this nature by expert professionals. Apparently the Government also had good reason to be prepared to subject that programme to an investigation of this nature. The Government had been engaged in implementing that programme for a long time and it conceded that it was perhaps necessary to reconsider certain aspects of that programme and that the commission could tell the Government what progress had been made with the implementation of the policy and what could be done to improve the practical application of the policy.

The Government does not have to be ashamed to admit that the progress with regard to certain aspects of the programme has not been as rapid as anticipated. To mention only one example, I refer to the speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1961, which was referred to earlier on in this debate and in which he set out a certain programme. I refer to that part of his speech where he said : “Ek is haastig.” He said he did not want progress to be made within a few years’ time. He spoke of a five-year plan and he envisaged full-fledged local authorities for Coloureds within ten years’ time at the most. We realize that progress in this regard has not come up to expectations. Therefore, I suppose it is right for consideration to be given to this matter.

There is also the question of more opportunities for Coloureds in commerce and industry. That, too, is something the Government thought could be investigated. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said and address an appeal to the people who have to take the lead, to avail themselves of these opportunities, even if they are not the full opportunities they expected. I think we may safely assume that the rate at which further opportunities arise—I am sure that more opportunities will arise— will depend to a large extent on the use that is made of existing opportunities. In accordance with the Government’s programme which was further developed in the course of this session, new opportunities will be created in the field of industry and commerce.

A second fact that has to be taken into account and which is also a prerequisite as far as the right perspective of this report is concerned, is that one cannot look at the recommendations of the commission alone. It is also necessary to look at the findings and the conclusions in the report itself. These are important facts that are unfortunately lost. The answer is actually that we should read not only the recommendations, but the entire report so that we may see how much support there is for the Government’s standpoint in respect of its policy of self-determination for the Coloureds. As regards the question of the identity of the Coloureds—the most important component of the Government’s policy of self-determination for the Coloureds—the Government believes that the Coloured has to be taught and guided to be proud of his own identity. There is a tremendous amount of evidence in the report which clearly confirms the Government’s policy in this regard. In paragraph 20.85(i) of the report the following is said—

That is gain. The fact that the Coloureds are interested in their own identity and are proud of it, really is a gain and provides a very sound foundation on which one can build.

There is also the question of association with the Black consciousness movement. It is stated in the report that that movement has a very limited following amongst the Coloureds—in reality only from 5% to 10%. Another aspect to which former speakers have already referred, is the programme of priorities set by the Coloureds themselves with regard to the problems which have to receive attention. The question on which the Opposition and in particular the PRP keep harping, i.e. civil rights and political rights, only takes fourth place amongst the urban Coloured population and the leaders themselves. The hon. member for Worcester also referred to the fact that this question occupied only the fourth place on their list of priorities and that emphasis was placed on other more important things. It is significant—and it is probably a great disappointment to the Opposition—which matter occupies the seventh place on the list of specific problems identified—that the question of segregation, discrimination and petty apartheid is right at the bottom of the list of matters to be given attention—as I said, to the great disappointment of the Opposition. In any event, it is seventh on the list as far as the urban population is concerned and sixth as far as the Coloured leaders are concerned. Therefore, it is very clear that the Coloureds themselves are far less obsessed with the political aspects of their circumstances of life than those who want to come and talk here on their behalf without their having been asked to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa has spent a large portion of his speech discussing the various aspects of the report of the Theron Commission. I want to advance some other thoughts in regard to a possible reason why there is a certain amount of frustration and dissatisfaction amongst a large section of the Coloured community.

In the last 16 years there have been no less than five Ministers of Coloured Relations, and there have been four in the last six years. I will concede that the present incumbent, the hon. the Minister, was a Deputy Minister for a period of two years before he was appointed Minister of Coloured Relations and was therefore able to acquaint himself with the affairs of the Coloured people. I believe that the constant change hinders continuity and hampers progress. I must say, and I say it with regret, that I believe the hon. the Minister’s incumbency of this position has been a disappointment to some of us. I believe he has witnessed on the part of the Coloured people a deterioration in the relationship with and attitude towards the authority, not necessarily because of him personally, but because of the policy and the attitude of the Government which he serves. I feel, too, that he himself has not always been successful administratively and, from my own experience, I believe that he sometimes appears reluctant to get to grips with the job on hand and that, in dealing with matters referred to him, he has not always fulfilled his undertakings.

To quote an example, let me refer to the translation of the report of the Theron Commission. As far as I am aware—and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will bear me out, I am sure—the hon. the Minister gave a verbal undertaking that the English translation of the report of the Theron Commission would be available last year in about September or October. The report of the Commission is not yet available and the hon. the Minister indicated to me in February that the translation had not been completed yet. During the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill last year, almost a year ago, the hon. the Minister was blowing his own trumpet when he indicated that, if it had not been for him, the Minister, it was unlikely that the report would have been tabled in Parliament last year. It would seem to me that the hon. the Minister has been sitting on his laurels since then.

His laurels? I would have thought he was sitting on something else!

Well, that is a matter of opinion. However, we are still waiting for the publication of the report in English. The hon. the Minister told me when I asked him earlier this session that the matter was receiving the full-time attention of the Language Bureau. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that the total staff of the Language Bureau consists of 31 individuals and that 20% of those people are part-time or temporary incumbents …

Do you think they fall under my department?

No, but it is your responsibility to shake them up. Is the hon. the Minister aware that a further 20% of the posts, permanent posts, are occupied by people who were appointed during the last six months? Is he aware that at the beginning of June 100 pages of the report still had to be translated into English and that 850 pages still had to be checked? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of that and what steps he has taken to try to improve that situation? Is he also aware of the fact that the completion of the translation is only expected on about 31 August, too late for this session? This is a matter of concern to many Coloured people, however, people outside the Western Cape, who are not familiar with Afrikaans and whose home language is English, but all they have had, after four years, has been the translation of the summary and the recommendations. There are also many other people—interested persons and bodies throughout the country— who would also like to study the report in its complete form and not just in the form of the recommendations.

And the world.

I am coming to that. There are also people in international circles who are deeply concerned and deeply conscious of the delay, and I think they wonder how it can be that the department and the Minister have tolerated this long delay when one is dealing with a report of one of the most important commissions ever appointed to deal with people representing the second largest group of Afrikaans-speaking people in the world.

That is probably why they delayed it.

I repeat that in my opinion the hon. the Minister has proved a disappointment. I should like to illustrate my own experience. I shall detail, as briefly as possible in the time at my disposal, what I should like to call “The Saga of Cato Manor”. The Coloureds have lived there for many years. In 1965 there were still more than 3 000 Coloureds living in the Cato Manor area, so they can lay claim to the area. Negotiations have been going on since 1975, but what is the position? In February 1976 I was advised by the Department of Planning that there had been no official approach from the organized Coloured community for a re-zoning of Cato Manor. As a result, in March I wrote to the Department of Planning and formally requested that reconsideration should be given to a re-zoning of a portion of Cato Manor for the use of the middle and upper income bracket Coloureds to provide housing. I supplied the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, the Minister whose Vote we are now discussing, with a copy of the letter I had written, and I requested an interview. On 9 March I had a letter from this Minister. He said that he wished to obtain some background from other departments prior to formal discussion. Fair enough. On 30 April 19761 had a further letter from the hon. the Minister. He said that the departments were not yet in a position to supply the background, but that he was making a full investigation. He said he would advise me when he would be able to discuss the matter with me.

In August 1976 I wrote to the Minister advising him that it was the intention of a a member of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council from Natal to raise this matter at CRC level, and I asked whether the hon. the Minister had any information. In September I received a letter from the Private Secretary of the Minister indicating that he was still trying to get some information. Subsequent to that I had a discussion with the Durban staff, and the hon. the Minister visited the area. Then I received a letter in October 1976, from the Minister, replying to my request but indicating that the final decision was not in accordance with my request. The Minister’s conception, however, was based on a misconception of what the actual position was. That was quite obvious from the last paragraph of his letter, in which he stated that 570 plots for owner builders of the middle and higher income groups were available in Durban in 1975, and he quoted the Theron Commission on that.

I put that right immediately.

I wrote to the hon. the Minister and I said …

Our letters crossed on the way.

That is correct. That I accept. In January 1977, however, I wrote to the hon. the Minister expressing my disappointment and frustration and asking him questions about Cato Manor and the poor facilities existing for the Coloured school children at schools in Natal. The hon. the Minister advised me verbally that he would reply. On 17 March I wrote to the hon. the Minister asking whether he was in a position to comment. I had no reply. I also sent him a copy of the answer of the hon. the Minister of Planning, indicating that the Department of Planning had decided that it was not prepared to consider the request. On 27 April I wrote again to the hon. the Minister asking for comments to my letters of January and March. I have had no acknowledgment and no reaction from the hon. the Minister. No wonder, I say, that his incumbency is a disappointment. If one compares the attitude and the actions taken by the Indians in regard to Cato Manor, one finds that they have paid dividends. Let me quote a Sapa report which appeared in a newspaper yesterday—

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Allow me on this Friday evening and at this hour to say in the words of Shakespeare: “Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.”