Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to reply to the speeches of hon. members who have participated in the debate, allow me first to make a few general remarks. The figures in respect of foreign tourists up to the end of 1981 show a very healthy growth. According to the latest edition of the International Tourism Quarterly, which is published by the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, the growth in world tourism during 1981 was approximately 4%. As against this, we can show increases up to the end of December 1981 of more than 12% from Europe, 15% from North America and 16% from Asia. The number of tourists from South America, mainly from Argentina, has continued to drop, mainly because of economic considerations, while for understandable reasons, the number of visitors from Zimbabwe has also dropped considerably. The increase from our traditional market areas in Europe and North America is remarkable and very encouraging, especially when one bears in mind that costs have increased considerably over the past year or two and that as a result, South Africa can no longer be described as a cheap destination. This proves that the tourist still gets value for his money in this country.

Allow me to add briefly that when we talk about the cost of tourism in South Africa, we really must appeal to those who determine the cost to do so with the greatest responsibility, so that tourism in South Africa may not eventually become so enormously expensive that people will no longer come to this country. The earnings in foreign exchange during 1981 are calculated at R550 million.

In the field of internal tourism, 1981 was another very good year. The traditionally popular holiday destinations once again attracted large numbers of visitors. Virtually all available accommodation was fully booked long before the popular peak periods. The only exceptions were four-and five-star hotels, which still had room available. For the rest, there was a substantial increase in the occupation of holiday homes and flats, as well as caravan parks. I believe that we should take cognizance of this trend.

Inquiries from the public to the department’s National Tourist Bureau showed an increase of more than 11% over the figure for 1980—262 400 as against 236 714. This clearly proves that South Africans are becoming increasingly aware of the need to plan their holiday trips in advance in order to derive the maximum benefit and pleasure from them. The turnover in expenditure by internal tourists is calculated at almost R1 billion.

As is known, the provision of the Tour Guides Act relating to registration became effective on 1 November 1981. Up to now, the Registrar has already received approximately 70 applications for registration. In most cases, he had to make further inquiries, but there are quite a number of cases in which he is able to interview the applicants in order to find out whether or not they can be registered. The applications were kept back for a while because it appeared that an amendment had to be made to the regulations relating to requirements that have to be met as to bring the regulations more into line with the practical procedure. These amendments have now been agreed to, so the Registrar will now be able to give further attention to the applications.

Several hon. member spoke about a tourist conference. During the debate on this Vote last year I indicated that consideration was being given to the possibility and the desirability of convening a national tourism conference in which all interested parties could be involved so that everyone could help to identify problems and to plan for the future. We have decided to put the idea into practice, and such a conference will be arranged for the middle of November this year. We intend to have it held in Johannesburg, mainly because the biggest concentration of interests is found in that area. We have already identified more than 50 organizations which will be invited to the conference. A final programme has not yet been drawn up, but we want the conference to extend over a period of two days. We shall invite a number of knowledgeable speakers to read papers on the most important facets and spheres of the industry, while there will probably be an opportunity to discuss items on the agenda as well. Such a conference should do much to lay down guidelines for the future and to ensure co-ordinated action.

Hon. members will recall that a year or two ago, during the discussion of the Tourism Vote, a previous Minister of Tourism referred to the problems that were being experienced with the regional committees for the promotion of tourism. There are 22 such committees, but as yet, only 12 or 13 of them are active. He held out the prospect of a new dispensation at that time, but the matter has not yet been finalized. The intention is that the matter should also be discussed at the conference in. November in order to arrive at a more effective system, a system in terms of which private communities, including the private sector, could play a more active role in the promotion of tourism.

Now for something in a lighter vein. The Department of Tourism has taken cognizance of the possible development of a seafood route along the West Coast. If the regional development association of that area, in co-operation with the private sector, would take this matter further, and in view of the findings in the report of the Treurnicht Commission, which has just been published, I shall view such representations in a sympathetic light. I shall also try, together with the other interested bodies, to remove any possible impediments to such development. The Tourism Directorate and Satour will also help to market such a facility inside as well as outside this country.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the increase in administrative expenditure as reflected in the programme. The increase in the appropriation for administrative expenditure is due to the fact that provision for certain expenditure of this nature was in the previous year’s estimate made in the budget for the branch “Administration of the Department”. In the new estimates, provision for these items of expenditure was re-allocated to the different programmes where they belong. In this way a clearer picture can be obtained of the expenditure under each programme. This resulted in a substantial increase in the appropriation in respect of the programmes, e.g. “Tourism”, while the appropriation under the programme “Administration” was substantially reduced. Overall the increase is only marginal.

The hon. member also referred to the Competition Board’s report on Asata. I wish to point out that the board’s report was published in the Government Gazette some six months ago. Subsequent to that, the hon. the Minister had discussions with Asata, while negotiations also took place between the board and Asata. This led to Asata voluntarily amending their constitution to do away with the restrictive practice in regard to which there were complaints. In effect, therefore, this matter has been disposed of, and I believe that we should express our appreciation to Asata for their excellent co-operation.

The hon. member also referred to the Transvaal Agents and Travel Agencies Bill. As the hon. member knows, this Bill was referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading last year. The Select Committee was converted into a Commission of Inquiry when Parliament adjourned towards the end of February 1981. The commission has now completed its task, and the Bill will probably be re-introduced during the current session.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park for a very interesting speech. He referred, among other things, to the potential for tourism among people of colour, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. member and to bring it to the attention of the public and the private sector at this stage that we must make provision in good time for facilities to meet the needs of tourists among people of colour in South Africa. Let us take, for example, the ownership of caravans among people of colour in South Africa. The latest figure with regard to registered caravan owners showed that there are 1 640 Coloured, 253 Asian and 189 Black owners of caravans. Fifty-seven caravan parks and camping sites for people of colour are already available throughout the Republic. All I want to add at this stage is that the quality of the facilities at some of these 57 caravan parks is really not satisfactory. When one looks at the statistics concerning the expected increase in this form of tourism—at this stage it seems to be the primary form of tourism among people of colour—we want to appeal to the authorities in control of caravan parks to improve the facilities as soon as possible and in good time.

The hon. member also referred to the valley periods, and I should like to tell him what we are doing in this respect. We are thoroughly aware of the fact that there is a valley period every year which extends from approximately May until October, when fewer foreign tourists visit our country and when South Africans are also less inclined to travel. Valley periods are a world-wide phenomenon. We are actually fortunate in that our valley periods are not as long as those of other countries. As far as Spain is concerned, more than a third of the numerous foreign tourists visit the country during only two months, namely July and August, while other times of the year are also favourable for holidays in that country. However, we are indeed concerned about the situation which exists in South Africa, and I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is being thoroughly investigated, in consultation with the industry and with the S.A. Airways, to find possible ways of eliminating the valley periods as far as possible. Marketing methods should be investigated. I may just mention in this connection that as far as internal tourism is concerned, we have just launched a campaign, in consultation and co-operation with the industry, to market the area between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth in the Transvaal by means of attractive low-cost packages for the period between May and October. I think this is also the answer concerning the aspect which the hon. member for Sunnyside raised in this connection.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also asked that signs should be put up at international hotels and restaurants to indicate the status of the hotel or restaurant concerned. I can tell the hon. member that such signs have already been put up. However, one does not always notice them because one is not always so observant. However, I agree with the hon. member that the signs must be there, and we take cognizance of the hon. member’s feelings about this matter. For the rest, the hon. member’s speech showed that he had done his homework very well, and I want to congratulate him on that. It is a pity, though, that he did not also do his homework properly before deciding to take his seat in the benches of the CP. But I say this in a friendly spirit.

I want to thank the hon. member for East London City for an interesting speech and for the stimulating ideas he expressed. We discussed them in the department this morning, and the ideas which the hon. member expressed about the development fund, the membership of Sarccus, as well as the regional development scheme, are really stimulating, and we shall give very careful attention to them. We hope that we shall be able to use some of his ideas for the promotion of tourism in South Africa.

I have already referred to the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, but there is just one more aspect I want to point out to him. A great deal is already being done to beautify our towns and cities and to keep them clean. In certain areas, particularly in the Cape, competitions are being held at the moment in which towns and cities can win prizes for being the most attractive in that area. We should like to encourage our towns and cities to participate in these competitions to see whether we cannot make our towns and cities more attractive in that way.

The last hon. member to speak—I do not think I have forgotten anyone—was the hon. member for Wellington. This hon. member extolled the beauties of the Boland mountains. I was recently privileged to walk and drive around on top of those mountains with the Minister. I fully agree with the hon. member. It was one of the most relaxing and pleasant days I have spent in a long time. Even at that late stage of the season, we saw a beautiful red disa there, which the hon. the Minister took home as a gift for his wife. [Interjections.] With the consent of the relevant authorities, of course! I think the hon. member was really just pointing out to us that the tourist potential of South Africa is among the best in the world, not only because we have beautiful regions, but also because we have such an enormous variety of these. One thinks, for example, of Namaqualand. It is probably the most arid place in South Africa, but when Namaqualand is in flower, it is certainly one of the most beautiful areas in the country. The hon. member for Namaqualand will agree with me.

Let me conclude by saying that in my young days I went to Namaqualand to find myself a wife. My student friends in Dagbreek asked me: Good heavens, my friend, why a girl from Namaqualand? It must be love in a dry climate. Then I told my friends: Yes, you may be right, but let me tell you that when Namaqualand is in flower, it is a beautiful sight.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Commission for Administration”, and Vote No. 14.—“Statistics”:

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I feel this is an opportune moment to address a word of welcome to our new Minister of State Administration, although, as I understand the position, this is only a temporary arrangement. Perhaps a word of sympathy would be more appropriate under the circumstances, because his immediate predecessor did not have much luck in that position. With regard to the changes which have taken place in the Commission for Administration, I also think this is an opportune moment to wish Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe, who is to be chairman in the place of Dr. Rautenbach, every success in an extremely difficult position in the Public Service. May he achieve even greater success than his predecessor, and may be throw new light for us on the future of the Public Service.

What we have in front of us here this afternoon is either unread or out of date. This actually makes this debate somewhat meaningless at this stage. The first is a notice signed by the hon. the Minister of State Administration, moving the First Reading of a Public Service Amendment Bill, the contents of which the hon. members are of course ignorant. We do not know to what extent this Bill affects the present position in the Public Service, nor do we know what promise it holds for the future. This is the unread part. The read part is out of date. The latest annual report of the Commission for Administration ends on 30 June 1981, i.e. 10 months ago. At that stage the position was as set out in this report. If everything had been going well and there had been clear signs in the report of an improvement in the situation, one would not have been unhappy about this. However, the following are some of the most important statements in this report: On 30 June of last year—i.e. 10 months ago—in certain sectors of the Public Service there was a total of 19 650 vacant posts, i.e. more than 16% of the posts in the central Public Service. In 1979-’80, i.e. the previous year, there was a net gain in White officials of 801. That was up to 30 June 1980. In the year immediately following that, 1980-’81, however, there was a net loss in White officials of 1 629. One can scarcely imagine a more serious, drastic and far-reaching deterioration. In addition, on page 11 the commission states, inter alia—

It is therefore clear that there will inevitably be a drop in standard. The commission goes on to say—

We know, for example, about sections such as the legal divisions of various departments—

This means that in certain highly qualified sections of the Public Service the position is worse than the 16% of vacant posts I mentioned earlier. On page 13 the commission goes on to say—

It is therefore the young people who are leaving. 83% of the staff losses involved officials under the age of 40 years. The commission goes on to say—

That one could call the under-statement of the year. It goes without saying that if we are suffering these losses both in talent and from among the younger age groups, the position is really extremely bad.

If everything the commission said a year ago is true, why must we debate at this stage, a year later? If the position had improved significantly, I would have expected the hon. the Minister or the chairman of the Commission for Administration to have made a public statement in this connection. To use another English expression “nothing succeeds like success”. If the Commission for Administration or the Public Service or the Government could show that there has been an improvement in the entire set-up, people would of course say that all was now well in the Public Service and young people would elect to join the Public Service after they had passed matric or gained a university degree, because it compared favourably with other job opportunities. However if, as has been the case for years now, it has the reputation, of being a service which people, particularly well-qualified people, leave as soon as possible, this does not make a good impression on any young man or woman.

The Commission for Administration must report to Parliament. Other departments have managed to report fully by March or April of this year on everything that has taken place in those departments up to 31 December 1981; in other words, on what happened four or five months ago. However, this central commission, this central body, which has an interest in every Government department, only submitted this report 24 hours ago, a report which sets out what was happening 10 months ago, in June of last year.

The commission is compelled by statute in the first place, to report to this House. It therefore has a direct responsibility to this House to report; nevertheless the commission is content to allow a debate to take place in this House under these conditions. I lay the blame for this on everyone who is directly or indirectly involved in this situation. It has been suggested that the previous Minister of State Administration, the hon. member for Waterberg, should also take some of the blame. To us in the Opposition it is immaterial which specific Minister or top official is responsible for any specific evil. There is such a thing as co-responsibility—concerning which we have heard a great deal in another context—and I think this is an exceptionally appropriate ward in this case. [Interjections.] Let us call it “healthy co-responsibility”. [Interjections.]

Naturally the commission’s report poses certain questions, and I sincerely hope, for the sake of the situation in the Public Service, that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us good, adequate and detailed replies. The first and most obvious question is: What will the effect be of the measures the commission mentions in its report as measures it is introducing or has introduced, and in what respect have these measures already brought about an improvement in the Public Service, and what promise do they hold for the immediate future? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member discussed the matter of the Commission for Administration in relative isolation, but I think when we refer to the commission, we must consider the total problem situation in South Africa within which the commission functions. I shall return to this in a moment.

On behalf of those of us on this side of the House I should like to take this opportunity in the first place, to wish the hon. the Minister every success for as long as he is in charge of this Vote and, in the second place, to congratulate the new chairman of the commission, Mr. Jimmy Van der Merwe, most sincerely and to wish him and his officials, specifically Mr. Gerrie Van Zyl who is now the secretary, everything of the best. Our best wishes also go to the two new commissioners, Mr. Fouché and Mr. Rossouw, and the retiring members. Dr. Rautenbach. Mr. Van Vuuren and Mr. Ellis—the last-mentioned member has been promoted to Auditor-General. To this team we say: All of the best for the future.

It is true that the Public Service in South Africa is suffering from acute problems with regard to the staff position. However, when we consider the position in the Public Service, we must also consider the overall problem of the South African economy. We have a manpower shortage throughout the economy. One must refer to this if one is to place the problem in the Public Service in perspective. One can speak to the largest organizations in South Africa, to the personnel managers of Anglo American, Federale Volksbeleggings or any businessman in the Republic of South Africa, and the message is exactly the same: Too few people wanting too much money. The South African economy is saddled with this problem, and in the opinion of hon. members on this side of the House, we shall always be saddled with this problem. In any case, it is not only in South Africa that this is a problem; they have the same problem with trained manpower in the highly developed countries.

When we consider the problems facing the Public Service I want to point out that there are many positive aspects for which we must be grateful, considering the times in which we live. We must be grateful that in the midst of these problems the State machinery has functioned so well over the years. If we consider the process of rationalization process of our State machinery that has been undertaken, there is no doubt that a great deal has been done which has had a beneficial effect on the State machinery. If we also consider the Public Service’s goal of being less involved in the private sector, we see another sphere in which the Public Service has taken extremely positive action in the midst of all its problems. We need only consider the extensive provision made by the commission for the training and retraining of manpower, and the measures to make use of better technology and better work methods. Bearing this in mind, rather than being negative and derogatory, we can say to the hon. the Minister, the Commission for Administration and the Public Servants of South Africa that we in this House want to thank them for the burden they bear in these difficult times, under the most trying conditions imaginable.

You must just pay them better.

The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to better remuneration. I am coming to that. [Interjections.] There are a few points I should like to raise here. We have set a few broad objectives for our national economy. We spoke of a smaller Public Service, and in the same breath we referred the possibility that the private sector could take over more Public Service functions. In other words, work which can be done by the private sector is being transferred to the private sector. There is also the broad objective of effective manpower utilization. [Interjections.] We also have the broad objective of making officials content by means of adequate salary structures. There is the objective of depoliticizing and deregulating administration in this country, in other words, we have as little control as possible. I think one could say that the NP’s approach to the State machinery, the Public Service, could well be described in terms of what Jefferson said: The least government is the best government. I think the aim of this Government—also as regards the Public Service—of as little control as possible with as much freedom as possible, with order and security, which also forms part of the State machinery, is going to take us a long way on the road ahead. That is why everyone who wants to talk meaningfully about the Public Service is grateful that people from the private sector have been involved and that the Commission for Administration holds a number of meetings every year with representatives of the private sector so that there can be inputs from both sides. I think this is a very sound principle. In my opinion, anyone who knows about the Public Service must feel that the NP and this Government, along with the Commission for Administration, which has done valuable work in recent years, have played a tremendous role in improving the position of the public servant. There are four matters about which I should like to make specific recommendations and address questions to the hon. the Minister.

The first matter concerns greater departmental self-sufficiency. I have read the report of the Commission for Administration. It is one of the most detailed, well thought-out, finest and best prepared reports we have received this year. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned that we received it so late. I cannot differ with him on that score. Perhaps we can receive it earlier next year, but even if he had received it six months ago, it would have made no difference to the problems in the Public Service. [Interjections.] An informed person like him ought in any case to be constantly aware of what is going on, and there are various places where discussions are held on the position of the Public Service. I have mentioned greater departmental self-sufficiency. This reminds me of my first speech on this Vote in 1974. Even at that stage I called for greater departmental self-sufficiency in the Public Service. However, at that stage I was still a little wild. I thought I knew a gread deal and wanted to summarily get rid of the Public Service Commission so as to have a greater degree of departmental self-sufficiency. The former Minister rapped me lightly over the knuckles for doing so. However, now that I have been concerned with the State machinery for 10 years, I believe that the Commission for Administration is undoubtedly on the right track with its remarks in this report on greater departmental self-sufficiency—which is approved in principle by the Government. There is no doubt about that. If we want a Director-General of a department to have the authority to run that department, we must give him the power to do so. I suggest that we eventually aim at giving maximum self-sufficiency to the Director-General and the central merit committee of each department which can serve as a kind of executive committee, so that those people can take quick decisions on salaries and the appointment of individuals. In other words, they must be able to decide within the department which people they can use best. Of course, this would be meaningless if, for example, we laid down no rules and regulations in connection with salaries. That is why we can never deprive the commission of its function of regulating salary structures. We are not suggesting this either. Over the years we have asked top people in the State machinery whether they feel they would be able to run things better if they themselves were given the sum of money voted for a department to use for posts and salaries of specific individuals. Without any doubt they all feel that they want greater freedom with that money. That is why I was so delighted about the remark in the report of the Commission for Administration. I am also pleased that the Commission for Administration is acting with great foresight in this regard. At the moment the Directors-General have a reasonably free hand with regard to appointments and salary scales at which people can be appointed up to the level of administrative officer. If they are contemplating pushing up that level, I believe that everyone in this House will see it as being in the interests of good and sound administration in the country. If a top official in the State machinery must first obtain the approval of the commission to appoint a typist on a specific scale, or if the restrictions on his freedom with regard to salaries is such as to cause occasional frustration, it cannot work. This greater departmental self-sufficiency will lead to more rapid decision-making and more effective utilization of manpower. I also believe that the Commission for Administration will be able to make its contribution in such a new dispensation in such a way that nothing can get out of hand. If the central merit committee of each Government department serves as a kind of executive committee, and the commission keeps a close watch on departmental activities, we shall eliminate the possibility of politically motivated appointments or the game of jobs for pals, which could happen under another system.

I shall refer to a few other aspects later. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the previous two speakers in congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this post. I trust that his performance of this task will be successful. At the same time I want to express my sincere appreciation to the former Minister, the hon. member for Waterberg, who dealt with this important Vote in the past. I also want to extend a hearty welcome to Mr. Van der Merwe, the new chairman of the commission. We came to know him very well in another capacity where he did excellent work. We trust that he will give service of the same high quality in this specific post and that he will derive great satisfaction from his new job. We also want to congratulate Mr. Fouché and Mr. Rossouw, who as new members will be assisting him in this task.

I want to try to adopt a more positive tone than that adopted by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in the discussion of this very important Vote. I want to express my thanks for the annual report we received. It is true that the statistics appearing in it are to a certain extent out of date, because this report was compiled several months ago. It is also true that the report only reached us yesterday and that we have not, therefore had much time to make an in-depth study of it. However, it is a very important report and I believe it ought to be studied with more attention later to enable us to appreciate its true value better. In the report specific matters regarding the progress being made in various sectors of the Public Service are referred to, and in my opinion they are of great importance to this House and to all of us. I hope I shall be able to deal with some of these facets as I proceed. However, I want to start by contending that we must establish and project a more positive image of the Public Service. It is one of the biggest employers in the country, and for this reason one could say that this big employer is entitled to its pro rata share of the available manpower in the country. Perhaps this is being rather idealistic, whereas in reality things are quite different. After all, it is a fact that because the State provides a tremendous service as a large employer, it ought also to have its rightful claim to the available manpower. The State is probably the largest employer and also offers employees the highest degree of security. It is true that in times of prosperity people do not appreciate this, because it is in times of prosperity that so many people are lured away from the Public Service, by the private sector in particular. However, the fact remains that the Public Service is essential and indispensable to an orderly State, to the private sector, to every inhabitant of this country, and even to countries abroad. We cannot under any circumstances get away from this necessity for and indispensibility of its services.

That is why it is regrettable that so many people are only critical of the Public Service and that there is not much appreciation on the part of the public, and frequently on the part of the private sector as well, for the service provided by the State. The State simply must obtain the relevant officials to be able to provide this service. They must have well-qualified officials, suitable for every facet of that tremendously broad spectrum of services the State provides. Without the public servant, whose task it is to provide this service and carry out this function, the ship of state will run aground and the ships of every other organization will of necessity also be wrecked. Perhaps, then, it has become necessary for the sectors outside the Public Service to be made more aware of this fact, and of the fact that they must give the State the opportunity to make full use of the staff it has trained. It is therefore essential that the private sector refrains from constantly luring public servants away with attractive offers, while at the same time expecting the Public Service to continue carrying out its functions properly.

In this connection one must express a word of thanks to every public servant, whatever his rank. The fact of the matter is that in these times every one of them must do their jobs under very difficult, and sometimes trying conditions, and sometimes even in a race against time. Frequently the public servant is also referred to in a derogotary way, and often fun is made of public servants, but the fact of the matter is that everyone, part of the private sector or the general public, demands some service from some or other State department every day of their lives and expect an official to be on hand to serve them. Because this is the case, there must be far more understanding on the part of the private sector and the private individual for the work done by the public servant. We therefore want to take this opportunity to thank our public servants most sincerely for the services they render.

Having said all this, it is still essential that the State, as a big employer that provides an essential and indispensable service, sees to it that its services are rendered by the best trained and best qualified officials, able to provide these services most successfully. After all, the services offered by the State must set an example for all other services, and must also be a showcase for the service the State renders to private sector, to the citizens of this country and, of course, also to the outside world. However, in this process the State is facing tremendous competition from the private sector in particular. The private sector is therefore competing with the State when it comes to manpower. In order to obtain manpower it is essential that the public service acts in such a way that it is really competitive with the private sector. Perhaps this is idealistic, but if the State cannot make its service effectively competitive with that of the private sector, it goes without saying that it will lose manpower, and in the process will forfeit the quality of the service it renders. Therefore, in order to attract the best manpower, it is essential that the State pay competitive salaries. However, I am afraid that competitive salaries alone will not be sufficient to attract manpower to the Public Service. Salaries on their own cannot achieve this, because this will merely lead to the private sector pushing up their salary scales, and we shall again find ourselves caught up in the vicious circle of one salary increase after another. In my opinion it is far more important that the Public Service improve its conditions of service as a whole, and perhaps I shall be able to say more about this the next time I speak. However, the conditions of service in the Public Service must be such that this service, as against the private sector, acts as a drawcard for the manpower it needs, [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort made a few fruitful suggestions, but it seems to me that he sees the Public Service in isolation, as if it is the opposite of the private sector. The reality of South Africa’s economy is that the State machinery is an integral element of a total economic structure. In addition to the aspects of security and education, the State machinery is geared to keep the economy going. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where money is power, and if one does not have money one does not have power either.

When one looks at the problems in the rest of Africa, there is a lesson for us in what happened in Zimbabwe and the former Portuguese territories. When there was no more money and those countries were ploughed under economically, they had to make one concession after another. The Public Service must therefore always remain central in the total economic problem situation, and that is why the State machinery helps everyone in South Africa to become a nation of creators and not a nation of devourers.

We are also grateful to be able to say that from the viewpoint of conservation of manpower and scarce capital goods, and the best utilization of all our country’s economic resources, i.e. manpower, capital goods entrepreneurial talent and raw materials, the Public Service sets an example to everyone in South Africa, and we hope that we shall be able to continue to do so in the future.

I should like to refer to one further aspect, viz. closer parliamentary liaison with the Commission for Administration. In terms of the Public Service Act, the commission is responsible to Parliament, and in a certain sense it is an extension of Parliament. Several billion rands are voted annually for the salaries of Public Servants. I was not able to ascertain the exact figure, but I believe I should not be far wrong if I said that it was approximately R3 billion. The fact of the matter is that an increase of 1% in the salaries of Public Servants costs the Government R43 million annually, and this gives hon. members some idea of the magnitude of the salary problem.

It is true that through its report to Parliament the commission remains in touch with Parliament. It is also true that our voters as individuals—and many of us represent a great many Public Servants—can address representations, through us on matters that cause them concern. However, I want to ask—and I am merely putting this as a question—whether we should not in future try to establish a standing Select Committee to discuss matters relating to the Commission for Administration. It must be a kind of body in which healthy interactions can take place between Parliament and the Commission for Administration. The Commission for Administration, as a body acting on the authority of Parliament does very good work with regard to the Public Service as a whole and the officials in particular.

During the discussion of this Vote we have a few minutes to discuss the Public Service, and in the general Parliamentary debates, too, we have an opportunity to discuss this aspect. I believe that in future discussions of this nature—and I am not suggesting anything more than an opportunity for meaningful discussion—some of us can make inputs which could eventually be of value to all of us and be in the interests of the country. We are all proud of our Public Service and our officials, and we should like our Public Service to be a powerful machine in the overall governmental hierarchy of Africa. A tremendous responsibility rests on our Public Service hierarchy. In a certain sense we must be an example to the Black national States around us and the rest of Africa, an example of honest, sound and strong government which does not seek to regulate the lives of people too much. I therefore feel we should consider a greater degree of interaction between Parliament and the Commission for Administration. If we duly exploit the idea of establishing such a standing committee and eventually discover it cannot work, I shall be satisfied. In the interim this is something we could discuss fruitfully.

We also want to tell the Public Servants’ Association that we have great appreciation for the work they do with regard to representations on matters concerning the Public Service. We cannot associate ourselves with the idea voiced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, that we should have a trade union for the Public Service. Indeed, I think we are insulting the officials by suggesting such a thing. I think the machinery already exists. We merely have to use it better and more effectively in future.

Along with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I want to express my concern regarding the tremendous number of young people leaving the Public Service. There is no doubt in my mind that if in future we cannot retain more of our well-balanced, well-trained and enthusiastic young people in the Public Service, we shall experience problems. We here in Parliament would be stupid—I do not believe the Government is that stupid—if we were to tell the officials that we did not take cognizance of the fact that salaries play an important role in the entire staff problem. It is true, as has already been said, that salaries are not the only problem. One need only look at the situation in the business world. I am a small businessman and other hon. members are bigger businessmen. However, all of us in the business world have found that we have to advertise for weeks for a young lady to answer the telephone, and we eventually have to pay her R700 a month. Or one is looking for a young man, and although he has only just matriculated, one has to pay him R1 200 a month. Only last year he was still at school and then on top of that he wants other benefits as well. But although money alone is not the solution, it is a very important part of the solution.

I therefore believe that the basis on which the Commission for Administration must deal with the matter at the moment, namely greater professional differentiation, will create a major opportunity for us to obtain the categories of people we need, including young people for the administrative side, from a relatively strong competitive position, vis-à-vis the private sector. There is no doubt that every organization, whether it be large or small, the entire Government sector and the entire private sector, simply must utilize manpower much more effectively because we do not have so much manpower that we can allow people to do unnecessary work. In this respect we can also express our thanks to the Commission for Administration for the tremendous breakthrough they have already made in simplifying the work and eliminating red tape and unnecessary paperwork.

We are entering a technological era and I want to link this to the computerization programme in the Public Service. We are entering a revolutionary technological world. In 10 years time all of us in the business world and in the world outside will do and experience things in the technological field which would astound us. One need only consider how, a few years ago, one still had to send a telegram through the Railways to find out whether there was a seat on the train to Johannesburg, and to note how it is done nowadays, to realize that in regard to this technological development in the world, namely computer technology, tremendous opportunities exist for mankind and the Government sector, namely the Public Service, to use the available people better, in other words, less work, less red tape and more speedy decisions. That is why I am grateful that the Commission for Administration has succeeded, through its training programmes for programmers and its aid to departments with regard to introducing computerization, in keeping the Public Service in the picture in this regard. I therefore want to make an appeal for us to have a centralized computer bureau in our Public Service hierarchy so that we need not fragment the computer industry in the Public Service, every department operating its own computer, but will instead have co-ordination under the wing of the Commission for Administration and the best utilization of, firstly, the available computer facilities and, secondly, and more importantly, the limited manpower in this field. The hon. member for Florida has already had occasion to mention this, and I am in total agreement with him. If there is one field in which manpower is tremendously scarce and expensive, it is in the field of computerization, computer programmers and the like. This is a career category in which we can select people on a centralized basis by means of a centralized computer bureau, and utilize them to best effect on a salary scale and with conditions of service which will retain them for the State. Unfortunately the State cannot farm this work out on contract. It is simply too expensive. There is another reason why the State cannot do so, i.e. because this work is usually confidential. If we were to establish such a computer bureau, we could do a great deal to improve the utilization of the limited manpower in our State machine.

Mr. Chairman, may I first of all congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. Actually I do not know whether I should congratulate him or commiserate with him because this is a bit of a prickly-pear situation. However, I hope it is not a temporary position for him because if one recalls how he smoothed the ruffled feathers of the teachers, if he is left long enough in this portfolio he might be able to do the same with the public servants.

I should also like to congratulate the new members of the commission. I refer to Mr. Jimmy van der Merwe, as chairman, Mr. Fouché and Mr. Rossouw. As the new chairman of the commission has had Natal experience, we obviously are going to expect great things from him.

He was well trained.

That is right. He has had good training in Natal. I do not envy them their task; so I take this opportunity of wishing them well in their deliberations.

It is common knowledge and generally accepted that South Africa is presently suffering from a very acute shortage of trained and experienced manpower. This unhappy state of affairs is further accentuated by the economic boom, as exemplified by the financial successes that are regularly reported by private companies. Needless to say, in the eyes of the Government it is the private sector which is repeatedly soaking up the State’s skilled manpower with pay offers that the Government cannot or will not match. However, one must ask: At whose door does the blame lie for this lack of skilled manpower in South Africa? This lack has been spoken of for some 20 years and warnings have been issued, but unfortunately they have been completely ignored. The position now is that the Government is caught between two stools. On the one side it cannot replace quickly the skilled manpower that it is losing and on the other hand it is committed to an enormous wage bill as a consequence of the bureaucracy that it has created. It cannot meet the pay demands of public servants. In other words, the chickens have now come home to roost. There can be no doubt that the Public Service is at present experiencing one of the worst staff shortages in its history. There are many factors to which one can attribute this. There is the economic growth rate and there is the shortage of skilled labour, as I have said. But the main cause for the exodus of trained staff from the State departments is without doubt, a totally inadequate level of remuneration, and more so in the lower ranks. I want here to quote from the annual report of the commission for 1980-’81. On page 13 the commission has this to say—

I want now to discuss the position of the public servants in 1976-77. Through patriotism the public servants pledged their support for the anti-inflation campaign which had been launched in 1975. This pledge was given in the belief that all sectors of the economy would co-operate and exercise restraint. I am afraid that this proved to be futile. It will be recalled that in 1976 the Public Service was given an increment of 10% with the possibility of a further 5% in 1977. In actual fact, in 1977 they received nothing. I wonder whether the same can be said about the Ministers. Did they take nothing in 1977 as well? Therefore, Sir, the Public Service was in fact conned by the Government while the private sector continued to give its staff members increments from time to time. While it is agreed that the Government has to allocate funds according to priorities and that pressure is brought to bear from many quarters for more funds, it must also be admitted that after defence and security a sound State administration is a first priority. While a great deal has been said about a reduction in the number of public servants and rationalization, what is really happening at present is that instead of its being slimmed down methodically by the State the Public Service is pruning itself mainly from its most valuable echelons and this in itself is going to have disastrous consequences unless it is stopped. I want to quote once again from the report of the commission. On page 13 it goes on to say—

What amazes me is the fact that everybody says that the Public Service is too large and that the country cannot afford its salary claims. However, whose fault is that? It certainly is not the fault of the public servants themselves. On the contrary, it is the Government and its policies which, I am sorry to say, are largely to blame for this whole debacle.

As I have said, in 1977 the public servants received no increment at all and even in the boom period that followed thereafter—I say this with the greatest respect—the Government did not and has not attempted to make up for that lost year notwithstanding rampant inflation and the erosion of the public servant’s pay packet. Little wonder that there is such disgruntlement and unhappiness in the Public Service today. I believe that the public servants were done BROWN. They were tricked.

Historically and traditionally the primary function of any public service is to administer the laws promulgated by parliament. This activity is extremely important because laws and regulations are the rules by which society functions. The application and interpretation of such rules by public servants ensure an orderly and harmonious society in which freedom prevails and in which the principles of the free market system to which we subscribe can operate freely. The erosion and undermining of the role of the State in this respect must ultimately lead to the deterioration of society itself.

Speaking about the deterioration of society brings me to one particular facet of the Public Service which I should like to highlight now. I refer here specifically to the social worker. While many of us may not wish to admit it, I wonder just how often and in various situations people in high places have required the services of a social worker. I do not have to elaborate on the position of a top executive who has an alcohol problem. Possibly his wife has the same problem. Some of the other situations with which they are faced are young people in distress or elderly or even disabled persons requiring the services of a social worker. Let us have a look at a slightly broader segment of the spectrum in which the services of the social worker are required. Let us, for example, look at the situation of youth groups, young couples contemplating marriage or young married couples, people who are foster parents, the problems arising in adopted children or children with foster parents, parents of disabled children and the aged, and what of the rehabilitation of prisoners and their re-adaption within a normal environment? Whether one wants to admit it or not, the social workers and the services they offer cover the widest possible spectrum, possibly a wider segment of our social life than we even imagine. It is commonly thought that social work is done only amongst the more poorly paid and less privileged, but if we had a look at the figures today, it would surprise us to know how many cases were dealt with in the so-called middle class and upper crust of our society.

As with other branches of the Public Service, in this field there is a manpower crisis. This is even more pronounced in the social work profession. This can quite easily be proved from the answers to the questions I have tabled over the past few months. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare showed quite clearly, in answer to one of the questions I put to him, that in November 1979 we only had a 4% shortage of social workers, and I am referring to Whites. In 1980 the figure had risen to 10%, and in November 1981 the shortage stood at a figure of 21%. The figures given by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs prove that in November 1979 there was a 22% shortage, in 1980 a 28% and in 1980-’81 a 34% shortage. From a reply received from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development there was a 25% shortage in White posts in 1979. In 1980 there was a 29% shortage and in 1981 a 35% shortage. This brings me to the figures for Black social workers. In 1979 there was a 47% shortage, in 1980 a 50% shortage and in 1981 a 54% shortage. Where is this all leading us? It is leading us to a breakdown of the very fabric of our social structure, and once that breakdown is complete, there is very little chance of ever recouping what has been lost because of the lack of the services that are provided by the social workers.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank that hon. member for allowing me to proceed. There can be no doubt that the manpower situation in the sphere of social work is becoming extremely serious, particularly in view of the information received from universities enrolling social work students. There has been a dramatic drop in student registration so far this year. Where are our future social service people going to come from if the situation is allowed to continue? Recruitment and the effectiveness with which services are being rendered are handicapped by the totally inadequate salaries of social workers. Of prime importance is the total unacceptability of the discriminatory salaries paid to the various population groups. These and many other difficulties have been highlighted on several occasions, one being by the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Separate Legislation for the Social Work Profession as far back as 1976.

According to an HSRC report called “The Profitability of Occupations and Fields of Study Pursued by Graduates in 1979” written by A. Kruger, social work was the lowest-paid profession out of 34 professions with equivalent training pursued by White males. What an indictment of the Government that a situation of this nature has firstly been allowed to develop and, secondly, has been allowed to carry on for as long as it has, when as far back as 1976 this deplorable position of the social worker was brought to the attention of the authorities, not to mention the numerous meetings that have taken place over the past 18 months with various Ministers. I want to know whether the Government and the commission always have to wait for a crisis to develop before attention is paid to any problem. I believe that the time has now come for an honest appraisal of the situation and the acceptance of the fact that the social worker is an integral part of our society and should therefore be paid a professional salary in accordance with the responsibility he bears in our social structure. If the Government wishes to retain its credibility, as well as the loyalty and devotion of its public servants, it is essential for service conditions, and in particular their remuneration package, to be improved considerably.

Lastly I should like to quote from a leading Natal daily newspaper which quoted a top public servant on 4 December last year. The headline reads “Complete chaos” and the subhead reads “That is what top civil servant thinks of manpower situation in Public Service”. The report starts—

I have used this quotation with good reason, and that is that if this is the position—we have every reason to believe it is—then the question arises whether we can afford to have our police and military salary structure falling under the control of the Commission for Administration. I firmly believe we cannot.

It is already common cause that the police and military are not attracting the permanent intake they should. These two organizations are security-orientated and as such cannot be compared with the normal Public Service. These are dedicated men and women who work and live in dangerous and risky situations. Their work duty is not confined to from 08h00 to 17h00 or a five-day week; their work duty is often at night and under trying circumstances, risking life and limb. That is how they have to work. I do not care what anybody says; under no circumstances can they be equated with posts in the Public Service, and it is high time these facts were recognized.

If the hon. the Prime Minister is serious about rationalization in the Public Service then this is an area which lends itself admirably to the concept, a concept which has been proved by private enterprise time and time again, and that is delegation of powers. It also means the reduction of removal of an unnecessary and complicated system of government. I come back to the words I used earlier—complete chaos. This is something we cannot afford in our Public Service, let alone in our security services. I earnestly request the Government to heed our plea for the removal of these two organizations, the police and the military, from the control of the Commission for Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with previous hon. members in respect of the congratulations that have been expressed.

We are living in an era of adjustment, of mutual co-operation and of trying to find an answer to the question: What do we want? The Public Service is involved in this whole process of adjustment, of co-operation and of a positive answer to the question of what we want to do in the future. I want us all to examine the Public Service for a moment. Let us look at the Public Service in its entirety. When I say “look”, I mean that everyone in the national economy will have to examine and evaluate calmly his view of the Public Service.

The farmer can look at the Public Service, and depending on his circumstances, he can see the Public Service as the authority which has granted him a loan or which has refused him that loan. He can see the Public Service as the authority which gave him irrigation because an application for the building of a dam or the drilling of a borehole succeeded, or as the body which turned down this application. The pensioner can see the Public Service as the authority which is providing for him in his old age or which is refusing him that provision. In the same way, a person may be provided with housing or may have to do without that housing. The motorist may see the public servant as a person who helps to improve the flow of the traffic, to make better roads available, or he may rail against him when he is caught up in a traffic jam or when he is stopped to check whether he is displaying his third party disc. The businessman will be grateful to the Public Service if he is promptly given consent to expand his business interests and he will be angry if those interests cannot be expanded or if there is a delay. I could go on in this way. These reactions, positive or negative, are then reflected in conversations at home, at the office, at the club on a Saturday afternoon or after Sunday church over a cup of tea.

I want to suggest that on such occasions and in such conversations the positive aspects are only quoted to get the conversation going. There is a casual reference to the good contact which one had with the official concerned and which caused one to get what one was asking for or which caused one’s application to be dealt with so promptly. Then, as an afterthought, one mentions that the service was good and that the official concerned was alert and energetic. When the results are not positive or when approval cannot be obtained, then the department concerned, the official and the Public Service are castigated unmercifully, Then the criticism is unqualified. Then some pleasure is taken in belittling the Public Service and the officials. Then it is the fault of the whole Public Service and finally of the Government. Then someone is angry with everyone. What I mean by this is that the Public Service is still the pivot around which everything revolves. The farmer with his applications, the pensioner with his representations, the man in the street with his apparent frustrations and sometimes real problems and the businessman in his striving for success all need the State machinery. Whether one approves of this or whether one’s attitude towards it is critical and negative, the one fact which we all accept is that no national economy can function properly without an effective Public Service.

In my opinion, there are three prerequisites for such an ideal functioning. The first is sufficient manpower; the second is the elimination of red tape; and the third is mutual appreciation. Today I want to discuss the first aspect, sufficient manpower. The State machinery cannot and will not function properly and smoothly if there is a shortage of manpower. At the moment there is an acute shortage in almost every sector of the national economy. In the first place, we accept and I believe it is obvious that our White manpower is no longer sufficient to meet all the needs. If we continue to believe that the Public Service should rely on White skills, we shall be making the mistake of our lives. We are making States and peoples independent and we are creating a viable infrastrucure for them. We are giving them their own Government institutions and mechanism for decision-making. However, the question is whether we are also succeeding in giving them a white-collar labour force of their own. If we cannot given them their own skilled people, we shall not achieve our objective. The other colour and ethnic groups will have to be trained quickly—when I say this I mean very quickly—to take their place in the national economy. I believe that we should no longer accept that senior posts should be reserved only for the Whites. The people of colour will have to be appointed to senior positions in their own areas. The civil engineer who has to supervise the building of a dam in KwaNdebele or the chief health officer who has to take measures to combat the spread of cholera, for example, in KwaZulu, cannot always be White. In fact, I believe that very few Whites are still available for these positions. I do not wish to discuss training in this connection today, in the debate on this Vote. I shall refer to that during the discussion of another Vote. However, what we should be examining at the moment is the spirit and the attitude, as well as the goodwill, to achieve these things. There are still some White people in South Africa who are opposed to this idea, who believe that a Black man should not be appointed to a position in which he can exercise control and in which he will have supervisory powers. Therefore I want to thank the Government today for the fact that attempts are continually being made to bring about salary parity. As far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, phase 7 has already been reached. Three more phases remain which have to be put into effect. As far as the Black people are concerned, phase 6 has already been reached, so four phases remain.

We realize that we have now come to the implementation of those phases which are much more expensive than the first ones. The levels have now been reached where far more officials are involved. Therefore it is costing more money to put it into effect. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, to urge the Government to delay this programme.

In an attempt to improve the manpower situation, the Commission for Administration, with the approval of the Government, has accepted the principle of singling out specific professional groups in the Public Service. I am referring now to the appeal made in this connection by the hon. member for South Coast. The Public Service is constantly competing with the private sector for the available manpower. Therefore it has become necessary for the State to identify certain professional groups as being scarce but essential for the national economy, and to deal with them seperately as far as remuneration is concerned. Teachers, certain legal staff, police, certain branches of the Defence Force, Prisons staff, agricultural scientists, and typists have already been singled out.

Finally, I want to urge that one of the groups which should be singled out for a better dispensation in the future should be the medical and para-medical services; especially the nurses, who not only do a job, but also perform a labour of love for their fellow-men. The nurse is entitled to be remunerated accordingly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gezina rounded off his address by speaking specifically about nurses. He made a special plea on their behalf. The hon. member for South Coast spoke specifically about social workers, and also about Defence and Police personnel.

The reality of life is that one could indeed lodge a plea on behalf of every one of the special interest groups that comprise the Public Service. In the same way as, no doubt, there are some people who are close to the heart of one particular hon. member, other groups will again be close to the heart of another hon. member. The reality is, however, that one can really only tackle the Public Service as a whole. The suggestion, for instance, that a case could be made out for removing one particular activity or one particular profession from the ambit of the Commission, I believe, could equally apply in respect of just about every other sector in the Public Service. I think we have to be realistic about that. That is the reality of the situation as it really is.

Before passing on to the subject with which I want to deal specifically, I should also like to welcome the new members of the Commission and to pay tribute to those who have left for the services they have rendered. I also want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we are delighted that he is here handling this portfolio. The only question, of course, is: How long is he going to be with us, and will he be with us here when this same Vote is debated here in the House again? Perhaps we will have to wait to see what is going to happen. No one seems to know today what is going to happen in politics from one day to the next. So why should we try to forecast whether the hon. the Minister will still be here next year?

In so far as I see the Public Service structure, it is obviously the prime essential for the stability of the State. All the criticism that comes from the private sector really falls away when one realizes that the private sector without the adequately functioning public sector can indeed not do its work either. One of the dangers occurring in a society that is under stress is that pressure is exerted on the Public Service in an endeavour to destroy certain aspects of it because that is one way in which one can actually undermine the stability of the State as such. I think we have to be very careful that the stability of the Public Service is actually maintained. In doing so we will maintain the stability of the State as a whole. In our efforts to do this, I think it is necessary to examine—as the commission has done—the priorities which there are for government in South Africa, and I believe that we should ask two very pertinent questions. Firstly, when one has a manpower shortage or, more correctly, a skilled manpower shortage—because there is no shortage of manpower in South Africa but just a lack of skills to do the jobs that have to be done—one has to ask oneself how much control there is in South Africa that can actually be done without. In other words, in regard to the two functions of government—that is the question of control and that of providing of services—we must ask what controls can be abolished, what services can best be rendered by the State and which services could perhaps be rendered by the private sector. If we can answer these two questions, then I think we can establish our priorities.

One of the difficulties that we have is that we believe there are far too many controls in South Africa, because for every form that has to be filled in and every return that had to be made, there has to be somebody who files it, somebody who examines it and somebody who analyses it. There must be somebody to deal with it.

And somebody to lose it!

Yes, and when somebody has lost it, someone else has to find it again. It is all very well to talk about computerization. The reality is that in regard to every return, someone has to punch in the information, somebody has to see to it that the thing is programmed and somebody has to analyse what the processing is. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that for whatever period he is in this office, he sets it as one of his tasks to do away with many of the unnecessary controls that there are in South Africa, and that he does away with a lot of the returns that has to be rendered, returns which, in my view, are utterly unnecessary and call for unnecessary staff.

I venture to suggest that we could give a businessman one particular form to fill in. That could be punched into a computer, and from that every department could get a print-out of the information that it needs. This would do away with the multiplicity of documents that the ordinary businessman and individual in South Africa is inundated with. It can be done, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should set this as a priority, namely to discard many of these forms and controls that we have in South Africa that we can easily do without.

The question of planning for the future is an important aspect. In the guidelines for the programme budgeting, it is said that departments must programme their future plans so that we can see where we are going, and what their future is in regard to services that are essential and which should be of the highest priority, as against those plans that can be postponed without any problem.

When it comes to the manpower needs of the Public Service of South Africa, I think the hon. the Minister should tell us today what the priorities are and what the future planning is in this regard. I think we need to know that, as we should know where we are going.

With regard to the services that will have to be rendered in the future there are in my view three essentials that we will have to concentrate on. Firstly, there are the law-and-order services, where there is going to be increasing pressure upon South Africa and where stability has to be secured and maintained. Secondly, we will have to concentrate on education and training schemes because in doing that we can offer people hope and solve a tremendous number of problems. Thirdly, there are services, such as housing and health, that must be rendered to improve the well-being of all our people. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister says in regard to these particular matters.

Then there is the question of rationalization, and I think today is the day on which the hon. the Minister should give us an account of the rationalization process that has taken place. Enough time has elapsed, and we feel that we can now get a review of the situation, that we should now have an account of that process. Of course the concept of rationalization was accepted by us, but is it functioning adequately? Are there not some problems in relation to it, particularly in regard to the appointment of staff, to which I think the hon. member for Innesdal referred? I think rationalization when it comes to the appointment of staff is a very important factor. Particularly in regard to the Department of Finance I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that its rationalization is working adequately, particularly from a staff point of view. The main thing about which everybody talks and complains is that it is the private sector that is taking away the staff from the public sector. In reality the shortage of manpower is not as great as the mobility that takes place, because when you have a relatively small percentage shortage, the actual mobility and turnover of staff is far greater because people keep taking staff away from each other. Two things are really happening in South Africa. The one is that there is a continual enticement of staff. It almost goes round in a vicious circle. The staff keeps on getting paid more and more, thereby adding to the inflationary spiral, when there is in fact only a relatively small shortage that has to be made up by the large turnover. In the process there is enticement of staff and head-hunting takes place. The question has to be asked: Is the law in South Africa actually being enforced in terms of the common law in regard to enticement of staff, and should one look at the law in regard to whether staff can be enticed away? In the old Roman Dutch common law there were provisions against enticing staff away. One has to look at whether the head-hunters who entice valuable public servants in key positions are desirable in the society. I accept that a man can offer his services wherever he likes, and I believe in the freedom of work for whatever you want to achieve. However, the old Roman Dutch law contained the concept that one should not entice a man away, that one should not seek to entice him away and so disrupt another man’s business. I wonder whether we should not look at that again. In reality, when one asks why the private sector takes people away, one finds that in the main they have no problem to pay people more. They can first of all deduct the salaries that they pay for tax purposes or they can pass on the increased costs to the consumer. Indirectly it does therefore not matter to them whether they pay a little more. But the reality is all of this adds to an inflationary spiral and creates an almost insurmountable problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Yeoville. I think the hon. member made a positive contribution to some extent and in the course of my speech, I shall deal with certain aspects which the hon. member raised.

As far as the rationalization of the Public Service is concerned, we are aware that the hon. the Prime Minister set certain goals for himself when he came to power. One of these was to ensure an open, honest and effective State administration. This afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville asked what progress we had already made with rationalization. I think it is important that we consider for a moment the position in respect of the number of Government Departments since Union. In 1910 there were 12 Government Departments; in 1920, 21; in 1930, 22; in 1940, 24; in 1950, 30; in 1960, 33; in 1974, 42 and in 1980, 44. If one compares our population increase with that of other countries, the USA and France, for example, one notices that the number of Government Departments has grown disproportionately when compared with the population increase. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister announced that the number of State Departments—South West Africa and the four provinces are excluded would be reduced from 39 to 22.

What is the purpose of rationalization? Firstly, it is the elimination of duplication and overlapping, something which I shall return to at a later stage, and furthermore, the more rapid disposal of business and, very important, a saving on manpower. I shall also return to this aspect at a later stage. The last but not least important objective is efficiency. If one wishes to see these objectives realized, one should not overlook the fact that the Commission for Administration has a very important role to fulfil. I should like to express my appreciation to those who have retired from the Commission for Administration and I should like to wish the commission, as it exists today, everything of the best for the future.

As far as the role of the public servant is concerned, it is, in fact, the responsibility of the government of the day to ensure that there is a proper State administration. It is also true that the service which the public servant renders is, in fact—as the hon. member for Koedoespoort put it this afternoon—the Government’s display window to the world outside. The public servant is responsible for the administration, while the political parties are responsible for the governing of a country. If one considers the administrative function of the officials, a heavy and responsible task rests on them. Loyalty at all costs is very important. That is why I have a great deal of appreciation for the level at which this debate is taking place in this House. I think our officials as well as the Commission for Administration can take cognizance of the fact that it is taking place outside the political arena, which is very important to us.

If one considers the employment opportunities that have been created in the Republic of South Africa and one compares them with the population growth, one sees that from 1966 to 1980 the number of employment opportunities increased by approximately 58% as against a population growth of 33%. If one looks at the various race groups in the country, one notices that employment opportunities for Whites increased by 37%, as against a population growth of 29%. Employment opportunities for Coloureds increased by 124%, as against a population growth of only 38%. Employment opportunities for Asians increased by 89%, as against a population growth of 40%. If one considers the number of employment opportunities compared with the population growth, the following question may be asked: What is the position in the Public Service with regard to staff? We noticed in the annual report that the Public Service has a shortage of 16,32%, at the level of officials. If one makes enquiries in the private sector and the local authorities, this figure is not excessive. One would like that percentage of vacancies to decrease. I think this is important if one takes the increase in the duties and responsibilities which rest on the Public Service into account.

I wish to touch on another matter this afternoon, one which is also important to me, and I want the hon. the Minister to give it his urgent attention. The hon. the Prime Minister initiated the idea of rationalization. I think that rationalization should be carried through to the third level of government. If one considers the position of the third level of government, without unnecessarily burdening this House with statistics, I just wish to point out that in the Transvaal there are 62 city councils, 32 town councils and 12 health committees. In the Cape Province, there are 181 city councils, 64 town councils and 38 divisional councils. In Natal there are 31 city councils, 18 town councils, 43 health committees and a council for peri-urban areas. The Orange Free State has 63 city councils, 11 town councils and 2 local councils, as they call them there. If one takes the number of officials employed by local authorities into account, and one compares the salaries and benefits of the officials on the third level of government with those of public servants, then I maintain that our public servants have reason to feel unhappy. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of overlapping and we know that there is a tremendous amount of overlapping taking place and I just want to single out a few examples this afternoon. Is it really necessary that there should be an abattoir for every city council? Could this not be done on a regional basis? We also think of our fresh produce markets in this regard. There is also the question of health. The hon. member for Gezina referred to the health services. The hon. member for South Coast referred to the part played by welfare. This is the kind of overlapping which is taking place. For example, one thinks of the question of atmospheric pollution. There is an atmospheric pollution control officer with the local authority, the provincial authority and other authorities and the question arises: Is this really necessary? The question of community development is also very important. We also think of our roads administration, where we have the National Transport Commission and the provincial roads departments, while each local authority also has its own roads department. I think this overlapping ought to be eliminated.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of control this afternoon. I wish to say this afternoon that it is more than high time we dispensed with unnecessary control in our country. There are a few examples which I should like to mention in this regard. The first example I wish to single out is the fact that a city council does not have the right to reject the lowest tender without first referring it to the Administrator. There is the question of the authorization of borrowing powers, bank overdraft facilities and the permanent closure or diversion of a street. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted during my first turn to speak, I was referring to the importance of the Public Service and had also pointed out that the Public Service should make all its conditions of service such that they will become a means of attracting people to the Public Service and at the same time, they should be of such a nature that public servants are retained. I think we should try to check the erosion of the Public Service at all costs. In this regard, I wish to single out a few of the problems this afternoon from among those which I read about in the Public Servant, as well as those which I have gleaned from the personal opinions of Public Servants with whom I have had contact. I wish to add that I am not doing this in order to criticize, but in an effort to make a positive contribution.

One could also say that these problems are the cause of public servants leaving the Public Service, but they also prevent others from entering the service. We could differ in this respect and if it were to become apparent that a solution has been found in respect of some problems then it is perhaps as well that I mention this here this afternoon so that the officials outside, who may not have taken cognizance of this yet will, in fact, do so and will know what has already been done.

I have spoken about all the conditions of service and when one deals with this, it is obvious that salaries will be one of the most important entities in the conditions of service. I do not wish to speak this afternoon in general about a salary structure for the entire Public Service from top to bottom. However, with reference to the annual report, various hon. members referred to the fact that some of the more highly qualified officials are being lost, that there are few if any young people joining the service and that many officials under the age of 40 are leaving. As I see it, the salary structure of the lower echelons is probably creating the problem. Those structures are not competitive with outside sectors, nor do they attract new people. I recently spoke to a few people who had applied for a certain post in the lower echelons of one of the Government departments. All those who applied for that post and who were given interviews, were, however, put off by a single problem the salary. They said it was not enough; they could not work for that. They then went to seek other employment.

I am of the opinion that these lower salary structures should be raised so that they can be made more attractive to young men in particular. The hon. member for Innesdal mentioned certain salaries earlier this afternoon for which the matriculant, whether male or female, is willing to work and does in fact, obtain in the private sector. If the Public Service does not remunerate its lower echelons in such a way that it is competitive, I am afraid that we shall not attract the people, the young people we should like to attract. The Public Service must be built up out of these young people and they have to be the leaders and senior staff members of the Public Service eventually.

Another important matter which is already receiving attention, is the salary structures of the various occupations, the so-called occupational differentiation. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for South Coast in this regard—incidentally this is something I happened to have made a note of—when I speak about the question of the salaries of social workers. I am afraid—you may disagree with me here, but what I am going to say now, is based on my observations and knowledge—that men in particular are no longer prepared to join the social work profession because of the salary problem because the remuneration is for those people inadequate. The profession has to a large extent, been left in the hands of women, who perhaps do it just as well as the men would have. However, I do not think it does the profession any good to have the male members of the population excluded from it precisely as a result of the salary question. I am of the opinion that the whole question of the social worker requires the urgent attention of the Commission for Administration.

The other matter which I think is a problem—I believe that it is no longer such a problem in the Post Office—is the question of housing, housing for young married couples and for the single person in particular. I am speaking under correction and if the hon. the Minister corrects me, I shall appreciate it, for then the officials outside who do not know about this either will take cognizance of it. The younger married couples apparently cannot qualify for a subsidy or loan to the extent that will enable them to provide their own housing.

Another problem I have come across, is the question of single people. These people do not have a housing allowance and they are being forced to move out of the flats they live in as a result of sectional titles sales. The flats are simply sold, and to the best of my knowledge, they are not able to purchase such flat to provide their own accommodation.

Another matter I should like to focus attention on is the subsidy limit of R40 000. I request the Commission for Administration to go into this matter to determine whether that limit cannot be raised; it has to be increased. I am speaking under correction, but I think that the salary of the official sets the limit. Nevertheless, I believe that in the case of the lower paid people this creates a problem; hence my request that the ceiling be lifted so that it may also be made possible for such people to obtain housing loans.

There is a further request I wish to make in this regard. Both the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Finance may differ with me radically on this, yet I still wish to ask whether it is not possible for the contributions of the Public Servants to the pension fund to be withdrawn and invested with building societies and be specifically set aside as loans for Public Servants. I am not speaking about the contributions which the State makes to the pension fund. I am only speaking about the money which the public servant himself contributes and I request that that money be invested with building societies so that public servants may borrow that money and may be assisted in this way with housing loans.

There is another matter which I also regard as a problem and which, in my opinion, should perhaps receive attention. I am referring to the whole question of medical services and the covering of services by the Medical Aid. Could consideration not be given to 100% coverage of hospitalization? Could not 100% coverage also be given in the case of major operations? If we could do this, it would make the conditions of service as a whole more attractive to the Public Servant and help convince him to remain. He will be aware that he has these benefits and that he does not have to look for them outside the Public Service.

Another matter I should like to raise, is the question of the occupational differentiation. I see a possible problem here. If too much emphasis is placed on the various professions within the Public Service, the ordinary clerks who do not fall within the framework of a particular profession, could perhaps feel that they are being neglected in comparison with the professional people. We could then perhaps lose those ordinary administrative people. Of course, one does not want to use one’s professional people to do the administrative work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, arising from the speech by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I just want to make one point about the question of housing for officials. In the bigger cities, with the present housing market, our younger officials are in many cases—to use a cliché—virtually “priced out the market”. There is no doubt in my mind about that. In big cities like Pretoria it is becoming increasingly difficult for young officials, for young married couples and for single people to find accommodation, and this is the result of the enormous inflationary increase in house prices. Therefore I want to take this opportunity of saying that we on this side of the House have great sympathy with the officials. For that reason, I want to urge very seriously today that we should get away from the carrot policy which we follow in our State machinery in many ways. I am referring to the carrot policy for retaining the services of officials, young and old. In order to do so, we always hold out a carrot to them in the form of benefits such as housing allowances and various other allowances. I believe that our treatment of our officials in South Africa should be guided by the basic principle of giving every official as much money as possible so that he can be an economically independent individual, so that he can make his own way with his money. In other words, when it comes to housing, his money must help him to buy a house. The hon. the Minister of Finance is here at the moment, and if he wants to take me to task for what I am going to say now, I shall take it like a good parliamentarian. In our bigger urban centres we make the mistake, in my opinion, of accommodating too many of our people—perhaps this is not quite relevant under this Vote—in State housing or official housing. In my own constituency there is a block of flats in which a large number of people from the prisons service are accommodated. In my constituency there is also a big block of flats in which a large number of police officials live.

You are afraid they will vote against you, aren’t you?

I understand the position of those people who have to live in remote places where functional housing has to be provided. I also understand the fact that the people living close to prisons in the bigger cities are needed there for practical purposes. However, my problem lies with the fact that we give a man a State house in which he often lives for the duration of his career. The day he has to retire he has an enormous problem. He receives a certain gratuity, and when he looks at the market, he finds that that gratuity and his financial resources are not nearly enough to buy a house. Therefore I believe that the basic principle should be to give official housing to as few people as possible. I believe that the basis for the Public Service should be to provide for the people who have official housing as well and to help them to acquire their own houses.

As far as the position of the official is concerned, I want to urge that the Government, the hon. the Minister of Finance, this hon. Minister and the people who deal with the matter, should please examine the possibility of enabling the official to borrow a deposit from the central Government Service Pension Fund, so that he may enter the property market, or of giving him the full amount in the form of a housing loan from that pension fund. I believe it is in the interests of our young officials and of all our people employed by the authorities in South Africa that they should be home-owners. If we proceeded from the standpoint that we should pay people enough to enable them to be independent, to own a house and to look after themselves economically, I believe that we would be eliminating one of the major problems and one of the main reasons advanced for the fact that so many people are leaving the Public Service. Let us forget about the carrot policy and let us give the official a feeling of financial independence. I should like to take this plea further on a future occasion, or next year, because I believe that we must not encourage a socialist approach or attitude among our officials.

Mr. Chairman, in my speech earlier in this debate I said that I was of the opinion that we should get away from unnecessary control. I wish to continue by saying that a local authority does not have the right to lease land for the provision of recreational facilities for a lengthy period without obtaining the necessary permission from the Administrator. One also thinks in this regard of the expropriation of land, the donation of land, the imposition of tax and the relaxation of building regulations. If a city council is of the opinion that its building regulations are too stringent, it cannot decide to moderate or relax them itself. It has to obtain permission from higher authorities. This also applies in respect of the construction and management of a sewage farm. This is unnecessary. We should get away from this. It creates frustration, and a frustrated official can never be productive.

I should like to deal with another aspect. As far as unnecessary control is concerned, I wish to say—I also singled this out earlier in this debate—that in this country we have 557 local authorities controlled by the second level of government. In view of all the aspects in respect of which control is carried out, one can imagine, Sir, how many public servants are involved in exercising this unnecessary control over the third level of government.

I wish to deal with another aspect which is important to me, viz. the bargaining power of the public servant. I think the public servant ought to have bargaining power—here I disagree with my colleague, the hon. member for Innesdal. I wish to point out that 91,81% of the public servants who have left the Service, have resigned. Of that percentage 83% were under the age of 4Ü years. We have the Commission for Administration, the Public Servants’ Association, as well as the joint advisory council for which provision was made in section 25 of the legislation on State Administration. Nevertheless, the public servant has no bargaining power. I referred to the employees’ association of the municipal authorities which is well known to everyone, viz. SAAME. SAAME may bargain on behalf of its officials. SAAME also bargains on behalf of the officials of the administration boards. However, the public servant does not have that bargaining power. I think it is important that this be rectified. Until now, I have not been able to get clarity on who, in fact, is the employer of the public servant. Firstly, there is the hon. the Minister of State Administration. He may consult with these people. They may furnish him with advice, but the next person we have to deal with is the hon. the Minister of Finance, who then has to decide whether the necessary finance is available. How different this is in the case of third-tier government! An investigation ought definitely to be instituted into this matter.

If one takes cognizance of the results of the shortages in the Public Service, there is an indication of an over-utilization of available staff. Staff members are overworked and the officials are dissatisfied. Then there is another aspect which I wish to point out, an aspect which affects the economy of the country. This is the tremendous extent to which officials are transferred. Officials are constantly being transferred from one town to another. In the process, there are additional transport costs, new furniture and curtains have to be purchased, etc. There are simply too many expenses. They amount to thousands of rands. I do not think our economy can afford something like this. Moreover, those who are affected in this way have no feeling of loyalty towards the Public Service. What we should also bear in mind, is the harm done to their children as far as their education is concerned. In the process, those children have become used to moving around, and they therefore do not have the loyalty which is necessary for someone who wishes to become part of a community and who wishes to remain part of it.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that time does not allow me to deal with the previous speaker, the hon. member for Wit-bank. I do, however, wish to deal with an entirely different subject, namely statistics. I note with some regret that the Department of Statistics has ceased to exist and has been absorbed into the office of the Prime Minister. May I, on behalf of those of us on this side of the House, extend to Mr. A. J. Louw and all the members of his staff our sincere thanks for the services rendered by the department to the Republic of South Africa. I also want to express the hope that the absorption of this department into the Prime Minister’s office will enhance its continued benefit to this country in future.

I should like to deal with a number of aspects relating to the Department of Statistics. The first facet I want to deal with is that of co-ordination of statistics and the S.A. Reserve Bank. In 1962 the Cabinet instituted a Central Statistical Co-ordinating Committee which included representatives of the Government Departments and the South African Reserve Bank concerned with statistics and with statistics policy formulation, because it was felt that all national statistics should be fully co-ordinated. Now that the Department of Statistics has been absorbed into the Prime Minister’s office what is going to happen to this Central Statistics Co-ordinating Committee? Where will the Reserve Bank figure in the new rationalization? I ask this because there must be coordination with the Reserve Bank.

I should like to deal with one facet relating to the population census. One appreciates the fact that it takes time and considerable effort to collate and publish all the information available on the 1980 population census. However, most large companies in the private sector are currently engaged in manpower planning exercises covering the next five to 10 years. For this purpose it is essential for them to have as soon as possible figures regarding the economically active population at the 1980 census, broken down by various industries as well as by various occupations. The Human Sciences Research Council, the Department of Manpower and others have in recent years published a number of reports analysing the supply of and the demand for manpower in the South African economy for the next decade or two. As far as we are aware, however, no attempt has yet been made to reconcile the total manpower needs of the country by various categories of labour and various industries with the likely supplies in a single, readily understandable publication.

It seems that where adequate manpower training and planning is at present one of the top economic priorities in this country, the Central Statistical Service, would perform a most valuable task if it could bring out such a publication at early notice. I should like to mention some improvements to the statistical services. Because delays of two or three months in the compilation of the monthly time series are in fact really unavoidable, we suggest that both the statistical services and the Reserve Bank should endeavour to provide preliminary estimates of the principal national income data that currently are published quarterly on the same basis on which advance estimates of the monthly figures for retail and wholesale sales are published.

It would be useful for planners and forecasters in the private sector if the Reserve Bank, for example, could calculate (by various statistical sectors) advance estimates of some of the more important national income series, e.g. tables S86 and S87 of the Reserve Bank’s Quarterly Bulletin, and could publish such advance estimates when they publish their monthly money and banking statistics. This should apply to national income statistics because at present they are so stale when published that they inhibit forecasting and planning in the private sector.

Compilation of composite indices of principal monthly time series is another problem. The central statistical services of the Reserve Bank should compile composite indices of the principal monthly time series leading, coinciding with and lagging behind the general business cycle in the South African economy. It is vitally important to business firms in the private sector to be able to gauge the course of the general business cycle and the availability of such indicators of the stage of evolution of the general business cycle would be of considerable assistance to decision-makers in the private sector. Such statistics are published regularly in the United States of America where they are given considerable weight by economic forecasters and decision-makers, both public and private.

Where is the economy going? Could table S97 of the Reserve Bank’s Quarterly Bulletin be extended to provide the latest quarterly figures for inventory charges in the various economic sectors, as well as the actual levels of industries held on the various sectors at the end of each quarter and year? Could the Quarterly Bulletin’s statistics for manufacturing, i.e. Tables 6.4, 10, 10.1 and 10.2 for the manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade not be extended to include figures for current and long-term liabilities, merchandise purchases and owners equity to enable credit controllers and credit institutions to calculate normal financial ratios used to assess liquidity, profitability and solvency? For example, a figure for total current liabilities is required to calculate the current and quick asset ratios for the manufacturing industry, while a figure for long-term liabilities is required to arrive at the total debt/total assets ratio, and a figure for owners’ equity to calculate the ratio of owners’ equity to total assets.

The following is the range of statistics presently provided: The Reserve Bank has published National Financial Accounts for South Africa from 1970 to 1979 and it should be congratulated for this excellent addition to the very extensive financial and other statistics which it is constantly improving. There should, however, be a regular publication of input/output tables. There is a great need for regular publication of input/output tables for the South African economy on a much larger scale, even though the Reserve Bank has now published a fund-flow analysis for the economy.

The Central Statistical Service should seriously consider a sequel to that outstanding publication Fifty Years of Union published in 1960, which contained a full range of all the time series on an annual basis and covered the postwar period to 1946. Such a publication as Forty Years Since the Start of World War II would provide an easy reference book for firms and researchers in private enterprise and I should like to appeal for the compilation of such a publication.

The Reserve Bank must be complimented on bringing out a publication on all national income data also until 1946, but they should be asked to publish a further reference book on other banking and financial statistics.

I should like to deal with the consumer price index. The consumer price index is as good a yardstick as any to measure the inflation rate. We all agree that the consumer price index is not sufficiently accurate for any analysis of inflation. Business firms and the public generally tend to use the consumer price index when it would be more correct and appropriate to use the relevant production price indices, or free indices, applicable to a specific section of the overall consumer price index. Business firms and the public know very little about price indices or, for that matter, about inflation. Many do not know that what is referred to as the inflation rate is identical to changes in the consumer price index, and that in effect the consumer price index is used to measure the inflation rate.

In conclusion I want to appeal once again for a central computer data bank to be run by the department and which could have direct access by means of electronic modules to economic research departments and other organizations in, say, Johannesburg and in other centres not far distant from Pretoria. If such an arrangement is not practicable at this stage, it might suffice if the department were able and prepared to provide, on demand, at short notice and at a small cost, computer print-outs of the various statistical time series and graphs which the Central Statistical Service keep on its computers to inquirers from the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, it was precisely two years ago today that the State initiated a general census. I have made inquiries from the department concerned and it is encouraging to hear that the first data in respect of that census will be made available shortly. I think the hon. the Minister will have more to say about this. It is therefore perhaps necessary at this stage to thank the large group of temporary workers, the so-called hour workers, for their enthusiasm which made it possible to codify the data and record it on magnetic tapes. We are looking forward to the data being made available as soon as possible so that it may be used as a basis for planning and action.

The old problem of a lack of manpower—I am referring more specifically to professional staff in the department—remains a real problem. Trained experts who can process and formulate the data and computer operators and technicians are just not available in sufficient numbers. We still have to contend with the old problem of the private sector buying manpower from the State. The State remains the institution which trains this data processing staff and makes them available only to have them bought up by the other sectors. This will continue to be a problem in future if drastic measures are not taken. The department and the Public Service as a whole will have to look at this matter very carefully. Data processors and computer operators are being trained at great cost and with a great deal of trouble. Bursaries are awarded to such people by the State, and they undergo all their specialized training and studies in the employ of or under the financial care of the State, and when they qualify, they are inundated with offers of employment on the open market. Should the insertion of a penalty clause not be considered in the bursary agreement for example? Such a penalty, in respect of the specialized professions in particular, should be so high, that it would be virtually impossible to contract out. It should also be too expensive for the buyer of that trained person to conclude such a transaction.

I am raising these issues in order to obviate the problem. The Public Service cannot continue to be the training sector, while the other sectors reap the benefits. We noted with interest the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister that the Department of Statistics has been dissolved and that this service has been incorporated into the office of the Prime Minister. This is a neat and well-considered move to carry rationalization a step further. Whether it is in the field of science or the economy or in whatever field it may be, it goes without saying that statistical data are essential. It is obvious that no proper planning can be done if certain data is not immediately available. It is also true that planning activities are initiated by the Office of the Prime Minister. The direct incorporation of the statistics component into the Office of the Prime Minister is therefore, a logical step and can only result in the entire set-up becoming more streamlined. Economic planning can hardly be done properly if data on the geographic distribution of the population is not readily available. Population statistics are basic to all statistics. This is also the premise of the department. We are entering a new era in the constitutional sphere in South Africa. I am of the opinion that in future, we shall not be able to content ourselves with overall figures in respect of the population structure in South Africa. Data on population figures and population shifts which are relatively recent and up to date, will become increasingly essential in future. In order to plan on a constitutional, regional and local level, it is essential to have that data available. Therefore it will not only be necessary for the data on population figures to be available in its entirety, but also at local and regional levels. We are aware—investigations confirm this—that there is an ever increasing movement of Coloureds from the Cape to the Transvaal for example. This trend will have to be established and investigated scientifically so that future planning can be dealt with accordingly. For example, it is very difficult for us to plan in respect of housing, say, and to meet the needs in good time if a reasonable forecast cannot be made.

Ask for more money.

I am not going to allow myself to be led astray by our caucus group on community development by asking for money. I am pleading for proper statistics in this respect. To make this possible, it is essential that the latest valid data should be available. That is why we welcome the idea of an earlier census in 1985. The 1980 data will probably be fully available by then. It is essential that we begin compiling the next set of data immediately so that we need not again have such long intervals in between. Fresh data and statistics make it possible for the statistician to make scientific and correct forecasts. In my opinion, the Government should no longer see the 1985 census as an interim measure. I think that consideration will have to be given to the amendment of the Census and Statistics Act so that a census may take place every five years instead of every 10 years. Demographers and the statistician will have the assurance of more recent data and they can then set about their task in a more scientific way.

I wish to conclude by thanking Mr. At Louw and his former department for what they have already done in this regard. As they will now be known as the Central Statistic Service, a component of the Office of the Prime Minister, we wish them everything of the best and we assure them that we appreciate what they have already done and that we are grateful for this extremely important link in the national economy as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches would also like to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the hon. member for Gezina in regard to wishing Mr. Louw and the members of his department happy accommodation in their new home.

In the brief time that I have at my disposal I wish to deal with another aspect of statistics, namely the questions and problems confronting the agricultural industry in regard to obtaining up-to-date statistical information that is applicable to the farming community. It is hardly necessary for me to point out how important it is for statistical information to be made available at regular intervals in the long-term planning of any enterprise or industry. This applies equally to agriculture. It is even more essential that the trends that are taking place in agriculture should be monitored at regular intervals. One must bear in mind that agriculture is a multi-facet component of our economy and that up-to-date statistical information is absolutely imperative to enable future guidelines in agriculture to be set. It is questionable whether the lack of information that the agricultural sector has to contend with is not an aspect that has led to the present imbalance in agricultural production in the country at the present time. We have a situation here where there are surpluses in some categories and shortages in others and it is a matter of considerable concern that the latest comprehensive survey of statistics relating to agriculture was for the year 1976. The latest figures available also form part of a preliminary survey of the position in 1978. Much water has flowed under the agricultural bridge since the years 1976 and 1978 and agricultural methods have undergone radical change. Cost factors now bear no relation to those obtained in 1978. Production methods have changed and bear no resemblance to what they were in either 1976 or 1978. In many cases yields have changed completely, and trends have crept in unnoticed across the whole spectrum of agriculture. It would appear as if the present methods of collecting data are far too complicated and comprehensive. This is borne out by a copy of the 1981 agricultural census form which I have in my possession. Here we have a document comprising 34 pages which takes the average farmer, who keeps a good set of records, a minimum of two hours to complete. One can appreciate the fact that this is resisted by many farmers who regard it as a complete waste of time.

As a result one is also confronted with the fact that a lot of the information is perhaps not as accurate as it might be. It is important that the completion of census forms be made as palatable as possible for those who have to fill them in and that there should be no suggestion of over-elaboration, particularly—this is the reason for the delay in the availablity of the final statistics. What is the good of requesting farmers to complete a document we all know that farmers are renowned for their distaste for clerical work, when they see no results at the other end? I wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he give attention to the following suggestions. First I would like to suggest a more simplified annual census form for agriculture so as to extract the more important facts with the minimum of delay. I also wish to suggest that a comprehensive survey be conducted, let us say every five years, covering a study on the same lines as the present census, in order and finally an invitation to acertain whether some of the required information could not be obtained from other sources, and here I am referring to such bodies as cooperatives and control boards. Furthermore, I should like to submit, for the consideration of the hon. the Minister, that the S.A. Agricultural Union be approached to evaluate what information the S.A. Agricultural Union regards as essential for a true overall picture of agriculture. Again, I suggest that we enlist the support of organized agriculture to encourage the correct completion of all forms relating to the statistical information required. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to view the availability of up-to-date statistical information for agriculture as a matter of priority and extreme urgency. Future planning of agriculture will be hampered if this information is not more readily available than it has been in the past.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members who have conveyed a personal message of welcome or sympathy to me. State administration and management is probably one of the most absorbing aspects of human culture and civilization. Orderly management, organizational ability and administration are characteristic of man, and when this is applied to the greatest and most fundamental organizational structure of man, namely the State, then it is absorbing in a special sense. In the short time that State Administration has been entrusted to me, it has been a very exciting experience to co-operate with the Commission for Administration and its office and also, under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister, to take note of the way in which further attention is given to effective, open and honest State administration, an aspect which is such a prominent item in his whole approach to Government. This is something which the hon. member for Innesdal rightly underscored at an earlier stage.

In the short period that I was in South West Africa, I also had the opportunity to experience this aspect of public life at close quarters, in that what we in fact had to do there was to build up an entire new central Government administration. I should also like to associate myself with the appreciative remarks conveyed by hon. members to the now retired chairman of the Commission for Administration, Dr. Piet Rautenbach, to whom the hon. the Prime Minister referred when dealing with his Vote. Accordingly I shall not dwell on this further, except to say that Dr. Rautenbach was an outstanding official and due to his long experience, particularly as a planner, was particularly successful as chairman of the commission in guiding the implementation of the hon. the Prime Minister’s rationalization programme for the Public Service. I should also like to express my appreciation for the fact that in the person of Mr. Van der Merwe we have a new chairman who also has a distinguished career behind him, a person with whom I was privileged to co-operate in South West Africa when he assisted me there for some time as special project manager.

Then, too, I should like to address a word of welcome to Mr. Fouché and Mr. Rousseau, the two new members of the commission who took over from the beginning of this month when Dr. Rautenbach retired and Mr. Van der Merwe took over in his place, and Mr. Ellis was promoted to Auditor-General of our country. We convey our sincere appreciation to the two outgoing members of the commission and extend a hearty welcome and good wishes to the two new members.

I, too, should like to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by various hon. members for the three leaders from the private sector who from time to time deliberate with the Commission for Administration and who make an important and very valuable contribution by giving us the benefit of their experience. Shortly after I had assumed this responsibility, I myself was privileged to attend a meeting of the commission attended by Dr. Van der Horst, Mr. Goss and Dr. De Villiers. I could see for myself the exceptional contribution they made from their wealth of experience in the interests of the State.

The contributions made by hon. members have been exceptionally positive, and I sincerely appreciate that. I do want to say to the hon. member for South Coast that I am extremely disappointed at the extract he quoted from a newspaper.

†I think all hon. members will agree that it was a most unfortuanate quotation to refer to the situation of the Public Service as one of complete chaos. That is simply untrue. It is an ungenerous and an untrue description of the situation in the Public Service. We do not deny that the personnel position is difficult in many respects, but what should be emphasized in these circumstances is the sterling way in which the members of the Public Service are fulfilling a very difficult task and are ensuring that the quality of work in the Public Service is maintained at a very high standard. Therefore I would suggest that it was extremely unfortunate that in an otherwise positive contribution, the hon. member saw fit to refer to this quotation and to use these words.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg North made a critical remark about the fact that the report of the commission had been completed 10 months after the closing date of the period under review, but various other hon. members quite rightly referred appreciatively to the quality of the content of the report. By way of explanation I should like to point out that in drawing up this report, the commission is dependent on data which must be collected from all the other Government departments concerning the state of the Public Service in the departments in question. As I shall explain in due course when I deal with the issue of greater managerial self-sufficiency of the various departments, approximately 90% of the matters relating to staff have already been delegated or transferred from the commission to the departments concerned. Therefore it is not such an easy task for the commission to obtain all these data, since they are all in the hands of the departments in question. They have to collect and process a vast quantity of data and eventually base their report on it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also asked what signs there were to signify the effect of the steps to deal with the staff situation in the Public Service that were taken recently by the commission and mentioned in its report. I have no intention of giving the Committee the wrong impression. It is true that the manpower situation in the Public Service is still causing grave concern, but I do wish to point out that whereas last year there was a net loss of staff every month without exception, if one deducted the staff losses from the monthly appointments, this year, for the first time in many years, we were able to enter a considerable positive gain of staff in both February and March, since in those two months more than 1 000 new members of staff were appointed. This is the largest monthly net gain in this regard since 1972 over these two months. Although February is usually a good recruiting month, even in unfavourable years, it does seem to me that these are signs of a degree of change which is undoubtedly also related to what is happening in the economy. We should like to express the hope that these signs will be followed by further positive symptoms.

In his first contribution the hon. member for Innesdal touched on a very important matter, viz. the whole issue of greater managerial self-sufficiency of departments. This matter was also raised in the report of the commission and last year, during the discussion of this Vote, it was pointed out that we are actively engaged in transferring the greater proportion of the responsibility for the day-to-day handling of staff matters to the departments, without intervention by the commission. However, it has been found that it is not entirely satisfactory to make use of the existing powers of delegation in terms of the Public Service Acts, because the delegated power rests with an official who falls under a Minister, and is not directly accountable to the commission that has delegated that power to him, while in the normal course as a matter of good management it is a characteristic of delegation that the delegate must account to the delegating body from time to time. Accordingly, on the recommendation of the commission, the Cabinet decided to amend the Public Service Act, and I gave notice of such a statutory amendment yesterday. The Bill was read today for the First Time.

The aim of that statutory amendment is, instead of delegation, to transfer directly certain powers from the commission by way of proclamation by the State President on the recommendation of the commission, to a Minister, an Administrator, the head of a department or a specific incumbent of a post in a department. As a result of such an arrangement, the person concerned will not, therefore, act as a delegate, but in fact as the original holder of the right. Therefore he will bear the primarily responsibility for the exercise of that power. This will mean, for example, that changes in the establishment, including appointments above the lower entry grades, promotion to posts, ranks and promotion scales and secondments may, to a greater extent than at present, be disposed of departmentally without intervention by the commission. However, parliamentary control of the situation will be maintained by the commission, in that it will continue, as a commission, to lay down guidelines in regard to policy and underlying principles on the basis of which these operations must be carried out. These guidelines will have to be followed by the persons to whom the power has been transferred. The commission will require further reports from the departments concerned regarding the exercise of these responsibilities and will in addition, carry out inspections. The commission will therefore be informed so as to enable it to report to Parliament on this matter in the form of its own report as a commission.

However, I wish to point out that in general there is a misunderstanding with regard to the degree in which the commission is directly involved, even at this stage, in the creation of posts and in appointments and promotion. It is true that at the moment the Commission for Administration exercises direct control over only 16% of the total number of posts under its control as regards the creation, abolition or grading of posts. Leaving aside the service and education departments, it is directly responsible for a mere 5% as far as changes to the establishment are concerned.

In the case of appointments, 94% of the work is already done by the departments themselves, while the commission does only 6% of the work. In the case of promotion, the commission does only 10% of the work. Roughly, and in general, the Commission for Administration thus far controls changes in the establishment, appointments, promotions and secondments in all ranks up to and including that of Administrative Control Officer. The general aim is to transfer all posts up to the rank of Assistant Director to the departments, if the Bill at present on the Order Paper is accepted. In this regard I should also just like to point out that over the past year, greater autonomy has been granted to the departments with regard to organizational and work study officers, leaving the commission with only overal control and policy relating to organization and work study. I also just wish to mention in passing that as far as organization and work study officers are concerned, we have a fine example of what one could call the “privatization” of the Public Service in that the training of these officers, which used to be carried out directly by the staff of the commission, is now being transferred to the technikon, which is dealing with this aspect at the request of the commission. Hon. members will therefore note that considerable progress has been made and that in the course of the following months the process will be taken further with a view to greater managerial effectiveness in State departments.

Various hon. members have also referred to the importance of the greater “privatization”, as it is called—that is to say, the transfer on a larger scale of activities performed by the Public Service to the private sector for disposal. It is interesting to note that the total value of work transferred from the central Public Service—i.e. excluding the Post Office and the Transport Services—to the private sector for disposal amounted in total to R986,8 million during the year from January to December 1981. This is almost R1 billion. It is also interesting to note that if sufficient staff were available, the central Public Service would itself have preferred to do work valued at R140 million of the amount mentioned. The commission estimates that if the Public Service had itself done that 140 million rands worth of work transferred to the Private sector, it would have been 45% cheaper—a total cost of R96 million. It is interesting to point this out, but I do wish to emphasize that it is the policy of the Government, also with regard to, the handling of the work of the authorities, to allow as much play as possible for the doctrine of the promotion of free enterprise in the economic life of our country. The Government regards it as the primary responsibility of the Government to create a climate in which the private sector can develop on a long-term basis. Accordingly the Government endeavours rather to transfer to the private sector the Government services which could be performed more effectively by the private sector, rather than to provide the staff and structures with which to perform those services.

An effort is being made to achieve the situation in which the provision of goods and services will only be undertaken by Government institutions when the private sector is not able to do so itself or in cases where there are good reasons, particularly reasons relating to security, as to why the private sector cannot or ought not to undertake them. The identification of activities which could advantageously be performed by private bodies is chiefly in the hands of the various departments. However, the commission for administration has instructions to monitor this situation and promote it as an aspect of rationalization. Accordingly, it has laid down a number of guidlines in this regard on the basis of which the use of the private sector to carry out governmental functions as well, may be promoted. However, it should be pointed out that this issue of “privatization” also requires a certain degree of circumspection. There have been cases where we have learnt the lesson that before we transfer work to the private sector, we must first determine whether the private sector in fact has the labour available to undertake those activities, or whether the private sector is not perhaps going to poach the staff of the Public Service who do similar work, in order to do the work transferred to the private sector by the State. Let me just give a few examples of activities which were previously the responsiblity of the State but which have since been transferred to the private sector. A number of sawmills, for example, have been transferred to the private sector. Technological research into timber which was initially carried out by a Government department is now being done by the CSIR. I have already referred to the fact that the training of certain officers, which used to be carried out by the staff of the commission, has now been transferred to higher educational institutions such as technikons. The maintenance of motor vehicles, too, has been transferred to the private sector on a fairly large scale, and a wide variety of building and construction works, particularly roads and buildings, is now being undertaken by the private sector on behalf of the State.

I should also like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Innesdal in connection with computer technology. He asked, inter alia, that we establish a greater degree of centralization of computer services. The question of the use of computers in the Public Service has been rationalized over a period of 10 years and is centralized in specific computer centres which render services to other departments and act under the general guidance of the Commission for Administration. Services rendered in this way are, for example, the payment of monthly pensions to approximately 650 000 pensioners, the keeping of tax records for more than 2,5 million tax-payers and the handling of examination results which, thanks to this method, could be made available far more expeditiously in recent years than was previously the case.

In this field, too, the Commission for Administration serves as a central acquisition point for all computer equipment. Therefore, liaison with firms and the State buyer is handled by the commission on behalf of the various departments.

In view of the greater demand for decentralized data-processing facilities, the commission has also deliberated about tele-processing networks, since it would be inefficient if each department were to create such networks country-wide. Therefore a tele-processing network control centre has been established which puts a centralized network facility at the disposal of almost all departments. Moreover, good progress is also being made with the central staff data system that is being developed for the Public Service to meet the needs of staff administration.

It is therefore clear that in a number of spheres we are moving in the direction suggested by the hon. member.

I should also like to refer to the staff situation in the Public Service. I have already said that during February and March we had a net gain for the first time in many months. However, I want to associate myself with those hon. members who pointed out that we should not adopt a simplistic view of the staff position but that we should see it as part of the total economic life of our country. Nor should we only see it in terms of salary and remuneration. Hon. members have quite rightly pointed out that the economic upswing we have experienced in recent years has given rise to unparallelled competition for the available trained manpower. In addition, it was rightly pointed out that there was a general shortage of trained and skilled manpower in our country and that the State therefore had to compete with a large number of other employers for this limited manpower. I should also like to point out that our Public Service seconds important staff to our neighbouring and national States—important not in numbers, but in quality. Therefore these people are making an important contribution towards stability and orderly development in our part of the world. It is true that in order to make the Public Service more competitive, we shall have to adopt a few drastic measures. In this connection I should like to refer hon. members to the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister during the Good Hope conference. I think it was the first time in a very long while that a head of Government emphasized this matter so specifically when the hon. the Prime Minister stated emphatically that the Public Service had to be made more competitive with the private sector. I want to point out to hon. members that that statement was actually an important turning point in the policy of the Government. For many years the Government was inclined to say that the State could not compete with the private sector, or that if the State were to compete with the private sector, it would inevitably lead to a spiral of wage increases. With this statement, however, which the hon. the Prime Minister made at the Good Hope conference, and also with the policy in respect of salaries for the Public Service which was announced earlier this year during the no-confidence debate, the State declared for the first time that it was going to try to establish a programme which would endeavour, on an occupationally differentiated basis, and to the extent to which funds were available, to eliminate the backlogs systematically in those areas in which the most urgent needs existed and where the disparity between the Public Service and the market caused the greatest problems. Hon. members will recall that the State therefore differentiates three aspects of its salary policy.

In the first place the State annually considers a general salary adjustment which will apply with effect from a specific date and which will be aimed at compensating officials for any erosion in the buying power of their money during the preceding year, in other words to help them to compensate for inflation. This general salary adjustment will in general be more or less the same for all officials, although it is possible in principle to differentiate to a certain extent.

In the second place there is the programme differentiated improvement for specific occupational groups which will be introduced in the course of a financial year on the basis of investigations instituted under the guidance of the Commission for Administration into various occupations. From time to time the commission undertakes intensive investigations into specific occupations in view of the State’s requirements and in view of the de facto situation which has developed in the remuneration pattern of that specific occupation in the Public Service as compared with the private sector, and then suggests improvements. In this connection teachers, judicial administration staff, members of the Defence Force and Police and Prisons Service, agricultural scientists and nurses—the Minister of Health and Welfare recently announced improvements in respect of this group—as well as the staff of the Receiver of Revenue, have already received attention. Hon. members will also recall that some time ago a specially improved occupationally differentiated dispensation for typists was introduced.

In the third place there is the attempt, according to a programme which the Government hopes to have implemented over a relatively defined period of a few years, to try to reduce the disparity in salary between the Public Service and the private sector. In this way an attempt is being made to achieve the goal stated by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Good Hope conference, viz. to make the Public Service more competitive with the private sector. One must emphasize, however, that the total cost of such a programme is such that it cannot possibly be implemented by a responsible Government in only one or two years. Consequently it will have to be phased in according to the priorities of the various occupational groups. When this third aspect, viz. the programme for making the Public Service more competitive, has been implemented, the situation in general will have been stabilized and it will be possible to proceed with the annual general salary increases, as well as with investigations from time to time on a occupationally differentiated basis.

As far as the present year is concerned, I want to point out again that although the amount which has been made available in this year’s estimates for additional benefits, i.e. for salary increases, is not appreciably more than the amount made available last year—it is only 7,4% more—the hon. the Minister of Finance has nevertheless set a phenomenal record during the past four years if one looks at the cumulative improvement of conditions of service in terms of the funds that were made available. In 1979 the amount for improvement of conditions of service was R257 million; in 1980, R503,5 million, and last year, R745 million. In the two years 1980 and 1981, the improvements were 95,9% and 48%, respectively. Hon. members must bear in mind that they are cumulative. In addition to the improvements which were granted last year, a further R800 million was made available this year, an increase of 7,4% compared with last year’s amount. Of this R800 million, as we know, R650 million for a general salary adjustment has already been included in the departmental estimates, while the remaining R150 million is earmarked for occupational differentiation and other purposes. This amount makes provision for a general salary increase which, as I have already mentioned, is intended to compensate for the decline in the purchasing power of money over the past year. In the second place, it makes provision for a further phase in the Government’s programme of effecting salary parity among the various population groups. As the hon. member for Gezina has already stated, phase 7 in respect of Coloureds and Indians has been phased in this year, as well as phase 6 in respect of Black staff. Furthermore, this amount makes provision for occupationally differentiated improvements for various occupational groups, which are phased in every time the investigations of the commission are completed. A portion of these funds are also being made available for an expansion of housing assistance. As far as housing assistance is concerned, perhaps I may just refer to the observations which hon. members made in this connection. The hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke about the need to make housing loan subsidies available to single persons and young married couples as well. It is already the case that it is not available only to old married couples; it is also available to young married couples, and the hon. the Minister of Finance announced this year that this assistance would now be extended to single persons as well. I just want to point out in passing that besides subsidies on housing loans according to the scheme, with a ceiling of R40 000—the amount which the hon. the Minister of Finance announced as a new ceiling—there is, in addition, the 100% guarantee system on the part of the State for its officials, in terms of which it is prepared to guarantee the housing loans of officials to the full. The Department of Community Development also has a housing savings subsidy system, in terms of which it pays subsidies. Tax rebates are also granted in respect of savings by officials with a view to the acquisition of housing.

From these few matters it is clear that the Government has recently given special and intensive attention to the question of the remuneration pattern of its officials. That is all I wish to say about the problem of the staff position, and the remuneration of officials.

Allow me to make one final observation, though—and I am certain I am speaking here on behalf of all hon. members—which is that we have the greatest appreciation for the exceptional qualities which are manifested by our public servants. In the first place, our public servants are people who ensure that we have a competent administration. That in itself is an important task.

In the second place, however, they are people who, in a country where ethnic relations are sometimes delicately balanced, also bear the responsibility of maintaining stability, order and good relations, a matter which makes extraordinary demands on our public servants, compared with those in many other States of communities. We are also proud that our officials are people who devote themselves to their task with dedication because that task is not merely an ordinary daily grind but the eminently important task of the administration of a State, the administration of a country. They are people who recognize the intrinsic value and the intrinsic challenge of their task and who are inspired by this in the discharge of their duties. They are people with great loyalty, people who frequently, as appears from the report of the commission, perform their work under difficult circumstances and with considerable sacrifices. In particular I want to refer here to the large amount of overtime—the commission calculates it to be roughly 8,5 million man-hours per year—which is worked voluntarily by officials, apart from the overtime which is paid for on a normal remuneration basis or on a special ad hoc remuneration basis, with the approval of the commission. Hon. members will observe in the report of the commission that these overtime services which officials render have increased considerably in recent times. As far as the past year under review is concerned, almost 1,2 million hours of normal time were remunerated at a cost of R2,8 million and almost 3,3 million hours of special ad hoc overtime arrangements were remunerated at a cost of almost R9,5 million. As I have already said, the non-numerated overtime is estimated to be in the region of eight million man-hours per annum.

I want to point out that during the past year—and this was undoubtedly the case because of staffing difficulties—almost 40% more overtime was worked than in the previous year. These are matters which testify to loyalty and sacrifice from our officials for which we should like to convey our appreciation. I should also like to point out the exceptional integrity and impartiality which the official displays, in spite of his personal convictions, in the rendering of his services to the State and the Government. In particular I want to refer with appreciation to the highly responsible way in which the leaders of the officials, particularly the directors of the Public Servants’ Association, acted in negotiations and bargaining proceedings with the Commission for Administration with a view to conditions of service.

Last but not least I should like to confirm what various hon. members said here, viz. that not only do the officials and our Public Service serve the State as such, and keep it functioning, but they provide the indispensable infrastructure necessary for the free competition in the private sector that has to take place within that infrastructure.

Next I should like to refer to the very positive and well-balanced remarks made by the hon. member for Gezina in connection with the fact that we cannot build our Public Service solely on Whites in future; that we will not be able to reserve senior posts solely for Whites in future; that there is just not enough White manpower to cope with all the activities of the Public Service.

Is that the man from Gezina? [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to the fact that the hon. member expressed appreciation, and rightly so, for the endeavours of the Government to achieve parity in salaries. With reference to this I should like to make a few remarks on the employment policy in respect of members of various population groups which the Government has recently considered.

At the beginning of this year—this was as a result of a submission made by my predecessor in this post—the Government reviewed its policy of employment of members of various population groups in the Public Service. The Government reaffirmed its stand on the existing non-discriminatory basis of our legislation pertaining to the Public Service. Our present Public Service Act has always been an Act which made no provision for a distinction to be drawn in respect of race or population group. This is the standpoint in this legislation, as it was transferred to me by my predecessor, and which we shall adhere to in future.

In the second place the Government emphasized that in its employment policy it stressed two fundamental principles, i.e. those of merit and efficiency. The principle of merit—one could put it this way—has a passive side which means that the official is protected against nepotism, against favouritism. Consequently he is weighed up against others on merit. On the other hand it also has an active side in the sense that he may know that his meritoriousness on the basis of exceptional achievement will be recognized and that he will be promoted.

The principle of efficiency entails inter alia, that the staff policy may not lead to the disruption of relations and the creation of instability in specific divisions. On the other hand the service may not be allowed to grind to a halt because specific categories of the population are not considered for employment. The basic premise of efficiency is of course not that people are employed merely because they are individuals, but because they will produce a specified amount of work, a specified result.

Workaholism!

That is why the Government decided to continue with its policy in those parts of the Public Service which are geared to ethnically orientated services—services rendered to a specific population group—of reserving posts, as far as possible, for members of the population group which is being served by that service. This is a policy which one could refer to as a policy of post reservation. It is a policy which has served the authorities well. In fact, it is making an important contribution to the upward occupational mobility and the personal development of people in the various population groups.

However, the Government is aware that to go further than this, it is only in cases which are justifiable and acceptable, and by way of negotiation with the representatives of the existing public servants, that it will be able to involve members of population groups other than those already in the service in other parts of the Public Service as well. Continual attempts are being made to find a workable and justifiable basis of utilization in regard to workers of all population groups, in such a way that efficiency is maintained and the sound relations within the Public Service, and between the Public Service and the public are maintained at all costs. Consequently there is no possibility of supplementing a shortage of workers from one population group by means of the haphazard employment of workers from another population group.

I should like to point that in the central civilian Public Service approximately a third of the posts are already occupied by non-Whites and approximately two-thirds by Whites. I should also like to point out that as far as these posts are concerned, the vacancies, according to the previous report of the commission, stood at 17,5% in the case of Whites and 13,7% in the case of non-Whites. Consequently there is no question of there being an oversupply of non-Whites, who will be moved in to fill White posts. This matter must be handled with great circumspection.

Finally I should like to dwell briefly on the question of negotiation machinery. The Government has given attention to the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission to the effect that public servants should also have bargaining rights in terms of the labour relations legislation. However, the Government is not in favour of this, and instructed the Commission for Administration to investigate the entire matter. Recently the Government decided to authorize the commission to develop a suitable system for formally structured deliberation on the remuneration and other conditions of service of officials. This will mean that instead of the present informal liaison between the commission and the representatives of the Public Servants’ Association, a permanent deliberative body will be established on which members of the commission as well as of recognized staff associations who apply for and receive recognition, will have representation.

In addition a mutually agreed procedure for annual inputs and negotiation will be laid down. The Commission for Administration will continue to advise the Cabinet on the proposals emanating from such a deliberative body, and the final decision will continue to rest with the Cabinet. There is no question of third party settlement or arbitration as was suggested in the Wiehahn Commission Report. The idea is, in addition, that these arrangements should be introduced administratively, without specific legislation being submitted. The Government trusts that with this formalization and structuring of the mechanism for deliberation between the officials and the authorities, a firmer and more mutually satisfactory foundation will be laid for the future, and that it will be possible to involve representatives of the various staff sectors in this process. Before I proceed to deal with with the Statistics Vote, I should just like to refer briefly to a few other contributions which hon. members made.

†The hon. member for South Coast—and he was supported in this by the hon. member for Koedoespoort—specifically referred to the question of social workers. I would like to give the assurance that social workers are included amongst those categories that are being studied at present by the Commission for Administration with a view to affording them professionally differentiated treatment. I cannot give any indication of the priority of the social workers in this overall pattern, but I can mention that recent discussions have taken place between representatives of the social workers and the responsible Minister, the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare.

*I have already referred to the contribution of the hon. member for Gesina.

†The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned quite a number of important matters, and I want to agree with him that we should eliminate, as far as possible, any unnecessary controls.

*In this connection the hon. member for Witbank made a very valuable contribution, in which he advocated the elimination of unnecessary control on the level of local authorities. With reference to this I should just like to mention that the Croeser Committee, which is investigating this matter in pursuance of the Browne Report, is in fact in the process of recommending that unnecessary control measures by the provinces on the third level be eliminated and that the full responsibility be left to the third level.

†I also want to agree with the priorities laid down by the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with manpower, namely that law and order, education, housing and health should receive priority treatment. In regard to education, I should like to point out the very interesting figures given, in this report, in connection with the considerable increase in the number of Black teachers in the staff establishment of the Public Service during the past two years.

That is the staff establishment, not the actual recruiting.

From the figures on page 62 it appears that there has been an increase in the Black teacher staff establishment, and if my information is correct the relevant posts have, in fact, been filled, the figure involved being an almost astronomical figure. Whilst the average annual increase in Black teachers, from 1976 to 1979, was in the order of 1 000 or 2 000, under the previous Minister for Education and Training the figure of annual increases rocketed to more than 23 000 in the year 1979-’80 and to more than 17 800 in the past year. This is an indication of the very high priority given to this sector by the Government.

*I have already referred to the important contribution made by the hon. member for Witbank. I should like to get in touch with him about certain particulars in his speech, which testify to very thorough research and study, and provide him with information.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort, besides his reference to housing problems, also asked whether ordinary clerks were not being neglected in the process of occupational differentiation.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that the occupation of clerk—the administrative officer—is a very important occupation in the Public Service and also receives a full measure of attention when these matters are being dealt with by way of occupational differentiation.

In conclusion I should just like to make a few brief remarks in connection with the other Vote, viz. Statistics. I should like to associate myself with the appreciative remarks made by the hon. member for Gezina on the obvious and logical rationalization which took place, in that the Department of Statistics was incorporated into the Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister, in the form of the new Central Statistic Service. We have great expectations that this amalgamation will produce very beneficial results.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for the very helpful suggestions he made. I must frankly admit that I am not so well versed in statistics and financial matters that I could understand even a quarter of what he said, but as soon as his speech has been properly recorded by Hansard, I shall try to read and understand it and I shall request the Central Statistical Service to provide him with the necessary answers. Meanwhile I can give him the assurance that the Central Statistical Co-ordinating Committee remains unchanged in the new dispensation. I should also like to emphasize that considerable progress has been made by the Statistical Services with the publication of the results of the 1980 census.

*This is a matter to which the hon. member for Gezina also referred. I should like to point out that the “digitization” of the 1980 census, i.e. the feeding of all data into the computer, is being finalized at present, two years after the survey was made. Initially the target was to finalize it by the end of last year, but it is nevertheless a considerable achievement on the part of the Central Statistic Service if one takes into consideration that the data collected in 1970 was only “digitized” in this way after four years. As far as the publication of the census data is concerned, the aim is to publish all census reports on the 1980 data prior to the 1985 census. Consequently it will be published by the middle of 1985, i.e. within five years. In the case of the 1970 census the publications were only completed eight years later, and in the case of the 1960 census, only 11 years later. Consequently there has been a great improvement in this area, for which I should like to express great appreciation.

In addition the Statistic Service has already conducted a complete 5% random sample in respect of all data which is available in computer tables, in respect of which three reports will be published soon and to which access can be obtained on request. In addition the Statistic Service has also devised standard programmes in respect of the 1980 census to facilitate special enquiries on the recorded data, and with a view to ready computer tabulation of that data. Consequently considerable progress has been made and the misgivings expressed as to whether it made sense to hold another census in 1985 if the 1980 data have not yet been finally processed, are unfounded. There is every reason to accept that with its programming the Statistic Service, in spite of its staff problems, will succeed in reaching the targets which I have mentioned, in so far as these have not yet already been reached. I should like to express great appreciation to Mr. Louw and his colleagues for the highly professional work they are doing under extremely difficult staff conditions.

†In conclusion I should like to refer to the request of the hon. member for Mooi River regarding agricultural statistics. He complained about the too bulky questionnaire for the 1981 agricultural census and suggested that we should solicit the assistance of the S.A. Agricultural Union to revise this questionnaire and, particularly, to ensure the co-operation of the farming community. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that this questionnaire has been compiled only after consultation with all the interested parties, and particularly representatives of the agricultural unions and other farmers organizations. As far as the details of these requests are concerned I shall also serve them with a written reply since time seems to be running out.

*I want to conclude by thanking all hon. members once again for their contributions to this debate, and also, particularly, since what we are dealing with here is State administration, to convey the sincere gratitude, appreciation and tribute of this House to our officials and to the Commission for Administration, which has to provide guidance in connection with the administration of our Public Service.

The suggestion made by the hon. member for Innesdal that we should consider establishing a permanent Select Committee of Parliament to deal with matters relating to the Public Service and the Commission for Administration is a suggestion which really deserves our further attention. I believe that we would do well to look into the merits of this suggestion. Nevertheless I want to point out that the Government attaches great value to the distance between the Government and, I think, Parliament—both as political institutions—and the Public Service being maintained as distinctly as possible, and that the Public Service should primarily fall under the control and be subject to the policy as determined by the Commission of Administration. Consequently that is why, with the new legislation involving the transfer of powers from the Commission for Administration to the specific Government departments, such transfer shall not take place in any other way than by proclamation by the State President, and then only on the advice of the commission itself.

Votes agreed to.

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

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture and Fisheries”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely regret to state that we in these benches will be opposing this clause. We oppose it because this particular clause creates a very dangerous precedent. Our reasons for opposing it were made clear during Second Reading. I do, however, consider it necessary to reiterate briefly our major objections.

First and foremost, the introduction of a levy for the purposes envisaged is contrary to the concept of free enterprise.

Oh, come off that!

Regardless of what the hon. member for Pinelands says, we cannot get away from that.

I concede that point.

It is an interference …

Are you against deconcentration and decentralization?

Please! Just keep your bickering between hon. members of your own party and stop worrying about me! [Interjections.]

Order!

They are becoming very brave now because Harry is back. [Interjections.] This clause is an interference with the concept of freedom of choice. It cuts across accepted business principles and, finally, it does not offer a long-term solution to the present problem. Perhaps we should direct our attention to the causes of this problem that have made it necessary for this Bill to be brought before the House. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the present financial plight of certain municipalities has not perhaps been caused by too high standards having been set for the smaller abattoirs resulting in the economic problems with which we are now concerned. This appears to be a rescue operation, and I must point out that a number of municipalities have already closed down their abattoirs because of the stringent requirements required by the Abattoir Commission. The result of this has been that the butchers have been compelled to draw their supplies from further afield, which in turn has meant that they have had to incur extra transport costs that have inevitably been passed on to the consumer. It is not surprising, therefore, that meat prices in the outlying areas have considerably increased. I must point out furthermore that it is also the duty of the commission to ensure that costs in relation to the marketing of meat, from hoof to hook, be kept to an absolute minimum, and this is no way to do it.

As stated on previous occasions, producers have been confronted with escalating marketing costs which in many cases are affecting the economic viability of their enterprises. For those reasons, Sir, we will be opposing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I replied very fully to the hon. member for Mooi River in regard to the problems that the NRP raised in relation to this measure. Perhaps I should reiterate a few of the most important points I made in this debate.

Firstly, I said that there was a tendency in the meat industry to transport meat over very long distances, especially from the controlled areas. I also said that this tendency must have and already has had a detrimental effect, especially on the abattoirs of the smaller municipalities. I also pointed out—and I want to make this very clear—that this is unfair because local authorities have incurred heavy expenses to bring their abattoirs up to standard.

While I conceded that the effect of this clause might be counter-productive to the concept of free enterprise, I also said—and I want to emphasize this—that we also had a duty to protect especially the smaller country towns against unfair trade. [Interjections.]

I also wish to repeat that I had long discussions with the United Municipal Executive as well as the Cape Municipal Executive…

The fat cats!

… and they welcomed this measure.

*However, I now wish to reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. member today. The accusation was made that the standards set were too high. I invite the NRP to come and have a look at the standard plans drawn up for each type of abattoir in this country. I could mention cases where hon. members who came to see me told me that it was impossible for a particular municipality to spend a certain amount on an abattoir.

But you do it. You did it.

Please just give me a chance. After we had discussed the matter and submitted the standard plan for the existing structure, the municipality found out—and when I say this I am not referring in a derogatory way to engineers and architects—that the architects and engineers concerned had drawn up plans which were totally out of proportion in regard to the requirements set.

We agree with that.

That is our problem. We do not control that, but I guarantee hon. members today that if the municipalities were to liaise with the commission—whose members possess a great deal of know-how in this connection—and ask for the standard plans, it would not be necessary to erect that sort of structure. As far as the standard of meat hygiene is concerned, we in this country have to maintain certain minimum standards, because it is no longer possible to slaughter as we used to in days gone by. There are people who say that nobody has ever died due to poor hygiene at abattoirs, and the doctors in our ranks will agree that illnesses such as food poisoning, etc., are not notifiable diseases. Consequently we do not have any knowledge about this. However, we cannot carry on as we used to. It is simply impossible, and consequently we had to lay down certain standards that municipalities have to comply with.

I want to add that since I took over this portfolio, I have bent over backwards to try and accommodate particularly the smaller municipalities, and there are hon. members in this House who can attest to this. I am doing my utmost to try and see to it that municipalities do retain their abattoirs. However, in a case where a municipality has incurred expense in order to install modern facilities at its abattoir, we cannot allow people to convey meat from other towns so that the abattoirs concerned are under-utilized as a result. Moreover, the moment a municipality improves its abattoir and the new tariffs come into force, the butcher simply travels to the neighbouring town where the abattoir has not yet been improved and where the tariffs are lower, and buys his meat there. I respect the fact that hon. members on the opposite side of the House cannot support this measure—I am not criticizing it at all—but I do want to ask hon. members to hold talks with me on this matter. I have had talks for three hours with the United Municipal Executive and we have reached absolute agreement on this matter. I think, therefore, that I could satisfy hon. members completely as far as this matter is concerned. I really do not foresee any problems. Therefore I want to propose that we proceed with this measure.

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed.

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No.56—

Mr. Speaker, now that we have come to the Third Reading I just want to say that this party’s views concerning the free market mechanism and the free market system have always been very clear. However, we do recognize that in the times in which we live, in certain circumstances bodies have to be afforded a certain measure of protection where they have a sound case. In this debate we have adopted the view that this legislation could indeed be justified. We have also stated and supported the cause of the smaller abattoirs which, due to circumstances often beyond their control were compelled to incur certain additional costs and now find themselves in a position where they cannot utilize their full capacity due to competition from a neighbouring town or from other nearby abattoirs. This is a position which the businessman could utilize to his own advantage, for example, by conveying meat from one area to another, often to the detriment of the people of the community who could have been given employment at these abattoirs. If those abattoirs were to close down, those people would not have jobs. We took all those points into consideration before deciding to support this Bill. I believe that in their arguments the NRP did not grasp the points I mentioned here today and that they really have not studied the Bill. They simply say that they support the free market mechanism, but this could mean that certain communities and groups could be wronged on occasion. That was why we supported the previous stages of this Bill, and we take pleasure in doing so once again.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I very much regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot see our point of view. I am afraid that we cannot accept his explanation because it is quite clear to us that the present situation has been created by regulations requiring too high a standard. This forms the basis of our argument and this is the reason we cannot support this legislation. It is a problem that has been created because of the standards that have been set. It is inflationary.

Mr. Speaker, I think that after I have said what I am about to say, the hon. member will be happy about the fact that we did proceed with this legislation. At the end of this debate I should like to express my sincere thanks to hon. members for the fine spirit in which we were able to conduct this debate and to the hon. members of the NRP in particular for agreeing that we could take the Third Reading now. I am really sincerely grateful for this.

At this opportunity I should just like to issue a warning to municipalities. We cannot allow this levy to promote inefficiency. In any event, we shall thoroughly investigate the abattoir industry before agreeing to a levy. Every facet of such an abattoir will be looked at, e.g. the utilization of labour, the conveyance of carcasses, electricity and water consumption, etc. We shall examine these things very thoroughly. Moreover, we cannot pay for unnecessarily expensive and luxury equipment with this levy. At some municipalities there is a tendency to erect large buildings and equipment and afterwards the department is blamed for it. We cannot use this levy for that purpose.

In conclusion I just wish to say that the United Municipal Executive requested me to appoint a member of the Executive to the Abattoir Commission. I have agreed to this and asked that the names of three persons be submitted, one of which would then be selected to become a member of the Abattoir Commission. This whole matter will of course benefit from this.

Question agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.