I move—

It is necessary to supplement the amounts which were made available for the administration of the country by way of the Appropriation Act, 1968. Particulars of the amounts required are set out in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure tabled a few days ago. Hon. members will notice that an additional amount of R76,153,972 is being asked for. Of this amount R40,660,747 is in respect of revenue services, R600,000 on Bantu Education, and R34,893,225 in respect of loan services. I do not intend going into details at this stage. My colleagues, as is customary, will furnish explanations where necessary of the amounts to be made available under the Votes falling under their respective portfolios.

In conclusion, I wish to give the House the assurance that I am convinced that the services for which the money is required cannot be postponed without injury to the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, as is customary, has pointed out that he does not propose to enlarge on the amounts included in the Schedules to this Bill, and I agree with him that they can better be discussed in the Committee Stage. There is just one point which strikes me and that is that at the moment it is a little complicated to disentangle the question of the financing of the Post Office Vote. There are four separate Votes, two under Revenue, and two under Loan Votes, appearing on these Estimates and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some indication that this is only a temporary arrangement and that by the time we deal with the Post Office Vote later on this year, we shall revert to the procedure of having the normal Votes of the Departments discussed on the normal Estimates.

This procedure is only being followed during the transition period.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Chargeable to Revenue Account:

Vote No. 5.—Police, R2,750,118:

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what the reason is for this huge increase under sub-head F, “Equipment, Arms and Ammunition”?

This seems to be a large amount but the large difference is attributable to the fact that orders which were placed last year were not executed last year. Consequently there actually was a saving of R1 million last year on this very same item for arms and ammunition which were to be delivered last year but which were not delivered and for which we in fact only paid this year. That is the reason for this being such a large amount.

Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister to explain the increase in sub-head C, “Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services”, where there is an increase of more than 30 per cent, from R655,000 to R850,000. Will he tell us who has been talking too much or what the reasons are for this increase?

Order! The hon. member may not suggest any reasons. He may only ask for the reasons.

Well, I am asking for the reason.

The hon. member is trying to give the reply himself.

I did not know, Sir, whether he was talking too much. May I ask, under sub-head E, whether the hon. the Minister could give us some explanation of the ex gratia payments and remissions to the various persons listed here. These are new items and herefore I suggest that we can discuss them. But I will wait to hear the Minister’s reply before making any suggestions as to what they might be.

Mr. Chairman, I should first like to deal with the particulars which have been asked for under subhead C. Hon. members will understand that this naturally is a difficult item of expenditure to estimate in advance. Furthermore, hon. members will understand that the work of the Police is becoming more and more dependent on new and better means of communication.

You do not get that through the Post Office, surely.

These are telephone calls.

But you will not get better service from the Post Office.

I shall not make any comment on the hon. member’s accusation against the Post Office, but I do want to provide better police services. Because of the fact that telephone services are being used to an ever-increasing extent, there has lately been an increase in this expenditure. I made special inquiries in my Department as to whether all necessary measures for effecting savings were being taken in order to ensure maximum savings under this sub-head and as to whether these services were not being abused. I was given the assurance that persons were appointed last year for the specific purpose of investigating this matter, and that everything possible was being done to curtail expenditure on postal and telephone services as far as possible. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this increase is essential and in the interest of the services rendered by the South African Police, and if we want to save more on telephone calls, we shall have to sacrifice some of the efficiency of the Police.

Do they get as many wrong numbers as the general public?

The hon. member obviously does not want to be serious about this matter.

The hon. member also inquired about the ex gratia payments. In giving this House the necessary information in connection with these payments, I shall have to tell a story in each case.

No, we do not want to hear stories; rather tell us the truth. *

I mean I shall have to give them the history of each case, in other words, the factual history because my stories will in any event be the true ones. The first case is that of Constable Naude. On the road between Louis Trichardt and Messina he overtook a convoy of new motor cars. An accident occurred while he was overtaking and the official car in which he was travelling collided with two other cars in the convoy. One of the convoy cars was virtually wrecked and the other was damaged. A charge was laid against Naude and it was found that he had been negligent and had failed to report the accident. A claim was then put in for the amount now appearing on the Estimates. The claim was put in late, but because it had been proved that Naude had been negligent, it was decided to make an ex gratia payment to the amount appearing on the Estimates on the grounds of fair treatment.

The second case is that of ex-Detective Sergeant Van Niekerk. Years ago, prior to the passing of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he collided, while he was on official police service and riding a motorcycle with a sidecar, with a certain Van der Poel. One of his legs was very seriously injured in that collision, and in due course that leg was amputated. This Detective-Sergeant did not remain in the service of the South African Police; he is in fact a magistrate to-day. But in view of the fact that he had sustained this injury whilst on official duty and obviously had to suffer much pain and subsequently a great deal of inconvenience because of the amputation of the leg, it was felt that something had to be done for him as the Workmen’s Compensation Act had not yet come into operation at that time. On the basis of a recommendation by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner it was then agreed to pay an amount of R1,276 to Mr. Van Niekerk.

The next case is that of Constable Nolte. On the night of 9th July, 1966, Constable Nolte saw a Bantu trying to force a shop window. He pursued the Bantu.

Where was that?

That was in the main street of Port Elizabeth. While he was pursuing the Bantu, another Bantu tried to hold him back in order to prevent him from catching up with the Bantu who had been forcing the window. As hon. members will understand, a struggle naturally ensued. He eventually arrested the Bantu who had prevented him from carrying out his duties. But in this process, so it is alleged, he kicked the Bantu on a delicate part of his body. I should not like to go into more detail. The Bantu subsequently claimed compensation amounting to R5,000. The case was eventually settled for an amount of R1,379.20. The State Attorney was of the opinion that Nolte had exceeded his powers, that he in point of fact had gone too far, and that he consequently ought not to enjoy the protection of the State being responsible for the full payment. But in spite of that it was felt that an amount of only R150 should be recovered from Nolte in settlement of the claim for compensation. Consequently the balance is appearing on the Estimates as an ex gratia payment.

The next case is that of Maartens and Ndwengula. On 14th December, 1966, the police at Cedarville received a telephone call and a complaint was lodged that a light was burning in an unoccupied house. Constables Boshoff and Du Randt went to the house. They saw a light burning in the house and noticed that a drum was standing outside one of the windows. There was also a broken window pane. Everything pointed to a possible burglary. They then issued a warning and called out that whoever was in the house was to show himself, but nothing happened. Constable Boshoff then shone his torch into the house and saw a Bantu running from room to room. He shot at the Bantu. He left Constable Du Randt there and went back to the police station to fetch reinforcements. They surrounded the house and eventually forced an entry through the front door. When they entered the house they discovered that the Bantu whom they had seen running in the house had been wounded. On closer investigation it was ascertained that this Bantu was in fact in the employment of Mr. Maartens, the owner of the house, and that he consequently was legally entitled to be in the house in spite of the fact that the neighbours had lodged a complaint with the police. A claim was put in for an amount of R10,000, which was settled on the recommendation of the State Attorney. An amount was paid to Maartens for the damages he suffered during the shooting in the house. An amount of R26.45 was paid to him and R1,078 to the Bantu.

The last case is that of Lieutenant-Colonel Koen. In 1940 Lieutenant-Colonel Koen was serving as a sergeant at Alexandria. He was called out to arrest a Bantu in the location who was being sought by the police in connection with theft and stock-theft. The Bantu offered resistance, however, and a scuffle ensued. In the process Lieutenant-Colonel Koen—in those days he was a sergeant, of course—sustained certain injuries, particularly to his eyes. As a result he lost one of his eyes and became partially blind in the other. As you can understand, the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not yet applicable to him at that time and consequently he could receive no compensation in terms of that Act. In view of the fact that this incident occurred in the performance of his duty, it was felt, on the recommendation of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, that an amount of R2,206 should be paid to him, subject to the approval of this House, on the grounds of fair treatment.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question put in regard to sub-head C—Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services—can the hon. the Minister tell us what he means by “the extension of the use of telephone services”?

Mr. Chairman, as the population grows, police services have to be extended, and as the police services are extended, more telephones have to be available to the police to render the services they have to render. This is what I meant when I spoke of the extension of telephone services.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us the reasons for the increase of about 70 per cent in the cost of the investigation of crime, as shown in sub-head J?

Mr. Chairman, this item is largely dependent on the number of offences reported to the police. Therefore it is obvious that when there is an increase in the volume of police activities in connection with the investigation of crime, there will be a similar increase in the costs in that connection. In this case the estimate of R130,000 was insufficient, in other words, the incidence of crime exceeded that anticipated at the time of drawing up the Estimates.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 6.—Transport, R2,150,900:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some idea as to why there is this considerable increase under sub-head L,—“Loss on Operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu Townships, and on what routes losses were incurred. I would also like to know from the hon. the Minister why we have to vote an additional R600,000 under sub-head N,—“Mozambique Convention: Payment to the South African Railway Administration.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is probably aware of the existing agreement between the Government and the South African Railways, namely that all passenger services to and from the Bantu townships will be subsidized by the Government. In other words, all the losses incurred by the Railways on these routes are made good by the Government. This additional loss is the result of increased wages and salaries which came into operation on 1st April, 1968, increased depreciation and increased mileage by the trains on these routes.

Item N deals with payments to the Mozambique Railway authorities. In terms of the existing Convention whenever less than 40 per cent of the goods for the competitive area are imported through the port of Lourenço Marques then the Portuguese authorities must be compensated in cash for the difference in railage. This is now paid by Treasury and not by the S.A. Railway Administration any more. The S.A. Railways Administration, however, pays over the money and then recovers from Treasury. This explains this item.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—Cultural Affairs, R68,587:

Could the hon. the Minister give us a little more information about this Stephanus Sebes Trust Fund?

Stephanus Sebes was a Dutchman who left an amount of R8,887 in his will with the request that this money was to be used for promoting cultural relations between South Africa and the Netherlands. This amount will be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners in the course of this month. Therefore this is not an item of expenditure, but actually an item of revenue.

Could the Minister please explain what is to be understood by “kindred institutions” to the State-aided institutions under Act 23 of 1931 and dealt with in sub-head H of this additional Vote. I note there is an increase in the grants-in-aid made to these institutions. Which are these “kindred institutions” and how much is each one getting?

One of the amounts which makes up this amount is R5,600 for the acquisition of the Heller collection. Sanlam advanced the money for the acquisition of this collection. The Heller collection was acquired for R14,000. This amount of R5,600 still has to be voted. Another item is the subsistence allowances to the staff of State-aided institutions which amount to R3,986. As a result of an incorrect interpretation which was attached to a circular of the Public Service Commission, vacation savings bonuses were paid to the non-White employees of institutions falling under Act No. 23 of 1931. If the payment of these bonuses were to be stopped immediately, it would cause great inconvenience to the non-White staff concerned. For that reason it was deemed advisable to continue the payment of these bonuses for this year. The amount involved is R5,114. Another item is an amount of R45,000 which had to be paid to the National Zoological Garden in Pretoria because of the fact that the amount spent on food for animals, particularly for carnivorous animals, and on the acquisition of new species of animals, exceeded the amount for which provision had been made in the Estimates. This item makes up the amount by which the original estimate was exceeded.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 8.—Higher Education, R3,500,572:

Could the Minister give us more information about the ex gratia remissions in respect of P. B. van Rooyen and M. S. L. Boshoff and also explain why the original estimate under sub-head M has doubled itself?

Could the Minister also give us the reasons for the increase in his postal, telegraph and telephone services of nearly 33 per cent? Why is his Department talking so much?

As regards sub-head E, the ex gratia remissions to Van Rooyen and Boshoff. I may inform the Committee that these people were trainee teachers who were admitted to the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Training. They received one year’s training at that college at Government expense. In terms of the agreement entered into with them, they had to make their services available to the State for a period of three years after the completion of their courses. However, both left the service after two years of service. The Treasury then decided that the amount which each of them owed to the State could be decreased by one-third for every year of service they had rendered to the State after the completion of their training. The total cost of their training, i.e. salaries, allowances and class fees, amounted to R1,660.70 and R2,166.70, respectively. After the remission approved by the Treasury had been deducted, these two people owed the State R553.57 and R722.23, respectively. These respective amounts were recovered from them. The Treasury agreed to the balance being regarded as an ex gratia remission, subject to Parliamentary approval, of course.

As regards the hon. member’s question relating to sub-head M, in other words the increase in respect of financial assistance as regards buildings, ground, equipment and furniture, the additional amount is made up as follows: RAU, R1,136,455; the Cape College for Advanced Technical Education, R10,950; Brown’s School for Cerebral Palsied in Durban, R39,190; and the completion of approved services, R175—minus savings of R2,870 on the Vote. This gives us the amount for which provision is being made in these Additional Estimates, i.e. R1,179.900.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted information with regard to the expenditure on and the improvement of postal and telegraph services. This represents an extension of these services, and these services are being extended on such a large scale in every Government Department that the hon. member should in my opinion get the answer from every Government Department in which case he will learn that the only reason for this is the extension of the services and that there is no question of these services being abused.

Why is there an increase of over R1 million for the Rand Afrikaans University? Why was it necessary to double the amount?

The reason for the R1 million plus is the acquisition of land for the Rand Afrikaans University, which was approved by the Cabinet in 1967. While negotiations in connection with the expropriation of land were in progress, which were being conducted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the Treasury agreed to an amount of R712,000 being included in the Estimates for 1968-’69 as a provisional appropriation and to provision being made in the Additional Estimates for the actual amount required for this purpose after that had been ascertained. We obtained Treasury authority for that, and that is the answer. Therefore this is money which had been committed, but the amount of which could not be determined directly to the last cent.

There is an extra R1 million plus in sub-head M.

That is what I was talking about.

Then what is the item of R1,896,000 under sub-head G? That is in relation to universities, but sub-head M does not stipulate that it is for a university. Which item is which?

That is for the University.

But what is the additional amount under sub-head G?

The position under subhead G is that the first amount of R1,602,795 resulted from increased subsidies, which in turn resulted from the revised basis for paying subsidies. The hon. member will know that the basis on which subsidies are paid to universities is revised every five years, and the year of revision is 1969. As a result of increased subsidies under the various heads, the amount comes to R1,602,795.

How much for each university?

The entire amount is for the universities.

But how much is it for each university?

The Government has so much money that an extra R1 million is nothing to them.

I can let the hon. member have the figures if he is inquisitive, but all this has been calculated according to the subsidy formula. This depends on the number of students who came to the university during the year; it depends on the number of students attending the university and on what basis the grants were made. Each university receives a subsidy calculated according to a formula. If the hon. member wants all this information, I shall let him have it, but if I have to give this information in respect of each university I shall have to give him long series of figures.

Order! This is not a new service. *

The second amount which appears here represents an underestimate of the subsidy of the University of Port Elizabeth, i.e. R67,300. This was an underestimate. The third amount represents an increased vacation savings bonus to universities of R200,782. In addition there is a grant-in-aid in respect of nuclear research of R76,000, and then there is a delayed charge in respect of improved salaries paid by the University of the Orange Free State of R50,286. This is minus savings on the subsidy in respect of interest and redemption; this is an amount which has to be deducted from R101,163. These figures make up the total amount of R1,896,000.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question under sub-head E relating to ex gratia remissions to Van Rooyen and Boshoff, can the Minister tell us whether these remissions are accepted as general policy, or was this only in the case of these two individuals?

Each case is treated on its merits; there is no general policy in this regard, but if a case is meritorious, a trainee teacher, as far as my Department is concerned, will not be prejudiced if he can advance good reasons for leaving the teaching profession.

Can the hon. the Minister advise the Committee of the exceptional circumstances under which this R2,000 odd was written off?

It is within the discretion of the Department and the Minister to decide on every case, and if necessary, the ex gratia remissions are submitted to Parliament in the Additional Estimates for its approval or disapproval.

Does this House not have control over the amount of money which it is to vote?

The hon. the Minister has already given the Committee the reasons.

Yes, I have given the reasons. These two people each received a certain bursary as trainee teachers but they only remained in service for one year. If better appointments are offered to such people in a Government or semi-Government Department or even in the private sector, the Department simply determines, with all the evidence before it, whether, in the first instance, the acceptance of such positions elsewhere is justified and, in the second instance, whether the acceptance of such positions is in the interests of the country. If what they have done is justified, or in the interests of the country, these ex gratia remissions are granted to them. The present position is that all provincial education departments award bursaries to every teacher who wants to study at a training college. For each month which such a teacher does eventually teach, an amount of R25 is deducted from his bursary, i.e. R300 for 12 months, but if the teacher does not remain in the teaching profession for a long enough period to earn his bursary in this way, he has to repay it just as these people have had to repay theirs. However, when a teacher can prove that it was no longer possible for him to carry on teaching, or if he cannot continue with his services because of other reasons which are acceptable, an ex gratia payment may be made.

I fully agree with the explanation given by the hon. the Minister but, Sir, he has not answered the question. The question that has been put to him is this: We accept that these remissions can be made under exceptional circumstances, but can the Minister explain to us what the exceptional circumstances were in these two instances. We are being asked to vote certain moneys here. Surely it is within the jurisdiction of this House to know the exceptional circumstances under which we are being asked to vote this money.

These remissions were approved by both the Department of Education and the Treasury, and I think the reasons I have given here are sufficient.

Sir, I agree; The Minister might be satisfied, but is this House satisfied?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 12,—Government Printing Works, R494,000:

I would like to have some explanation of the increase of some 30 per cent under item D, and then I should like to know whether there are any specific reasons for the increase in item F.

The increase in the amount under item D is largely attributable to the larger quantity of Government Gazettes which is supplied. The amount for the supplying of Gazettes alone is R230,000. Then there is an additional amount of R6,500 under “Printing” and an additional amount of R3,500 in respect of stationery, etc. The hon. member will understand that the Government Printer is obliged to print and to make available the Gazettes according to the demand. During the past year it appeared that greater demands were made on the Government Printer in respect of Gazettes than before, and that is why we now have this increased amount. More or less the same arguments apply in respect of sub-head F, i.e. Stores, Printing Paper and Material. In respect of stores there was in actual fact a decrease of R25,000. In respect of printing paper there was an increase of R165,000 and in respect of material, R100,000. If we deduct the above-mentioned saving of R25,000 from the total of R265,000, we get the increase of R240,000. This increase under item F is largely attributable to the greater demands made upon the Government Printer by the various Government Departments. The hon. member will realize that when Government Departments make demands in respect of printing, printing paper, writing paper, and all the various forms, etc., used in the Departments, the Government Printer must supply all these requirements. The demand was greater than was initially estimated.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can perhaps tell us which Government Departments get the most paper and stores?

No, unfortunately I cannot; that is asking too much.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, he suggested there has been a considerable increase in the number of Government Gazettes published. Can he be a little bit more explicit as to how that has come about, because the percentage increase is an exceptionally high one. Is there any recoupment as far as the additional expenditure is concerned; is there any income arising from the publication of the additional Gazettes?

This additional expenditure was caused by additional Government work, in other words, all the laws which must be advertised and all the advertisements of the various Government Departments give rise to a greater demand for Gazettes. Therefore we have this increase.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister please give us the details concerning the increase of R14,000 under subhead E,—“Miscellaneous Expenses”?

Mr. Chairman, yes, very easily. In respect of workmen’s compensation there was an increase of R1,600 and in respect of the training of apprentices there was an increase of R400. It is only a small amount, but it is there. This increase is largely attributable to the fact that there is a great shortage of skilled labour at the Government Printing Works as well, and because we are compelled to employ more apprentices, the costs in respect of their training are now higher. There is a decrease in our contribution to the Federation of Printers because the membership fees for this year are less than for previous years.

How much is the saving?

R2,000.

Savings are not under discussion now.

No, Sir, not actually. In Pretoria there was an increase in the electricity account which caused an increase of R10,000 in respect of the use of electrical power by the Government Printer. I think that is all.

That is not R14,000. Adding up, I get only R12,000.

In respect of unemployment insurance, there is an increase of R4,000, that is to say a total increase of R16,000 and a decrease of R2,000, which then amounts to R14,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 14,—Public Works, R1,742,000:

Mr. Chairman, it is not customary for you and me to participate in any debate, but you will allow me to say a few words in connection with item G.

You may only put questions.

Order! This is a new item.

There is no need to put questions only. This is a completely new item. I know the rules, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

Hon. members will recall that in 1967 the Pretoria City Council again made representations to the Minister of Finance, as they have been doing for the past 50 years. You, Sir, led a deputation of Members of Parliament to interview the Minister of Finance in order to raise the matter again. As has been the practice during the past 50 years, the Minister of Finance said that he felt that the State could not impose any taxes in respect of a minor body. Then you, Sir, struck upon the idea of asking the Government for a subsidy. On behalf of the Pretoria City Council, the other members of Parliament for Pretoria and you, Sir, who accompanied the deputation to the Minister, I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for having granted that subsidy. As a result of this subsidy the rates of all ratepayers in Pretoria—and this includes supporters of the Opposition as well—have now been reduced. I am merely placing this on record because there are other people who claim that they persuaded the Minister to pay a subsidy. This Vote falls under the Minister of Public Works, and I think we should send another deputation to him during the course of this year to have this amount increased.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this matter a little further than the hon. member who has just spoken. Although he has dealt with Pretoria and thanked the Government for helping Pretoria, every city in South Africa suffers under this situation, namely that the local authority loses hundreds of thousands of rands of income from rates and taxes on Government buildings in their cities. I feel that the time has come when this whole matter should be reconsidered.

Order! The hon. member cannot raise that matter as a general principle because these expenses are only supplementary.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new item, asking us to vote money to Pretoria and Cape Town. I say that this is the wrong way to handle the matter. Cities such as Pretoria and Cape Town and others should be able to levy rates and taxes on Government buildings. The Government should pay in the same way in which a taxpayer, the home owner, or the businessman has to pay rates and taxes. What is happening now, is that the private payer of rates and taxes is penalized according to the amount of Government buildings in his city. Pretoria is the example. They have to send deputations, ably led deputations, may I say. But this is not the way to finance our cities as far as Government buildings in those cities are concerned. Why should Pretoria have to go down on its knees to beg for assistance from the State? Why should the State not make its contribution to the municipal income of a city in the same way as any business is expected to do?

Why did you not do it in the old days?

When that hon. Minister was still a member of the United Party and the United Party was the Government, we did not build palaces all over Pretoria. We had a modest administration which gave efficiency without palaces. Now more and more buildings are going up and it has now become a question of difficulty for the cities.

Are you talking about the principle?

I am talking about a problem which faces local authorities and I say that this amount we are asked to vote pinpoints that problem. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to reconsider the whole position of Government buildings and whether the time has come not to grant special assistance of this nature, but for the State to pay normal rates and taxes so that the ratepayers of the city will not have to subsidize the State out of their pocket.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to elaborate, if he would, on the basis on which these two items of R400,000 and R100,000 were arrived at. Was this done on a pro rata basis, by means of a lump sum or was it based on the rateable value of the properties concerned? Can he also indicate whether this is to be a precedent for the future. As the hon. the Minister will be aware there is a growing burden of taxation on home owners. We have recently seen here in the city of Cape Town that the burden of taxation is growing. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is now to be a precedent for the future and if this is to continue in future, whether he would give us an indication of the basis of assessing this contribution which the Government will make. Will it be the same one which is adopted now or is there going to be a review of the basis? I feel that there is cause for a discussion on the basis which has been adopted in this allocation which we have before us and which appears to be merely an arbitrary one. Enlightenment by the hon. the Minister on the subject will be welcome.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with what was said by the two previous speakers. I believe that it is essential that we should know from the hon. the Minister what the basis is on which these amounts were determined. Apparently it seems to have been determined on a rather exclusive basis so that many other important municipalities which may also have claims were excluded. I trust that the basis will be such, or that it will be reviewed in such a way that many other municipalities who have many Government buildings within their areas will also fall under these amounts in future. I now think, in particular, of the great city of Johannesburg.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place the case of Pietermaritzburg before the House. Pietermaritzburg is the capital of Natal. It is a comparatively small town with not very many ratepayers, but we have many Government buildings there. Is this a question of opening the door now so that we may also apply for a subsidy?

Mr. Chairman, I hate to be the last in the queue, but I do feel that it would be most inappropriate were I not to express the feelings of the people of Simonstown, who have a considerable number of State properties in their municipality. They would also like to know whether they can make representations for similar facilities as have been granted to Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, I want to widen the scope and say to the hon. the Minister that this has been a bone of contention for many years for all provincial municipal associations. It has been a bigger bone of contention with the United Municipal Executive. The Government has always adopted the attitude that the municipalities should be glad to have them with them. They have always said to the small municipalities that they were so pleased to see any sign that any Government was going to establish buildings in the local areas. I believe that this type of thing is bad. The proper scale should be worked out. Commissions have investigated this matter. The Borckenhagen Commission must have done something in regard to this matter. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to give us in detail the basis upon which this was calculated and on which basis further applications can be made, because every municipality with Government buildings faces this very serious problem of not having sufficient funds because of the demands placed upon them for services. They find themselves with Government property, for which the Government does not pay its fair share towards local revenue.

Mr. Chairman, this was quite an interesting discussion. In the first place, I want to thank the hon. member for Gezina for his expression of thanks. [Interjections.] He had very good reasons for doing so, because he has a good Minister. Pretoria and Cape Town, but particularly Pretoria, have been making these representations to the Cabinet for quite some time now.

May I bring a delegation too?

Yes, the hon. member may bring one. Of course, the hon. member will do his deputation a favour by not leading it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I first want to tell you what the position is as far as Pretoria and Cape Town are concerned. The requests made to the Cabinet by Pretoria and Cape Town were to the effect that they should receive assistance in connection with the problem of local rates. They asked that they, as the two capital cities, should receive assistance from the Government. There is no doubting the fact that all the other cities, and some towns as well, are faced with the problem of having Government buildings, in respect of which no rates are paid. This has been the position right from the outset. This has been the position under all Governments. Special representations were then made by Pretoria and Cape Town because of the special position they were in. Now the hon. member for Green Point has asked: “On what basis was this R½ million voted?” This was done quite arbitrarily. After consulting the Minister of Finance, the Cabinet decided on the amount of money that could be paid. It decided to pay R½ million. The distribution of R400,000 and R100,000 between Pretoria and Cape Town was based on the valuations of the Government buildings in these two cities. In other words, Pretoria has four times as many as Cape Town has. I want to say that if hon. members want to make any further representations, I shall consider such representations most willingly. I shall then submit these representations to the Cabinet. This is not a decision I can take. It is a decision for the Cabinet. I just want to say that hon. members should make representations to the provincial authorities as well. The provincial authority in the Transvaal has already made certain concessions as far as local rates are concerned. These concessions were made to the capital of Pretoria. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he should approach me if he wants to make any representations in connection with these rates. I shall consider these representations willingly. But then the hon. member should make representations to the provincial authorities in Natal as well. I understand that he has quite a good deal of influence with the provincial authorities in Natal. If that hon. member and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) could persuade them to do for Durban and Pietermaritzburg what the Transvaal provincial authorities have done for Pretoria, they would have made a start.

Will you see to it that they get a bigger subsidy from the State? [Interjections.]

We shall have to wait for the report of the Borckenhagen Commission. This is all I can say about this matter. There is really nothing more I can say about it.

This has been the position in Johannesburg for years now. They do not get anything.

Yes, this has been the position for many years. It happened during those years when you and I were governing the country. It has been the position since those years. This is not a new problem. All I can say is that I do not know whether the Government will be willing to go any further. Representations were made on behalf of the two capitals. We voted an amount. If hon. members want to make further representations, I shall consider such representations willingly. I promise them that I shall submit those representations to the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to item M—Minor Works and Alteration Services. The additional amount to be voted in this case is R310,000. I do not want the hon. the Minister to go through the hundreds of items which, I realize, are included here. The information I am wanting is how much of this additional amount has arisen because of alterations of residential property controlled by the Department of Public Works and how much has arisen because of alterations to business premises controlled by the Department. Perhaps the answer could be shortened if it could be split into those two categories.

Mr. Chairman. I am afraid I cannot supply the hon. member with this information right now. I have not had an analysis made of services rendered in respect of offices and dwellings. I may just point out that the Department of Public Works really has nothing to do with housing, except as far as prestige residences are concerned. I am now talking about residences for the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and ambassadors. All the other housing falls under the Department of Community Development. I can tell the hon. member for Green Point that it is obvious that the major portion of this increase is attributable to public buildings. If the hon. member is very keen to discuss the alterations made to Ministerial residences, he can do so under the Loan Vote. This matter will come up for discussion on that vote. I shall then discuss the matter with hon. members most willingly.

Mr. Chairman, am I to take it from the hon. the Minister’s reply that none of this increase is attributable to work done on Ministerial residences?

No, I did not say so. I did not say that no part of that amount was attributable to that cause. I said that a very small amount would be in respect of such work. If the hon. member wants further details in this regard, I shall obtain them for him. I shall find out what improvements, reparations, etc, were effected on all Ministerial houses and I shall gladly furnish that information to him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the new Minister on his appointment. I am doing so belatedly, because I am only now going to ask for something. The Minister says that a grant has been made to Pretoria and Cape Town to offset the losses they incur through having to administer property, and provide services for property, which belongs to the Government. The Minister will know, having recently been a Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that there is another very important capital in the country, namely Umtata. Umtata finds itself in a predicament. I appeal to this Government which pledges support to the white people, and which pledges to recompense Whites in the Transkei for any losses they may incur as a result of the implementation of Government policy, to do something in regard to the Government buildings in the Umtata municipal area. You see, Sir, we still have Government buildings owned by the Government of the Republic, for example the Post Office and the Police Station. But other Government property has been handed over to the Transkeian Government. This means that the Umtata Municipality will have to look to the Transkeian Government for compensation of the nature which is now being given by the Government of the Republic. I want to ask this Minister whether he will not consider the handful of white people left in Umtata, who still have to pay rates and taxes, and whether he will not do something to help the Umtata Municipality. This year the rates were increased by one third, mainly because so many of the properties are owned by Government institutions. I want to ask him, in considering this matter further, to bear in mind the position of Umtata, where the private white owners are diminishing in number and the Government is taking over more and more properties, and I ask him to try to help the white people living in that area.

Does that not fall under the Transkei’s own budget?

I am sorry that I have to enlighten you about what the position is in Umtata, Sir. It is a white municipality under the control of the Government of the Republic, but this Government is giving certain land belonging to white owners to the Transkei Government.

The hon. member might be in order!

In the first place, I want to express my sincere thanks towards the hon. member for Transkei for congratulating me on my appointment as Minister of Public Works. I appreciate it greatly. As regards the position in the Transkei, I want to give the hon. member for Transkei sound advice. If he can persuade his local authority to make representations to me, I promise him that I will give serious consideration to submitting the representations to the Cabinet.

In regard to item J, I wonder whether the Minister can give us the reason for the increase of just over 5 per cent in regard to rates, rent and electric current.

Yes, I can give the hon. member the reasons. There was greater expenditure on rental as the result of the expansion of departments and the rising demand for accommodation, especially office accommodation. Strangely enough, departments in this country, as in the res of the world, also grow.

And the increased rent?

There are increasing rentals as well, yes. Of course rentals continually increase. I watch over it, that they do not increase yours too much. There are increased rentals as the result of higher property valuations. There are rentals to be paid to nine Indian schols in white areas of which the details were only recently received from the Natal Provincial Administration. We had to ask them for the details and we only got them now. There are increases in municipal rates. There is the provision of municipal services to additional State and hired buildings. There are the prevailing drought conditions and a sharp rise in the production rates under sub-head M,—Minor works and alteration services, which has caused more concomitant rise in the consumption of electricity and gas.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 15.—Social Welfare and Pensions, R2,042,000:

I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give us some information with regard to item H,—Civil Pensions, Gratuities and other Benefits (other than Pension Funds), where an additional amount of R900,000 is to be voted, and also in regard to item J,—Contributions to Pension and Provident Funds, where there is an additional amount of R431,000.

In the case of the first matter which was mentioned, this came about as a result of the increase in the number of civil pensioners who qualify for temporary allowances as from 1st October, 1968. This is what is mainly responsible for it. The next question relates to the Government’s contribution to the pension funds, which has been increased. It was originally calculated that it would take place as from 1st July, 1968, but subsequently this was changed to 1st April, 1968, and the fact that the date was advanced by three months resulted in the additional cost.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16,—Treasury, R7,380,500:

Can the Minister give us some details of this loss of R7 million-odd which we suffered on foreign exchange, and also some details in regard to the ex gratia payment to the Peddleloop Agencies?

The amount of approximately R7 million represents payments in respect of losses on devaluation. The position in this regard is that there is a statutory provision to the effect that if a bank suffers any losses as a result of its being in possession of any foreign currency which devalues, or as a result of the fact that South Africa revalues, those losses are to be made good. In the case of the devaluation of British sterling, the S.A. Reserve Bank was in possession of certain amounts of sterling, or sterling balances and sterling investments, etc., and the amount involved, which makes up the loss, was approximately R10 million. On the other side there were certain savings which could yield approximately R3 million in other ways, which brought the total amount of R10 million down to R7 million. Thus the R7 million is largely due to the fact that Britain devalued and that the S.A. Reserve Bank was in possession of sterling and held sterling investments, which decreased in value to that extent and according to law had to be made good.

Did they have about R15 million in sterling?

Yes, about R15 million in sterling and sterling investments. The other matter is the provision that is being made for an ex gratia payment of R2,500 to Peddleloop Agencies in respect of losses sustained during the execution of a contract for the supply of razor-blades to the Army. A contract was granted to Peddleloop Agencies for the period 1st September, 1964, to 31st August, 1965, and later extended to 31st August, 1966, for the supply of razor-blades at 50 cents per 100. Although tenders were invited for approximately 427,000 packets of approximately four blades each, Peddleloop submitted a tender for packets of 10 blades each. The difference went unnoticed, with the result that when the contract was accepted the firm acquired a supply of blades far in excess of the actual requirements of departments. Although the firm’s contract was eventually extended to 31st August, 1967, the surplus could not be disposed of, and in his minute of 13th July, 1967, the State Buyer reported that large quantities of blades received from Peddleloop had become rusted and useless. [Interjections.] It is not our fault if their blades became rusty and useless. It was therefore recommended that the contract be cancelled and the firm be reimbursed on an ex gratia basis for losses sustained. On 3rd February, 1969, Treasury consequently approved under Reference B.10/3 the payment of an amount of R2,500 as an ex gratia payment. I may mention only that the amount asked by the agency was much higher, nearly R4,000, but it was eventually brought down by the Treasury to R2,500.

The Minister said that the amount asked for by the agency was R4,000. Does that include their profits they were making?

No, it was their losses.

If I understood correctly, the buyers were apparently under the impression that these packets contained four blades each and not 10. The suppliers had in fact tendered to supply packets of ten blades. Was there a competitive tender for the supply at the time?

Yes, this was accepted as a competitive tender.

The tender was presumably accepted by the Tender Board. Does it mean, therefore, that the Tender Board overlooked the fact that these people were tendering for packets of 10 blades instead of packets of four? In other words, who was responsible for the mistake? Secondly, the Minister said the Government could not be blamed if the blades went rusty. Sir, I have never heard such nonsense. It depends entirely on how they were kept. If they were kept in the open, as many Defence stores were kept in the past, I am not surprised they all went rusty. I wonder what sort of an inquiry was held, as to where all these stores were kept and how it was that they became rusty, because if they were properly kept they could not have become rusty. I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that a proper inquiry was held as to the reason for these blades becoming unserviceable.

The hon. the Minister in his reply referred to the “departments” which use blades. I wonder if he can tell us which departments use blades. The hon. the Minister started off by referring to the Department of Defence, but later in his reply he referred to “departments”.

I wish to refer to subhead F, where the original estimate was R50,000 and the revised estimate is R300,000. And this is in a savings campaign! Naturally we are all thrifty people, but there seems to be some miscalculation here. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will explain this?

At the time when these estimates were made, we were not quite sure yet whether we were going to have this Jubilee Savings Campaign. Most of this expenditure was incurred in connection with the new Jubilee Savings Campaign which was started at the beginning of this year, in January. Part of the money set aside for the previous year’s campaign has been spent this year, a circumstance which had not been foreseen.

In regard to the other question, let me just say this to remove a misunderstanding: These blades which were bought, were bought at so much per blade. The tender price accepted by the board was based upon the price per individual blade. The Departments concerned were the Police and the Army. I think there was some oversight on the part of the Tender Board; there I must agree. In granting the tender on the basis of four blades per packet they overlooked the fact that these blades were in packets of ten, not in packets of four, but it did not make any difference because you paid per blade and not per packet. The cost price was per blade. It was an oversight on the part of the Tender Board. Eventually a contract was granted for more blades than the departments required, but there was a proviso in the contract that the board did not guarantee that any specific amount would be taken by the various departments. It was merely on compassionate grounds—because this man had suffered a loss—that the board saw fit to make this ex gratia payment of R2,500.

You have again referred to “departments”. Which departments are they?

Defence and Police.

There is one other item on which the hon. the Minister might be able to enlighten us and that is sub-head E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”. It then gets even more vague and it goes on to say “General” under “Miscellaneous Expenses”. These general miscellaneous expenses have increased by 50 per cent, from R155,400 to R239,300. One wonders how these miscellaneous general expenses could double in the course of a year. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain what this entails.

This is very easy to explain. Hon. members will recall that we used to have a fund for making refunds in respect of enemy property and that we passed an Act here last year in terms of which we abolished that fund and decided that applications for refunds in respect of enemy property would in future be made by means of an appropriation by Parliament. This is the first time this is happening, and this is the first time this year that a request in this form comes before the Committee for the refund of a certain amount in respect of enemy property. This amount accounts for R70,000 of this additional amount of R83,900. I hope this is clear to the hon. member.

Why not say so?

That is not the only item. “Miscellaneous Expenses” also include R1,000 for actuarial expenses, R300 for the Tender Board, etc. There are six or seven different items of expenditure, but this is the largest of all of them and largely accounts for the big difference between the original and the revised estimate.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can explain the 50 per cent increase in the expenditure on postal, telephone and telegraph services. The original estimate is 50 per cent out.

The main reason for this, in the first place, is that we have to make provision for the cost of the savings campaign that we have launched. This is an additional service which requires additional postal and telegraphic services, and expense. In recent times we have also been making greater use of cables in connection with our oversea work and of cables and telexes. The costs in connection with cables and telexes particularly have increased.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department is charged for wrong numbers too?

Order! I do not think the hon. member should try to be frivolous.

In regard to sub-head F, R250,000, may I ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness how much of this money, if any, was allocated to advertising; if so, how much, and to whom was it paid?

I do not have a break-down of all these figures, but the greater proportion of this amount is in respect of services for advertising, printing and advertising material.

To whom?

It is one of the advertising agencies. I do not think I need mention the name. It is a very well-known advertising agency in South Africa.

Is the Minister prepared to divulge the name?

I am prepared to say it is Lindsay Smithers.

A great disappointment to them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—Provincial Administrations, R3,910,000:

I think that one can interpret this Vote, in terms of its footnote, as possibly being a new item, but be that as it may, I think that I am speaking for all my colleagues in Port Elizabeth when I say that the entire community and the municipality appreciate it very much that this large amount has been contributed to our relief fund. We want to assure the hon. the Minister that we appreciate it very highly.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 20.—Inland Revenue, R25,487:

Sir, there are five “refunds and remissions of grace or favour” under this Vote. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will give us details of these cases.

The particulars in respect of these remissions are as follows: The position in respect of the first one, i.e. “African Coasters (Pty.), Ltd.”, is that this company placed an order for the construction of two coasters. The financing was a joint undertaking by the State through the Department of Industries and the shipbuilder. “African Coasters” was then required to give a joint bank guarantee to the Department of Industries and to the shipbuilder in respect of the fulfilment of their financial obligation under the contract. This bank guarantee was stamped and the stamps properly cancelled. It subsequently appeared that the shipbuilder could not succeed in obtaining his portion of the loan funds with which to see this transaction through, and then the Department of Industries decided that it would contribute an 80 per cent loan to facilitate the construction of these two coasters. But then, in consultation with the State Attorney, they decided that “African Coasters” would have to give a new bank guarantee to the Department for the 80 per cent loan fund which the Department would advance. This they then did. For the other 20 per cent “African Coasters” gave a bank guarantee to the shipbuilders. These two new bank guarantees also had to be stamped and the stamps cancelled. In other words, these people purchased stamps a second time for precisely the same transaction and amount. With the approval of the Treasury it was then decided to request Parliament to refund the first amount to them.

The second case is in connection with a certain Mrs. A. P. Veloso. This lady has been a Portuguese citizen all her life. She worked in South Africa and was in the employment of the Portuguese Government at the Portuguese Labour Institute in South Africa. It is an office maintained here in our country by the Portuguese Government. Moreover, Mrs. Veloso was married to a Portuguese official, who later died. Throughout the years she also paid Portuguese taxes. Unfortunately she could not qualify for the exemption under our Income Tax Act, which reads as follows:

This lady was “ordinarily resident” in the Republic, because she had virtually spent all her life in the Republic. However, she had always been subject to transfer. Because she was a Portuguese citizen, was employed by the Portuguese Government, had always been subject to transfer and because she had paid Portuguese taxes, she had always been under the impression that she was not subject to the taxes of the Republic. After her husband’s death in 1958, the Income Tax people sent her an assessment, and it is now merely being asked if she cannot be exempted from the assessment for 1959 to 1966, a portion of which she has already paid off.

Then there is the undistributed profits tax of two companies. The sole revenue of these two companies consists of dividends which they receive from a private company in which they hold all the shares. They retain nothing of this in the company, but pay out all of it. However, the position would appear to be as follows. They have a revenue year and then they also have a year, called the “specified period” in the Act, in which they must pay out their revenue in order not to be subject to the undistributed profits tax. Their revenue year extends from 1st January to 31st December, while their payment year extends from six months before the end of the financial year to six months after the end of the financial year. Although these two companies have in all respects complied with the Act in having paid out all the dividends which they received, they nevertheless technically contravened the Act. They made a mistake in respect of the date on which they declared their dividends. Instead of declaring their dividends within their specified period, they paid one of them just before the specified period. I can give the hon. members the following particulars. In the 1966 tax year their income was R338,760. Their payment was then absolutely correct; they paid out everything. In the 1967 tax year their income was R810,201. Then they merely made the mistake of making the first payments on 3rd April, 1967, instead of after July, i.e. from 1st July to 30th June of the next year. In other words, they made the payments in the same year in which they received the money, instead of during the “specified period”, as required by the Act. If we transfer the payment which they made in April to 1st July, then they did in fact pay out correctly everything which they received. We therefore feel that this is merely a technical point and that we can ask Parliament to grant this remission.

The last case is that of the late Mrs. Mary Caplin. This lady passed away and her estate was declared insolvent. The department had a claim against her in connection with income tax which she had not paid. The Department submitted a claim against her insolvent estate—the claim consisted of the outstanding income tax plus the fine imposed. This claim was acknowledged in full and also paid out, but then the executor of her estate added interest—it took about 2½ years before it was paid—while the Act specifically provides that after the date of sequestration of an estate interest can no longer be calculated. Her estate did not owe that interest, and when the man discovered his mistake, he asked the Department to repay it. Because it was not an actual mistake but, as they say, “a mistake in law”, the Department could not make the payment on its own, and is therefore asking Parliament to approve of this repayment being made.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 21.—Customs and Excise, R89,390:

Could the hon. the Minister please explain all these ex gratia payments to the companies here?

During the flood in Port Elizabeth large quantities of tobacco, cigarette and pipe tobacco, as well as cigarettes and cigars were damaged in wholesale and retail businesses. All the tobacco and tobacco products which were damaged had in fact been cleared from the excise warehouses; the excise duty had been paid; and the manufacturers agreed to take everything back and to replace it free of charge.

From the retailers?

Yes, from the retailers and wholesalers, and all supplies which were taken back, were destroyed under the proper supervision of the department in charge of customs and excise.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—Health, R1,486,491:

Under sub-head L there is an ex gratia payment to Holpro Chemical Corporation consisting of an amount of R1,300. Would the Minister please tell us what this is for and what the Holpro Chemical Corporation is?

Mr. Chairman, the Holpro Chemical Corporation suffered a loss as a result of the devaluation of sterling. This firm imports drugs used for combating tuberculosis for the Department. A loss of R1,300 was suffered on the importation of these drugs because of devaluation. This amount was then repaid to the company as an ex gratia payment.

Could the hon. the Minister please tell us whether this Holpro Chemical Corporation is a South African company or whether it is an overseas company with South African associates?

I do not have information with regard to the exact constitution of the company, but I can say this is a company which supplies us with tuberculosis drugs.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us, Sir, why there was this research in connection with the Arbor Virus Research, under sub-head P? It has something to do with a tree, I think.

Mr. Chairman, the word “Arbor” actually is the abbreviated form of Arthropod Borne Virus Diseases. This research is being done at the S.A. Institute for Medical Research. The Arbor is an insect with eight legs, so I have been told—I have not counted them myself. It is rather interesting that this insect is the vector of certain virus diseases, and this research is being done on the vectors.

Where does one find these insects?

In South Africa. I have been told that this mainly concerns our Defence Force and our men who are fighting terrorists. In those areas these vectors may possibly carry these viruses. The research is being carried out mainly on the vector, not on the virus, and hon. members will realize that there is more opportunity now for doing this research and the S.A. Institute of Medical Research is availing itself of this opportunity. Therefore we have this increase in expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this Arbor virus research, is this a completely new set-up of research into the arbor viruses, or is it a continuation of work which has been done for some time by the C.S.I.R.? The hon. the Minister mentioned that it has to do with our defence force. Has it only to do with our defence force or has it to do with the health of our people generally?

Mr. Chairman, my information is that we are already undertaking this type of research, but because some of our men are doing service in those parts where this virus is to be found, there is more opportunity for doing research in this field and consequently this research has been extended. This research is being done in the interests of the health of the general public and not only in the interests of and with regard to this specific matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister keeps on telling us that according to his information the position is this and according to his information what has happened is that, so he obviously does not know much about this aspect. As the hon. the Minister of Defence is present, and as the Minister of Health must have obtained his information from the Minister of Defence, perhaps the latter will tell us what this is all about?

I will get the information and let the hon. member have it.

Surely some Minister must know, yet no Minister seems to know.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—Agricultural Technical Services: Administration and National Services, R298,300:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the ex gratia payments under subhead E—A. N. S. Levy and R. H. Compton—I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why these amounts have to be paid. Under sub-head Q—Veterinary Field Services—there is a considerable increase; what are the reasons for it?

Mr. Chairman, the payment to A. N. S. Levy is in respect of 293 Hampshire Down and Dorset Horn stud sheep which had to be destroyed because of the scrapie disease which could have caused an epidemic. Mr. Compton was paid out for a herbarium which actually belonged to the Swaziland Government. A herbarium is a “hot house”. It would have been transferred to us by that Government. Swaziland could not pay the compensation in full, and in transferring this herbarium to South Africa, Mr. Compton gave us a great deal.

There was a considerable increase in the amount in respect of Veterinary Field Services because of Newcastle disease which caused a great deal of veterinary work as did scrapie, which broke out among some types of sheep.

Consequently the Department had to incur expenses which were considerably in excess of the original estimate.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—Water Affairs, R1,228,164:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister explain to us why these ex gratia remissions to J. C. van Heerden and H. N. Schoeman must be paid?

Mr. Chairman, in Mr. Van Heerden’s case, a bore-hole was sunk for him and a high percentage of chlorine was present in the water. Tests which were carried out, showed that it would be quite harmful to any consumer, and we felt that we were justified in writing off the bore-hole. Mr. Schoeman also bored for water. He wanted a bore-hole at a certain place, but the Queenstown bore-hole inspector recommended that bore-holes be sunk at two other places. As hon. members themselves know, when it comes to boring for water, one merely does one’s best. The two holes that were subsequently sunk in accordance with the Department’s instructions, proved to have been unsuccessful. Then it was decided to sink a bore-hole at the spot Mr. Schoeman originally indicated, and good water was in fact found there. It was decided to make a recalculation so that the third bore-hole might be counted as the first. This made a difference to the calculations and, with the consent of the Treasury, it was decided that an ex gratia payment should also be made here. We must always keep the merits of a case in mind, and in this case we felt that the merits were such that we had to make a calculation in order to accommodate this person.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No: 35.—Defence, R14,307:

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister be good enough to inform us of the reasons for these ex gratia payments totalling R4,307, and perhaps he can also enlighten us what O.F.E.M.A. is?

Mr. Chairman, during 1965 the S.A. Air Force made enquiries through the local office of an organization under the name of O.F.E.M.A.—a French organization in South Africa—in regard to the acquisition of air-frame parts for Air Force aircraft. These spare parts are in respect of our Mirage aircraft. The local office referred this enquiry to its office in Europe, and they, in turn, referred it to the manufacturers of these Mirage aircraft. The latter furnished a quotation and stated that the prices were subject to escalation which had to be based on the price index which was applicable in France during December, 1963. In other words, it included any increase in the price index since the said date up to and including the date of delivery, and this had to be done in accordance with a prescribed formula. The local representative of O.F.E.M.A., which is the French sales organization here, furnished the S.A. Air Force with this quotation and stated that the prices were based on the price index for December, 1965. According to information gathered at a later stage, this date was an obvious typing error. Subsequent to that negotiations took place backwards and forwards, the order was placed with O.F.E.M.A. and a copy of it was sent to the counsellor (administration) in London. However, at this stage they did not inform the counsellor (administration) that the prices of the quotation were subject to adjustment. During November, 1966, the counsellor (administration) informed the S.A. Air Force that O.F.E.M.A. demanded a price escalation. He wanted to know whether that was permissable. On 17th November, 1966, the South African Air Force informed the counsellor (administration) that the prices had been based on the price index for December, 1965, and were therefore adjustable. Delivery of the spare parts took place in the course of 1967. In May, 1968, the counsellor (administration) wrote to the Department and stated that both O.F.E.M.A. and the manufacturers had submitted copies of quotations which had been sent to the O.F.E.M.A. representative in Pretoria, and in which it was stated that the prices were adjustable to the price index for December, 1963, and that both firms had indicated that it was impossible for them to furnish in April, 1965, a quotation based on the price index for December, 1965. It was also stated that the counsellor could not take further steps until confirmation had been received from the Department as to what price index was applicable. Subsequently the matter was submitted to the State Procurement Board, which approved it, subject to the obtaining by the Department of Treasury approval to the effect that the escalation based on the 1963 price index had already been paid. Subsequent to that the matter was submitted to the Treasury, but the Treasury replied that, since the items had already been delivered and the escalation had been paid, the Treasury did not have the authority to alter the contract. Serious consideration was then given to requesting the counsellor (administration) to claim back the amount without delay and to effect payment in the normal manner. But that was decided against, as the South African Air Force is exclusively dependent on this concern for the acquisition of Mirages. In our opinion it would have been the wrong policy to do that. Consequently it was decided, after consultation with the Treasury and the office of the Controller and Auditor-General, to make every effort to place the amount on the Additional Estimates as an ex gratia payment by Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank the hon. the Minister for the explanation he has given us. Could he enlighten the House as to the name of the company he mentioned?

It is known to me as O.F.E.M.A. in English and O.F.E.M.A. in Afrikaans.

The hon. the Minister has given initials. He did not tell us whether it is a direction of a company or what kind of company it is.

It is a French company operating in South Africa.

Could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us why R10,000 is allocated to the Red Cross?

Mr. Chairman, it is customary, in the Defence Estimates, to vote a certain sum of money to the International Red Cross every year. The Government felt that, in the light of the special circumstances that have arisen in Biafra, an additional amount had to be made available to the International Red Cross for relief of distress.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 39,—Sport and Recreation, R30,000:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for the increase of R30,000? Was it an increase of grants made in the original Estimates, or is it in respect of additional grants under new application?

The item appearing under Grants-in-aid, as the hon. member knows, covers a host of sporting bodies and other associations. In the amount, which was found to be inadequate, was also included, subsequently, an amount of R30,000, which the Cabinet accepted should be the additional amount which should appear under this vote including an amount for the South African Games at Bloemfontein. That is the reason for the overall increase. Because the personnel of the Department and so many sporting bodies were fully occupied with the South African Games, there were savings, which under ordinary circumstances would not occur. They themselves and the Department’s activities were devoted, to a certain extent, to the South African Games. Against this R50,000 there was a saving in this regard of R20,000. That is why only R30,000 appears under the Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No, 47,—Justice, R192,500:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. Minister indicate, with regard to item L, how much of this amount involves the Lubbe organization and how much involves private persons who are employed in casual interpreting and reporting?

Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to say how much was paid out to private interpreters or reporters and how much of the increased amount was paid out to an organization. The reason for the increased amount is mainly the large number of immigrants that have entered the country and the resultant increase in the demand for interpreters. More use is therefore being made of their services. As regards the recording equipment, we experience the difficulty that we cannot always obtain the services of stenographers; consequently we have to make more extensive use of machines.

Is the Department itself operating these machines, or are these machines operated by the Lubbe organization?

The organization is operating them on contract.

Are all of them operated by this specific organization, or are there other organizations?

They are operated only by the Lubbe organization.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for the increase of R70,000 under Item J—Barristers’ fees and expenses?

The increase is mainly attributable to two reasons. The first is a general increase in respect of outside advocates for work performed by them for the State, such as in pro deo cases, criminal appeals, and so forth. This was approved on 15th November. The other reason for the additional amount is that a part of it was allocated to a senior advocate and a junior advocate who have been assisting us in connection with the Parity case.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 48,—Prisons, R1, 194,000:

Mr. Chairman, may we ask the hon. the Minister the reason for this tremendous increase, of R1,121,000, in respect of supplies and services?

Mr. Chairman, virtually all the excesses here are attributable to an unexpected increase in the prisons population. The prisons population was estimated at a certain number, but during the year the increase was a considerable one and many supplies had to be purchased for them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 49,—Mines, R4,316:

Mr. Chairman, may we have an explanation of these two ex gratia payments?

Mr. Chairman, here we have two amounts which add up to R4,316. The first is an amount of R1,384. At the State Alluvial Diggings at Alexander Bay it is customary for the Bantu workers there to give their private savings to the compound manager, who then keeps it in safe custody. Last year, on 3rd July, when 42 of these Bantu workers had to return to the Bantu homeland, the compound manager was unable to pay back an amount of R1,384 which had been entrusted to him. He did not have the money, and was subsequently charged with theft. He was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, which was suspended on condition that he had to pay back the money during that period. Subsequently Treasury approval was obtained for paying back to these Bantu their rightful savings before they left for their homeland.

It is recoverable?

Yes, he must pay back that money and it is expected that we shall get it. The second amount is in connection with certain diamonds—I do not know precisely how many diamonds it was—which served as exhibits in a court case of the State versus a certain W. C. J. May. In terms of section 108 (1) of the Precious Stones Act these diamonds, which were valued at R2,932 by the Government Diamond Valuator, were confiscated in favour of the State. This matter was considered and, since the diamonds were the property of De Beer’s, this ex gratia payment was made to them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 52,—Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R23,150:

Mr. Chairman, there are two items in regard to which I should like to have more information from the hon. the Minister. The first item is a new one, i.e. the ex gratia remission of claims against subscribers in respect of repairs to telecommunication equipment, which consists of a large amount of R23,000. I think it is important for us to obtain more particulars from the hon. the Minister in regard to the reason for this remission being given in respect of claims against subscribers. Usually claims against subscribers can be justified, and it may be that this involves claims in which the Post Office and the Department itself were involved. I may want to say more about this later on, but I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply. Secondly, I want to ask the Minister why this other new amount of R31,000 is being requested in respect of the hire of circuits in overseas telecommunication systems. We have quite a number of telecommunication systems with countries abroad—recently we have had another new one with the laying of the South Atlantic cable—and I should like to know why we should vote this new amount of R31,000. If it is a good reason, we shall, of course, have no objection to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start, firstly, by replying to the hon. member’s last question. As a result of the South Atlantic cable being put into service as from 18th February, 1969, it was necessary to hire additional circuits from overseas telecommunication systems so as to extend the circuits of the South Atlantic cable from Portugal to the United States of America, France and England. The rental in respect of the additional circuits for the months of February and March is estimated at R31,000 and will be obtained from savings on other sub-heads. In order to obtain Parliament’s consent for this, an amount of only R50 was placed on the Additional Estimates.

With reference to the hon. member’s first question, i.e. in regard to the ex gratia remission of claims against subscribers in respect of repairs to telecommunication equipment, I want to say that because of the serious floods that occurred in Port Elizabeth during September, 1968, the apparatus for 225 telephone subscribers and that of 32 telex subscribers was damaged. The final cost is not yet known, since certain permanent repairs or planning still has to be done, but it is estimated that this will amount to approximately R23,000 in all. Telephone and telex services are provided subject to the telephone and telegraph regulations which provide, inter alia, that subscribers shall be held liable for all damages with the exception of fair wear and tear to telephone appliances, telex machines or telecommunication wiring on their premises or under their supervision. Owing to the exceptional circumstances of this case and the major disruption and other damage experienced in Port Elizabeth at that time, it is proposed that the cost of repairs in respect of the telephone and telex services in question be remitted ex gratia.

Mr. Chairman, because of the explanation furnished by the hon. the Minister in regard to this amount of R23,000, we have no objection to its being voted, since this is damage which was caused to the telephone system in Port Elizabeth during the recent floods. I do find it strange that there appears to be a system in the Post Office in terms of which subscribers are held responsible not only for the telephone apparatus, but also for all the wiring leading to such telephones, and that if any damage should be caused to them, by something for which they are not in the least responsible, such as floods, an action can be brought against them by the Post Office. I think this is a very unfair regulation, and I hope that it will not be necessary to have an amount such as this in the future and that a change will be effected in this respect. As regards the amount of R31,000, which is used for the hire of circuits in overseas telecommunication systems, it seems to me, and if I am wrong the Minister can point it out to me, that the amount will be much bigger in the future. This amount is only in respect of two months; in other words, an amount of approximately R15,000 will be requested each month so that the amount will be approximately R180,000 per year, which is the interest on a very large amount. From what I can conclude from what the hon. the Minister said, this amount of R180,000 will be used for extending the South Atlantic cable from Portugal to the United States, France and England. It seems to me as though this cable, about which we on this side of the House expressed our dissatisfaction some time ago, is still going to entail a great deal of additional expense, if we are to provide all the so-called benefits of being able to communicate with Europe and also with America via Lisbon. This is a very large amount, and we must bear in mind that this R31,000 is merely in respect of two months and that the amount will be close to R180,000 per year, and possibly R200,000, and possibly even more—we know how amounts increase under this Government. I think that in the original planning of this cable from Cape Town to Lisbon regard ought also to have been had to these additional amounts which we have to pay now. According to the explanation of the hon. the Minister it may be the case that additional communications would have to be established from Lisbon to other parts of Europe and America, and that this would entail even greater additional costs. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether this cost is also going to bring in any revenue for us. If we pay these amounts for the extension of those cables, do we also derive revenue from calls transmitted through those cables?

The hon. member has apparently lost sight of the fact that this cable is still going to be extended from Portugal to London.

As regards the second matter, I want to point out that it was precisely because the Post Office felt that it was unfair to expect the subscribers to pay for such damage in cases such as these at Port Elizabeth, that this ex gratia remission was placed on the Additional Estimates.

The hon. the Minister explained about the extension of the cable from Portugal to London and said that it would in fact be extended by South Africa later on, but in his original reply he also referred to the use of the cable between Portugal and America, and between Portugal and France. Do we derive any revenue from this? People in South Africa pay for a call to America via Lisbon. Do we derive any revenue from that, or must we pay over part of it to other states?

Of course, we do derive revenue from it.

In other words, do we keep all the money for that additional extension between Portugal and the U.S.A.?

Yes.

Do we get all the money for it? It seems to me as though the Minister is not very sure.

My reply was “yes”.

Fine, then I want to confirm it. The hon. the Minister’s reply is that we are paying this additional amount for the cable between Portugal and the U.S.A. and we are getting all the revenue from calls which are made from South Africa and which are transmitted through that additional cable. Is that correct?

Yes, from South Africa.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 54,—Payments to Post Office Fund, R445,000:

If I am correct, this amount is in connection with the R21 million which was paid into the Post Office Fund in connection with the set-up concerning the finances of the Post Office, about which we shall hear more later this month. What struck me here, is the amount of R445,000, which apparently suggests that the profits of the Post Office were not as big as was anticipated. Am I correct in presuming this?

May I furnish the reply to that, Sir? Hon. members will recall that in terms of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act which was passed last year, an amount of R21 million had to be paid out to the Post Office. But it is also provided in that Act that an amount equal to the difference between R21 million and the amount which will be the net profit of the Post Office at the closing of its financial year, shall be paid to the Post Office. It has now become apparent that the net profit made by the Post Office in the past financial year was not R21 million, but amounted to R23.445 million. This is approximately R2.445 million more than was anticipated, and in terms of the Act that amount of R2.445 million must now be paid over to the Post Office, but in view of the fact that we have a saving of R2 million on this Vote, only R445,000 is being appropriated; this saving of R2 million was effected in that, in the beginning of the financial year, it was not possible to make any accurate estimate of the free services Government Departments have always received from the Post Office. Those free services which have always been provided and of which no records were kept previously, were estimated at R6.5 million and that amount was budgeted for. It has now become apparent that those free services did not amount to R6.5 million, but to approximately R4.5 million. In other words, there is a saving of R2 million and, if we include that saving here, it means that we must only vote the amount of R445,000 in order to pay out R2,445 million to the Post Office.

Vote put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2: Chargeable to Bantu Education Account:

Bantu Education,—R600,000:

I refer to Item N, Provision for Retirement Benefits. I should like the Minister to give us some details of that.

The explanation for this Item N is as follows. The amount of R429,000 included in this Appropriation for 1968-’69 is in respect of two things; firstly for increased pension contributions payable by the Department from 1st April, 1968.

Is that for the White staff?

No, I am coming to that. It is not for the White staff only. That will become clear when I make the second point. The second one is in respect of pensions, bonuses and allowances payable to retired teachers in the Cape. That is an amount of R75,000. I can also explain that as the Department did not originally consider itself responsible for the payment of retirement benefits for teachers in the Transkei who retired prior to the 1963 Act, no provision was originally made in the draft Estimates for 1968-’69, but it has since been ruled that the Department of Bantu Education must be held responsible for it. That is the explanation for the amount.

Under K, Financial Assistance to Community Schools for Capital Expenditure, could the Deputy Minister give us some details? I notice the amount is being increased one and a half times.

The position is that as from 1st April, 1969, the erection of buildings, for university colleges and school buildings in the Bantu homelands will be provided for in the Vote Bantu Administration and Development, and the financial aid granted to Bantu communities on the rand-for-rand basis for the erection of school buildings will therefore be withdrawn from this date. Treasury authority has been obtained to increase the provision under this sub-head by R200,000 to enable the Department to meet the backlog of applications for subsidies received before the transfer of the responsibilities and powers to the various territorial authorities. According to the applications received and approved, it is evident that an amount of only R150,000 will be required to meet all claims. The reason why the additional amount of R200,000 could be reduced by R50,000 is due to the following fact, that we get indications from school boards of their needs and it is subsequently often proved that they are unable to go through with schemes they have themselves planned, having failed to provide their share of the rand-for-rand requirements. It has to be pointed out, therefore, that a school board of a tribal authority must find the necessary funds for a school envisaged, and from experience we know that they are not always successful in their efforts to acquire the necessary funds. I may also add that the position is that this will of course by the nature of things effect a saving on the Bantu Education Account for other educational services.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us why the amount in respect of postal and telegraph services has more than doubled, i.e. from R29,000 to R72,000? That is Item C.

The answer is a very simple one. In terms of the Post Office Act of 1968 we are obliged, as from 1st April, 1968, to pay for all those services that were previously free of charge.

What services were these?

The postal services for Bantu Affairs. The position is further that an amount of R21,000 is included in this Additional Appropriation for 1968-’69 and the balance of R22,000 will be paid from the expected savings under sub-head J. If the hon. member wants me to explain what sub-head J is, I will do so.

May I just ask the hon. Deputy Minister the following? Was I correct in understanding him to say that prior to 1st April, 1968, no payments were made?

Yes.

Why was this the position, because in the case of all the other departments payment was made for the services of the Post Office in the past?

Order! The hon. member is dealing with this Department now.

Yes, and therefore I am asking why this Department did not pay. The second point is also in connection with this increase, and I ask whether the Minister can give us an indication as to whether it has anything to do with a change or an amendment of the tariffs. Does his Department pay the ordinary tariffs paid to the Post Office by the public?

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons.

Sir, we want to know, was this Department getting free services, whereas others had to pay? Why were they getting free services which they do not get now?

The position is simply that as a result of a mutual arrangement that existed, certain services were rendered free of charge. I want to read it to the hon. member again: “In terms of the Post Office Readjustment Act, 1968, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs must be reimbursed from 1st April, 1968, for all services previously rendered free of charge”. All I now have to explain to the House is where this extra R21,000 and the R22,000 come from, and I have already done so. One comes from the so-called “Savings Account” and the other is the R21,000 I discussed a moment ago.

Will this be an extra charge on the Bantu Education Fund?

Yes.

Will the Deputy Minister explain to us which services were received free?

Order! The hon. member is now going into matters which he should have raised when the Vote was before the House last year.

But, Sir …

Order! I have given my ruling. *

The increased amount is R21,000. The hon. the Deputy Minister said this was an increase on something that did not exist before. If that is so, why does an amount of R29,000 appear on the original Estimates? Under C there are three figures, the original estimate, the revised estimate, and then the excess, and the Minister said the excess was as a result of something that never existed before. What is then the amount of R29,000 that was paid previously?

This amount of R29,000 was placed on the Additional Estimates as an amount for something that used to be free of charge, as I have explained, and there is no other reason. It was a mutual arrangement. It used to be free of charge, and now we are asking this extra amount of R21,000 for it.

Arising out of the reply the hon. the Deputy Minister has just given us, can he tell us which services were previously free and which he now has to pay for?

This is very clear from the Sub-head; it relates to postal, telegraph and telephone services.

Accepting the reply of the hon. the Minister that all the services under “Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services” were free, for what purpose did we vote R29,000 last year?

Order! The hon. member should have asked that question last year when this House voted the original R29,000.

Sir, last year we were asked to vote R29,000. We assumed in good faith that that amount was required to pay for postal and telegraph services. We are now told a year later that in fact that is not what it was wanted for; that the services were free. Either they were free or they were not. We were asked to vote R29,000; we are now being asked to vote R72,000, and the Deputy Minister, in his explanation, says that the reason is that the services used to be free. What did he want R29,000 for then?

I have already explained the position. The position is that these services were initially free of charge, and then, as a result of the passing of the 1968 Act we were compelled, because of a statutory provision, to ask for this extra amount. I repeat that the amount is R43.000, which is made up as follows: R21,000, which we are asking on this account for the current year, and which is being asked for under a statutory provision. We have to ask for it; we cannot do otherwise. If we could, we would not have asked for it. The balance of R22,000 represents a saving expected on Sub-head J.

Was there a miscalculation of R43,000 at the beginning of the year? The original estimate was R29,000, when the actual amount should have been R72,000. Was that a miscalculation at the beginning of the year? It seems to be a shocking miscalculation.

No.

Sir, the Minister has been asked whether this was a miscalculation. I see he has received a note from the officials’ bay. Will he get up and tell us what it is all about?

Hon. members are creating quite an unnecessary impression here. There is no question of any miscalculation here. We are obliged to ask for this amount under a statutory provision, and in addition we now have to pay for services we did not have to pay for previously.

Vote put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 3: Chargeable to Loan Account:

Loan Vote B,—Public Works, R600:

Sir, I would like to refer to item (23), “Purchase of and alterations and repairs to a property to serve as a Ministerial residence”, R65.000. Will the hon. the Minister please tell us for whom this residence is and what it consists of? Sixty-five thousand rand is a fair price to pay for a residence. I see it is just double the price charged under item (8) for two houses for foreign affairs attaches in Blantyre. We are housing two foreign affairs attaches for R37,000, and yet in item (23) we are asked to vote more than double that amount for the residence of one Minister. I think we should know why it costs four times as much money to house a Minister as to house a foreign affairs attache. I hope the Minister can give us a full description of the property, that he will tell us which Minister is going to occupy it and also what servant quarters are attached to this particular property.

And we will promise to listen very carefully.

As far as the properties in Blantyre are concerned, the only reason that I can think of is that properties are much cheaper in Blantyre than in Pretoria. That is the best answer I can give the hon. member to that question.

The reason why another ministerial residence had to be bought is that the previous Minister of Health, Dr. Hertzog, occupied his own house. *

He occupied a “ver-krampte” residence.

Nonsense. When Dr. Hertzog left the Cabinet we had to buy another house.

Why?

Because there was not another ministerial house available. Did the hon. member want the Minister concerned to go and live in Dr. Hertzog’s private property? I thought the hon. member was a respecter of private property. What a lot of nonsense. We advertised for a ministerial house and I think we received something like 92 offers ranging from R45,000 to R120,000. After very careful consideration, having looked at about 30 or 40 properties, I decided to purchase this house at No. 331 Oliver Street, Brooklyn. On the ground floor the house consists of an entrance hall, a drawing room, a dining room, a family room, a guest toilet, kitchen, scullery and laundry. The first floor consists of a main bedroom suite, a bathroom, a changing room, three bedrooms, built-in cupboards, bathroom, toilet and shower. There is also an open balcony under the main roof. Out-buildings: three servants’ rooms, bath room, storeroom, a double garage, an enclosed barbeque and a swimming bath. We had two sworn valuators to value the property. The one valuator valued it at R55,000 and the other at R62,000. The purchase price was R59,500. The transfer costs more or less R600; repairs, alterations and renovations totalled R4,000, and R900 for contingencies. I asked our architects and quantity surveyors to work out what it would have cost us to build that house to-day and their estimate was R98,000. Actually it cost us R65,000 with everything included, and having regard to present-day prices in Pretoria, I think this is a very good buy. There is no chance of our losing money. I think it is a very good buy indeed. I want to tell the hon. member that at present I occupy that house, and he is very welcome to visit me when he comes to Pretoria. He can bring some liquid refreshments with him, if he wants to do so, in view of what happened over the last few days. It is completely wrong to say that I bought that house for myself. I bought it as a ministerial house. I want to explain to the hon. member how we deal with ministerial houses. If there is a change in the Cabinet or when a house becomes available it is offered to Ministers in order of seniority. They can then decide whether they want it or not. I offered this house, which was purchased by the Department, to the Ministers in order of seniority. Most Ministers were not interested; they were quite happy with what they had. But a few of the Ministers who were senior to me—I think four or five of them—went to look at the house and they then decided that they did not want it. They were quite happy with their present accommodation, so I was left with it. I had no choice but to live there. I think we made a very good buy and I hope the hon. member is satisfied.

May I thank the hon. the Minister for his very detailed reply. Could he tell us whether the servant quarters are occupied and the race of the occupiers?

When I left Pretoria, only one of the servant rooms was occupied.

By how many people?

Only one person.

I wonder if we could have some explanation of item (6) “Defence”, R306,000 for a building for a computer. It seems an awful lot of money to house a computer.

The Department of Defence advised the Department of Public Works on the 14th March, 1968, that a computer had been ordered for delivery on the 15th January, 1970, from which date the Department would have to pay rent. This computer is urgently required for the proper execution of Defence Force services. Special steps have been taken therefore to expedite the planning and documentation in an effort to provide the building as soon as possible. The documents are now ready for the invitation of tenders. The cost of the service is estimated at R306,000. As financial provision for the service does not exist in the Appropriation Act now in force, and in view of the abovementioned circumstances, it is necessary to vote funds on the Additional Estimates.

Could the hon. the Minister indicate to us what alterations were actually made to this house costing R65,000? Secondly, it was not quite clear to me how many bedrooms there were on the first floor. The hon. the Minister said that there were three. Are they part of the suite?

There are no bedrooms on the ground floor.

I am talking about the first floor. I would like to know how many bedrooms there are in all. Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether Ministers still pay a nominal rental every month for their official residences?

Part of the roof had to be replaced, but that was pointed out to us by the previous owners, so we knew that we would have to do that when we bought the house. On the top floor there are three bedrooms and a study. The main bedroom is a fairly big room, with a bathroom and a dressing room combined. It is a very nice room; I sleep in it.

The hon. the Minister has not yet replied to my question about the nominal rentals.

Ministers pay a nominal rental of R45 per month.

Sir, on the face of it R306,000 would seem to be an enormous sum for a building just to house a computer. I am merely asking for information. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Defence could give us a little more information as to what this building is going to house. Is this a building costing R306,000 simply to accommodate a computer which, after all, is not an enormously big machine?

I do not know how big this computer is. I can only tell the hon. member for Constantia that during the period of building control, at a time when building control was still very severe, I was approached by Stewart and Lloyds in Vereeniging. They wanted to put in a computer, and they asked for permission to erect a building cosing half a million rand to house a computer, so it seems to me that it costs plenty to house computers.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C.—Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R4,400,000:

May I ask the hon. the Minister why this increased amount is being made available to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation?

The item provides for a further State loan to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation for the installation of an F.M. broadcasting station, and is a continuation of the arrangement in terms of which a total amount of R22¼ million was made available to the Corporation earlier on. The amount of R400,000 that is being provided in this Additional Estimate is intended specifically for the installation of an F.M. system that will broadcast to the Ovambo and Herero of South-West Africa in their own languages.

Mr. Chairman, to what extent, with this additional amount, has the original estimate of the capital required now been exceeded? The hon. the Minister will know what the original estimate was. To what extent, with this additional amount of R400,000, has the original estimate now been exceeded?

What original amount?

There was an original estimate in connection with the capital costs of this F.M. system. That is what we were told here in Parliament by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. I do not know what the position is to-day. I thought the hon. the Minister might know.

Order! This is not a new item.

I am referring to the amount by which this new item increases the original estimate.

This is not a new item.

Can the hon. the Minister then tell us what the new total estimated cost will be?

Order! The hon. member may ask this when the Main Estimates are discussed.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote D.—Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R7,450,000:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister what the increase of almost 25 per cent on sub-head 2—Purchase of Land—represents.

This is mainly attributable to the purchase of land in the Oppermansdrift Dam basin area, in order to expedite the construction of the dam in view of the droughts we have had. It is mainly for the purchase of land there. And then the hon. member is also aware that a good deal of money was spent to consolidate properties of farmers in order to establish larger units. These are the two main reasons.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E.—Water Affairs, R1,375:

Mr. Chairman, we have two items under Loan Vote E which appear for the first time. The one is the ex gratia payment which is obviously there for the first time while the other is a loan to boards, local authorities and persons for the Malelane Irrigation Board. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could briefly give the reasons for the ex gratia payment and explain to us the reason for the placing of this amount of R80,000 on the Estimates while the amount to be voted is given as only R50.

Mr. Chairman, the ex gratia payment of R1,325 under sub-head 1 has a bearing on a contract which was awarded to a firm called Broderick Engineering Works Limited in Vereeniging after tenders had been called for. It relates to the construction of certain apparatus. In submitting claim for this amount, this firm stated that an accounting error had been made in the fairly complicated calculations. Actually, the matter was not raised with the Department, but with the Tender Board. The Tender Board was perfectly satisfied that an error had been made, and the Treasury agreed that this was so. That is how this amount was placed on the Loan Vote of the Department of Water Affairs. I am perfectly satisfied that there is nothing unusual as far as this item is concerned. In connection with the case of the Malelane Irrigation Board, I have to mention the fact that this board has been constructing a large canal which has virtually been completed. At present there are only rounding-off expenses in this connection. The final expenditure in respect of the entire project relates to buying out rights of servitude. This is now being proceeded with. I must say that this should really have been done before. But this matter is in the hands of the board itself. The board was of the opinion that the matter could be held in abeyance for a short while. We are perfectly satisfied that this is in order and that this had to be done some time. The reason for this amount appearing on the Additional Estimate is that we want to give the board the opportunity of proceeding in the meantime. As I have said, this is in fact the final episode of the entire project, and I am perfectly satisfied that we should rather give them the opportunity of getting on with their work and completing it, than wait a few months more. The hon. the Minister of Finance is also perfectly satisfied with its being specified in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

The hon. the Minister said that this ex gratia payment to Broderick Engineering Works Limited was made because the firm made a mistake in their tender. Was this tender accepted because it was the lowest tender?

Yes. It was a comparative tender. After the work had been completed, they came back and made a submission to the Tender Board. Tenders of this nature are extremely difficult. This was a quotation for the building and construction of certain things. Tenders are not only submitted for the acquisition of certain items. The installation of items is also involved. It very often happens that this sort of misunderstanding arises in the case of construction tenders. It is a normal thing. But the item is small and the mistake is self-evident. It is something which can happen quite easily. The Tender Board was satisfied that a concession could be made, and the Department had no objection either.

Is the whole contract for a much bigger amount?

Yes, much bigger.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J.—Industries, R2,700,000:

Can the hon. the Minister tell us why the additional amount to be voted is far in excess of the original estimate as well as where the shipbuilding industry is situated and if it is in more than one centre. The additional amount to be voted seems to be a very large amount.

Mr. Chairman, when the original estimates were drawn up, this estimate was made on the basis of obligations which existed at the time, in other words, payments which had to be made out of loans, and which were based on existing contracts. When it comes to shipbuilding, one can, from the nature of the case, not estimate for the year ahead. The State may grant a loan for one new vessel that is being built, or perhaps for five. Or there may be nothing at all. It so happened that in the course of the financial year contracts for the building of two further cargo vessels and for five fishing trawlers were concluded. It was then decided to render assistance in respect of these seven vessels as well, by means of the scheme under which loans are being made available. The increase reflected in the Estimates is as a result of that. I do not know whether the hon. member is allowed to ask me this, but this shipbuilding yard is situated in Durban.

Is it anticipated that the whole of this amount will be spent in one year and did the contractors who are going to do the work anticipate that they will have enough labour and accommodation to complete a major work of this kind?

I might say that even before Parliament was asked for this additional payment, certain sums had been paid out already under a special State President’s warrant. Now we are asking for this amount which is at this stage a true estimate of what will be required until the close of this financial year at the end of the month. I reckon that the work will not be finished but this is what is being asked additional in the current financial year.

Will this amount be spent?

Yes.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K.—Community Development, R200:

Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether the item Official Quarters—Bantu Administration and Development—King William’s Town: Married Quarters, is in respect of white or Bantu staff? Then I should also like to refer to the item Mafeking: Twenty houses, in respect of which the 1968-’69 Estimate was R70,000. I notice that the estimate of the total cost amount to R250,000. Is the amount of R70,000 just in respect of the additional 20 houses?

The building of quarters at King William’s Town was necessitated by the establishment of territorial authorities for the Ciskei and for the Tswana national group at Mafeking. These quarters are for Whites. These are services which were requested by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I do not have the exact details.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote M.—Higher Education, R876,000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information about the Witwatersrand Technical College. There seems to be some rapid development taking place and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us about it?

Mr. Chairman, the Witwatersrand Technical College has to be resited because it simply cannot continue on that small site near the Johannesburg station. Certain land for this purpose was acquired in Doornfontein and the original estimate in this regard was R986,000. When the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure requested the expropriation of these properties, this proved to be a R2½ million project. This, of course, is a loan to that technical college, and now this amount of R2½ million is reflected in the revised estimate. Valuations have, of course, increased to such a large extent during the last few years, especially in the Doornfontein area where a large part is now being industrialized, that this larger amount is now being asked for. Consequently we obtained authority for making this loan of R2½ million to the Witwatersrand Technical College. Of this additional amount, which in fact is R1,514,000, R638,000 is being obtained out of a saving, while approval is now being sought for the balance, which is R876,000.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N—Bantu Administration and Development, R450,000:

Mr. Chairman, why is there this huge increase, more than five times the original estimate? Will the hon. the Minister tell us?

Mr. Chairman, the position as regards this matter is briefly as follows. Originally R100,000 was voted for the gradual purchasing of properties in the Evaton area for the purposes of the resettlement and the planning of Bantu there, as well as properties adjoining Evaton. For years this area was set aside for white possession and for Bantu occupation in terms of the Group Areas Act, and since development of the area was frozen, the two townships, for example, could not be developed for the purpose for which they were purchased and initially planned. Unless land is purchased by the Management Board, the owners will sustain major losses because, from the nature of the case, the land cannot be developed for any other purpose. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear upon both the Management Board of Sebokeng and the Department for the land to be purchased. The important point in this connection is that Lydenburg Platinum Beperk, who were the owners of this specific piece of land, then offered the land in question to the Department at a price of R630,681 plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent per year. This land is frozen and cannot be developed any further now. On 10th August, 1968, the price of the land was therefore R736,980. After further negotiations were conducted and owing to the fact that the Board had sufficient land at its disposal at that stage for the purposes of developing the area, the said company reduced the offer to an amount of R450,000 and laid down the condition that the offer should be accepted by the Department before 15th December, 1968. If the offer was refused, an elaborate process of negotiation would have had to be started from afresh and the Department would have had to buy the land at the higher price at a later stage. What I want to explain in connection with this matter is the following: Because the land was purchased at the lower price of R450,000 at that stage, the Department and the Management Board of Sebokeng saved an amount of R290,000. For that reason it was asked that this lower amount be granted, and approval for it is now being asked.

Mr. Chairman, I understand from the hon. the Deputy Minister that this company first wanted R700,000 and they dropped to R450,000. The Deputy Minister is now asking for R550,000 more …

May I just explain. On the original estimates R100,000 has already been voted so we only require the extra R400,000.

It is difficult for me to understand why this company was prepared to accept such a big reduction in the price they originally wanted. Can the Minister tell us who made valuations on behalf of the Department of this property? Were independent valuations made?

Mr. Chairman, the valuations were made in the normal course of events by independent valuators as well as departmental valuators. The position is that the owners were quite willing to drop from the original price of R630,000 to R450,000 because of the situation they are being placed in, as I have explained to the hon. member. I think the Department acted quite correctly when it accepted the lower figure of R450,000 at the time when the land was offered to it because by doing so it effected a saving of at least R290,000.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstood me because he keeps on talking about a saving the department has made in that it has brought the owners down by R290,000. My question is this. What valuation was placed by the department on this property? What valuation did the Deputy Minister receive from his department as to what offer he should make?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot furnish the hon. member with the Department’s valuation now, but I can assure hon. members that the valuation was of such a nature that it was absolutely worth our while to accept the offer of R450,000.

Mr. Chairman, this is most unsatisfactory. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us the seller dropped his price by nearly R200,000, and he says we should be glad to accept that offer because there has been a saving. How do we know that? It cannot be said there was a saving because the seller has lowered his offer. This hon. House should know what was the valuation made by the department itself. As far as we know, the valuation may only have been R100,000. The property may only be worth R100,000 for all we know. Merely because the seller has dropped his price does not mean to say the country has made a saving. I want to know from the Minister what was the value the department placed on this property.

Mr. Chairman, it is not customary for my Department to divulge valuations of this nature in the House.

Since when?

It is normal procedure. [Interjections.] The reason is there are still other properties in the same area which must be bought by the department, and if I now divulged this information asked for, I would by the nature of things complicate and prejudice the purchase of the other properties, and that I cannot do. Hon. members place me in a very difficult position by insisting on having this information and I regret I cannot divulge the sum in the circumstances. If hon. members wish me to do so, I can go into much more detail and explain what other properties are in the process of being bought by the department. If I now say what valuation was placed on the property under discussion, then, naturally, I place myself and the department in a very difficult position. That is the first explanation. The second one is this. I can assure this hon. House that the valuation made was such that it justified the department’s action buying the property at the figure of R450,000 which, I again emphasize, was a drop of R290,000 on the original price. I can assure hon. members I will not come to this House and say there was a saving of approximately R290,000 if that was not the case.

Mr. Chairman, when I asked the Deputy Minister what the valuation was made by his Department, he told me he did not know.

No. I did not say that I did not know. I said that I could not divulge the figures.

But in any event, Sir, the Deputy Minister says now that he cannot give us the valuation, because it would prejudice the department in their negotiations to buy other property. Everybody in that neighbourhood will now know what this company received for its property. All the people around there will know how large the property is and what has been paid to it. They will say: “If you fix a high enough price to begin with and come down by half that amount, the Government will bite, because they will say it is a saving.” [Interjections.] but this is what the Deputy Minister is saying: “We made a saving, because the owners have come down in price by R290,000.” I have never heard such a specious argument. I am very disappointed that the Deputy Minister, who is new in his post, should come here and treat the House in this manner. The new Minister of Public Works, whose place he is taking, had no hesitation in telling us what the valuation was of the properties which he bought. That is only right. We should know the valuation of the properties which the department is buying. I want to ask the Deputy Minister: Will the country never know what the valuation of this property is? When will the country know what the valuation is?

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member is adopting this attitude on the matter, I think it is quite unnecessary. I have already given the House the assurance that the position as regards the valuation of the land is indeed the position as I have explained it to them. The only reason why I cannot tell the House what the amount is, is because we are in the process of buying additional land which is situated immediately adjacent to the land in question. We are negotiating in connection with the adjoining land. I am quite prepared to divulge the valuation placed on the land by the Department and by independent valuators as well as the amount we paid for the land, at a later stage when these land transactions will have been finalized. But the hon. member should appreciate that it will simply not be fair if I should do so under these circumstances, in view of the fact that other business transactions are being concluded in respect of land which adjoins that area. He must not expect me to do this. But to deduce from this that I am misleading the House in some or other way by creating the impression here that the Department is saving R290,000 on the land, and for the Opposition to say that it is probably not correct, is unfair. I want to give the assurance again that the price is such that we can say with absolute certainty that this land is being bought for the Department at a considerable saving. I do not want to enlarge on the matter any further, but I am convinced that when the valuation is divulged to hon. members at a later stage when circumstances allow, it will be generally felt that under the circumstances this was a good buy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Deputy Minister has said, namely that they are having other dealings at the moment and that he will later divulge the valuation. But he has given the impression to the House that the Government has struck a bargain because these people found themselves in desperate straits.

I did not use the word “bargain”.

The Deputy Minister said it would be a great saving, in other words a bargain. He also said that the reason why these people dropped the price by R290,000, is because they found themselves in a desperate state. They could sell the property nowhere else and they had to get rid of it, because of Government policy with regard to that area. The Minister agrees I think for the Government to take advantage of people who have to sell their property …

Order! This is not a new item. It is just a revote of an old one. The hon. member may not argue the merits of this particular point now.

The Minister has told us that he struck a bargain. Surely, we are allowed to criticize the Minister’s accepting the deal.

The hon. member can make that point when the Main Estimates are before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this argument between the hon. member for Transkei and the Deputy Minister, but honestly, I cannot understand the logic of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

It does not surprise me!

It does not surprise me, either. Judged by previous experience of the logic of the hon. the Deputy Minister, it is not surprising at all. But I want to say that he has declined to divulge to this House a Government valuation or a valuation by a private valuator on the grounds that this will prejudice negotiations by his department which are at present under way. But he has divulged the price for which that property was purchased. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: What will decide the value of the adjacent property, the valuation or the price paid? I want to ask anybody in this House who has purchased property, what decides the value of property. Is it a valuation or a price which is paid?

Order! That point is not under discussion now.

Yes, Sir, but we are trying to get at the point that we are being asked to vote money.

This is not a new item. The hon. member may not debate the point. He may only ask reasons for the increase.

Can I go further, then?

That has been asked over and over again and replied to over and over again. It is just a repetition now.

May I put it this way then, Sir? The hon. the Deputy Minister has asked for an increase from R100,000 to R550,000. He is asking for an increase of R450,000. Is all of that R450,000 required to purchase this one particular property?

I have already said that R100,000 was voted in the original Estimates for the purpose of buying a specific piece of land. We are now asking that the House should vote an additional R450,000 in respect of a piece of land about which we have had a discussion now.

A different piece of land?

Yes, it is for a different piece of land. Surely, I have made it quite clear. But let me just give hon. members the assurance that, in respect of the negotiations which are being conducted now, I personally gave instructions to the effect that, viewed in the light of the circumstances in which the owners find themselves, fairness and justice should be practised under all circumstances. I shall personally see to it that that land is purchased after a joint valuation is carried out by independent valuators as well as departmental valuators. The price will be fixed as accurately as possible by way of normal negotiations, as in the case under consideration, and the land will be purchased in that way.

Mr. Chairman, in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first reply he indicated that this amount of R450,000 had to be paid by the middle of December, and that it has been paid. It was paid under State President’s Special Warrant. Could he tell us what the number of that warrant was?

It is stated in the footnote. The hon. member can read that.

Mr. Chairman, if I may draw your attention to that footnote, you will find that the numbers in the English and the Afrikaans versions differ.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P.—Coloured Affairs, R40,000:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to tell me what provisions were made for which schools and institutions, and where they are situated?

Mr. Chairman, I am replying on behalf of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Unfortunately he cannot be present at the moment. All I can tell the hon. member is that this provision for all these various institutions has actually been made by the Department of Community Development. They furnished all the particulars. Since 1st April, 1969, provision for the erection of school buildings has been made on the Vote of the Department of Public Works. However, all projects in which the Department of Community Development is engaged at present and which have already been launched, will be completed by that Department, subsequent to which the work will be taken over by the Department of Public Works. In the case of some of these projects which were completed during 1967-’68, there was, therefore, a transfer of retention moneys and final accounts in respect of the 1968-’69 financial year and the indications were that R10,000 would be sufficient for this purpose. During the drafting of the Second Revised Estimates it was indicated, however, that an additional amount of R500,000 would be required for the 1968-’69 financial year. However, it will be possible to cover the anticipated excess partially out of savings on sub-head 2 of the Loan Vote, Loans to Students, and therefore only R40,000 is being asked for.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the provision of para-medical treatment that is mentioned in this clause, reference is made in particular to the ineducable children who present a very great problem to our Education Department. These ineducable children are the ones with I.Q.’s of lower than 50, who are classified as ineducable and considered as such by the Department. The parents are then faced with the problem that the schools cannot take the children and that they themselves have to decide what they are going to do with such a child. At school these children are incapable of anything and they do not want to subject themselves to discipline. They show behavioural deviations, have no control over their emotions and when they reach the age of 9 to 11 years, they develop certain sexual deviations. No provision is made for these children, except by the State, which subsidizes certain institutions. Consequently these children present a major problem. We have the type of parent who adopts an over-protective attitude towards these children, so that they receive more sympathy and love than the rest of the children in a family of this kind. This results in the other children being deprived of certain social privileges. This can lead to unhappy family life and marriages have even been broken up as a result of the presence of such children. A further problem arises when these parents die, leaving the children without any protection and care. The other extreme is that these children are literally rejected by some of these parents. Since no institutions are available, these children are exposed to extreme neglect. Sometimes they are also left in the care of servants in unhygenic conditions. Some of the parents even treat the children cruelly …

Order! The hon. member is off the point now. This clause only deals with the amendment of a definition and the hon. member cannot deal with the entire question of para-medical services now.

Mr. Chairman, may I then ask the hon. Minister the following: At Boksburg they have a State-aided institution of this kind, namely San Michele, which is the largest of its kind in South Africa and accommodates 170 children, and it is to a large extent dependent on charitable organizations for its funds. Does the hon. the Minister intend to convert similar institutions into State institutions or is he going to leave it to the institution itself to apply to be come a State institution? I also want to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to establish such institutions, in view of the fact that there is such a tremendous waiting list of children of this kind. If some of these institutions are State-controlled institutions, I want to ask whether it is not desirable to compel those parents to place children of this kind in those institutions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg will of course realize that one has a great deal of sympathy with these children. It is a kind of unpaid account and everyone washes his hands of it. The provincial administrations refuse to do it and it does not quite fall under the Central Government, but I have just decided to have a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Murray, the chief planning officer in my Department, and with other good members, to investigate the entire position of this type of child who is classified as supposedly uneducable and to issue a report so that we may eventually determine where children of this kind are to go to. As regards the other questions put by the hon. member, I think he should wait until this committee has reported to me, which will be as soon as possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I raised a point during the Second Reading debate and received a reply from the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Kensington is satisfied with what I said during my reply to the Second Reading debate on the Bill, but I think we understand each other very well as to what is being done in this connection. What we are dealing with here, is in fact merely the registration of vocational schools and private vocational schools, as there is no clarity in regard to the question where these vocational schools are to be registered. In view of the fact that vocational education has been transferred to the provinces, the only remaining thing to be done now is to remove all doubt as regards the question that any private vocational school, with the concessions made for a vocational school, will be registered by the provinces.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When this discussion was last adjourned, the hon. member for Sea Point was asking a question, but I was, inter alia, indicating that the inability of the hon. member for Kensington to put forward a sound argument on this Bill was not as a result of his modesty regarding his potential ability to discuss the concept of culture, but because what he actually occupied his time with in his argument was minor little disputes, in which he lost his way completely on Press clippings dealing with what certain people had allegedly said and which he had accumulated, and also a sidelong blow which he struck here at the S.A.B.C. I just want to say in parentheses here that I have the greatest appreciation for what the S.A.B.C. has done in respect of its contribution towards bringing cultural historic matters to the attention of our listening public in South Africa. Nevertheless, this ignorance on the part of the hon. member is the result of the fundamental indifference on the part of the United Party to the heritage of the Whites here in South Africa. I shall leave the hon. member at that, and I now want to say that as certain guiding principles we can consider the concept of culture from the point of view of the specialized discipline of anthropology. I accept that there are various people who will consider the concept from the point of view of various other sciences, but I want to approach it from the point of view of anthropology, particularly as seen by the Professor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pretoria, namely Professor P. J. Coertze. He argues that in his subject the term “culture” has a particular meaning. It cannot be confined to the concept “fine arts”, which is the general popular usage of the word. Nor can he regard it as meaning education or upbringing in the English sense of the word. As for example in the compound “cultured individual”. In Dutch the word “culture” is often used in the sense of cultivation and tillage. Similarly in the medical science reference is made in a certain sense to culture. Now, the term culture in social anthropology includes, to a certain extent only, the same concepts as those I have just mentioned, that is to say, training and education. But I think it implies far more than just that. And then it relates only to man. The anthropological concept of “culture” also includes a process of acculturation, but in that case acculturation of man and part of his environment by man himself. Culture as an anthropological concept indicates everything which is brought into existence by man in his various human capacities, and then constitutes the result of the creative activities of man. Nature and the rest of creation, of which man as a created creature forms part, is the result of the creative activities of the Creator. Culture is the result of the creative activity of man. Culture is only found in the natural order of things as a result of the presence of man. Now, in the light of these introductory ideas which I have put forward, one can hold a further discussion on culture which is a purely human attribute. Culture is an essential product of the life process of man. Culture exists as a variety of life forms of ethnic groups. One can discuss the significance of culture for the individual. One can talk about culture and people as being in fact a supra-organic phenomenon. One can talk of a people being creatively active through the agency of individual creators. One can talk of cultural determinants. One can talk of cultural universals and the interrelatedness of culture; and one can discuss the entire process of the development of culture.

But I actually want to say that one can and one must in fact consider this Bill in the light of this scientific discipline, particularly in regard to how the Whites of South Africa have in the course of history reached their present day cultural forms here in our mother country. With this Bill we are also accepting that a great number of organizations have already been active in every facet of our life pattern, and for a very long time. These organizations have attempted to realize the ideals which are contained in this Bill in their own humble way. But in this Bill we not only see the active will of the Government which seeks to stabilize the good work which has already been done by the existing organizations, but also to supply the deficiencies which may have arisen, and to lend assistance where necessary in order to expand the existing attempt. We do not want to take over, in a selfish way, what is being done by other bodies, but cognizant of the fact that cultural development is situated outside the political facet of our life pattern as well, we want to involve people of calibre, understanding and dedication in the establishment of National Advisory Cultural Council with its particular activities. Clause 3 (3) makes it very clear that this Advisory Cultural Council can of its own accord make recommendations to the Minister, and in a broad sense we therefore find that in this way responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the general public. It also affords the general public an opportunity of focussing independent and careful attention on the valuable and the value denoting aspects of our cultural goods. Therefore the establishment of this National Advisory Cultural Council should only inculcate in the public, old as well as young, an appreciation for what is their own, but should also induce them to take note of where in our society cultural goods are either being neglected or are going unheeded or are being threatened. This alignment towards what is our own, this making known of our culture this awareness which will in this way develop among our people, becomes of further importance in that attempts will be made to promote educational and cultural relations with other countries. I think that these relations can be of great value to us in three spheres in particular: In the first instance, they will help people from our countries of origin, for example, who already have a knowledge and a concept and appreciation for the cultural goods of the Whites of South Africa to expand their own knowledge and to stabilize their faith in the importance of the civilization which we have built up in the course of a few centuries in South Africa. Secondly, they will help drive out the ignorance in regard to our creative activities, everything we have achieved here during the course of three centuries, ignorance which exists among so many people, even in our own countries of origin, and also to drive out the idea amongst the ignorant that Europeans who immigrated to South Africa during the course of these 300 years have degenerated completely here in Southern Africa and also to prevent prospective immigrants from thinking that our level of civilization here in South Africa, in contrast to those to which they are used to in Europe, is but a poor one.

But, thirdly, I think that the emphasis which we are placing on our material cultural goods will also make it possible to promote tourism here. If one considers tourism abroad one realizes how many millions of people pay special visits to specific countries in order to see their cultural treasures. I think that this Bill will also provide that tourists coming to South Africa can see our cultural treasures here, and in this way announce our achievements more successfully and further afield.

Since there is in the world to-day such a careful and sensitive interest in Africa and the people of Africa it is essential that we assist in indicating to all and sundry who we are and what we have accomplished here; how we here in Southern Africa, transformed the natural materials at our disposal into cultural goods which are worth taking cognizance of; that we here in South Africa are independent, that we have created cultural goods of a fine stature, which are true to and typical of South Africa; that we have, out of the crudeness of our environment, accomplished something refined; that we, where there had never been a high culture, have not only been able to keep pace with the growth in material culture throughout the world but that we have also been able to have an influence in Africa without alienating others from that which was basic to them, and without becoming alienated ourselves from our countries of origin.

And then, in conclusion, just the following. Young and capable students will now be afforded the opportunity by the authorities of making a study on a scientific level of our cultural heritage. And in this involvement of the academic sphere, this involvement of universities in this Bill, the Government is making it very clear that our attitude towards our cultural heritage is not an indifferent or haphazard one. In addition we want to promote this Bill and the ideals we express in it in a truly scientific way by making it possible to undertake the necessary research in this sphere as well. In this way we are laying, in this Bill, a foundation so sound and so scientific that in future we will only be able to build successfully on it and in this way stabilize our heritage and our heritage in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik is just as entitled to his opinion as any other member in this House, but what one always finds disappointing is when a member with a good academic background, as I understand the hon. member for Rissik has, takes his seat in the House of Assembly without even making a study of the background and history of our various political parties. He is satisfied to keep on sounding the same propagandistic note in one speech after another that he heard outside from the political platform. I am saying this because he, for example, stated that the United Party would not have come forward with a Bill like this; and then he added that the Opposition was fundamentally indifferent towards the heritage of South Africa. On what does he base that? If he had made that statement on the basis of facts, one could still have listened to him. But all I say is, and I do not want to dwell on this, that a man with an academic background should at least try to take the trouble to make a study of the background of political parties. Sir, it was in fact the United Party which introduced an Act on the conservation of our cultural heritage Act for the first time: The Natural and Historic Relics and Antiques Act was placed on the Statute Book by the United Party. Further, it is clear that that hon. member knows absolutely nothing about the colossal contribution made by the United Party Government so that justice could be done to the “Groot Afrikaanse Woordeboek”. Mr. Speaker, I should like to instruct the hon. member further, but I want to suggest that he should rather drink a cup of coffee with me from time to time.

We are dealing here with a measure which seeks to promote and to enrich the cultural life of the white population of South Africa, and this is undoubtedly a praiseworthy object. We believe that for this reason this measure ought to receive the support of the whole House. As far as this side of the House is concerned, this measure definitely has the full approval of the Opposition. Consequently we have considered the Bill with a view to positive criticism. We asked ourselves whether the machinery being created by the Minister here was good enough, and in general whether there was anything we could contribute in order to improve this Bill. In the first place I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the impression this Bill makes on one is that it is anything but well prepared. In certain places even the intention does not appear clearly enough. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that we are afforded an opportunity in the Committee Stage of making amendments, but in my opinion the Bill has in general been so badly prepared that I want to suggest that the Minister should consider having it re-written. I take it that there is no particular hurry to have the Bill passed, and in any case the hon. Minister knows that it has our support. There are no difficulties as to principle, and there should therefore be no delay if he agrees that the drafting of the Bill, as I shall try to indicate, is not good enough for a Bill of this nature. Let me just demonstrate what I mean by bad preparation and certain obscurities. Let us consider clause 3 (3)—

Mr. Speaker, this is only one example. Here we are dealing with positive development by means of informal cultivation in the field of the acquisition, in popular fashion, of knowledge. I must admit candidly to the hon. Minister that this does not seem like a sound exposition to me. It is anything but clear. Subsection (13) of the same clause provides—

This can be put far more lucidly. Foreigners are referred to as “persons in other countries”. There are various other examples, but to my mind the biggest question mark is next to the use of the expression “culture”. I looked in Van Dale’s Dutch dictionary to see how the word “cultuur” is defined. Van Dale defines it as a “beschawingstoestand” (state of civilization), and that state is subject to change. As one writer put it: “Every generation is a new country.” The Bill wants to conserve, develop, foster and extend, all at the same time, what it includes under the one concept “culture”. The word “uitbou” is translated in English with the word “extension—the extension of the culture of the white population”. I must admit it is difficult to understand what precisely is meant by “the extension of the culture of the white population of the Republic”. In addition I want to draw attention to the following in clause 2—

How does one foster the culture of the white population by developing movable property? In any case I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how one is able to develop movable property well? As I read the Bill, and in view of the fact that it is a Bill which deals with national culture and in regard to which we, more than anything else, hope that what will develop here will eventually be a cultural manifesto, it seems to me as if it would have been the correct thing to have spoken in the preamble about the fostering and enrichment of the cultural life of the white population, the conservation of the cultural heritage of the white population and the promotion of cultural relations with other countries; and then to have indicated more precisely in what way the State wanted to do this. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has had an opportunity of ascertaining what is being done in other Western countries which have similar legislation. I should like to know whether he consulted experts in South Africa —cultural bodies outside his Department—on the matter before introducing the Bill, and if he did not do so, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could do so first before he proceeds over-hastily with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, something which struck me, was the pompousness of the preamble as opposed to the humility of the tasks and activities in clause 2. The preamble reads—

But then one comes to clause 2 and after this extremely pompous statement, one comes to the sum total of the activities which this Bill has as its object. In the first place it must acquire, develop and maintain movable and immovable property. This is a task which is already being undertaken by our museums, archives and art galleries. The second object is to award bursaries to persons in other countries for the purposes of study here. This is also something which is already being done. Another object is to arrange for reciprocal visits between the Republic and other countries. This is also something which is already being done. A further object is to arrange for exhibitions overseas. These are already taking place from time to time. Then, further: To arrange projects in order to make us known overseas. This is also something which is already being done from time to time. A further object is to donate books and periodicals, etc., to libraries and other associations overseas. That is already being done. Then mention is made of “the provision of other services”, whatever that may mean. Let me say at once that it is a very good thing that books should be supplied to libraries in other countries; that exhibitions should be held there: that projects should be arranged overseas and that foreigners should be invited to come and study here. All of this is very good for South Africa and it will help to improve our image abroad, but I cannot see how these activities can in fact be reconciled with the preamble of a Bill with such an elevated objective, and which is called in the short title the National Culture Promotion Bill in South Africa. The third point I want to make is this: In order to achieve his purpose, the Minister has now decreed that there should be an advisory council. This consists of the secretary and chairman, whom he already has at his side, chairmen of commissions which there may or may not be, and not less than four other members. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is necessary to give such a difficult name to the council. In Afrikaans it is a mouthful: Nasionale Adviserende Kultuurraad. In English it is even worse; National Advisory Cultural Council, and where it operates overseas, the following must still be appended, “of the Republic of South Africa”. I also want to ask the hon. Minister whether the word “advisory” cannot be omitted so that the Council will then be called simply the National Cultural Council, after which it can be stated in the Act that it is an advisory council. If it is stated in the Act that the council is an advisory one, then I wonder if it is necessary to mention it in the title as well. I do not want to go further than this, but in parentheses I just want to say that I can foresee a sector of the population such as the Coloureds, for example, objecting to a name like National Cultural Council, because the activities of the council will be confined to the culture of the white community. I take it that the other sectors of the population and population groups will in due course be able to establish similar cultural councils, and the feeling may then arise that the wrong name has been used here in respect of their position. It can also happen that a misunderstanding can arise overseas. If the Council, for example, holds exhibitions overseas and does so under the name “The National Cultural Council of South Africa” then it could give rise to criticism if only the cultural activities of the Whites were covered. I should like to hear whether the hon. the Minister has thought of these problems; but I do not want to let the emphasis fall on that. I want to state clearly that we are prepared to accept the name National Cultural Council. A cultural council such as this, can always extend its functions later on, if necessary, to other groups as well. My question was simply whether the name could not be abbreviated, perhaps to National Cultural Council, omitting the word advisory? Mr. Speaker, while I am referring to the activities of the Council, I should like to ascertain whether the question of cultural treaties will also fall under the activities of this council. At the moment we have three cultural treaties, i.e. with Western Germany, Belgium and Holland. After what I have ascertained and seen it is an excellent means to better understanding between us and those countries, and I would like to see more such treaties subsequently being drawn up between South Africa and Western countries. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether he has this in mind.

I am particularly pleased to see that one of the duties of the cultural council will be the fostering of the art of speech and writing. This is an extremely fruitful field for study by a commission or the Council, and I want to express the hope that one of the first things to which the hon. the Minister will give his attention will be the fostering of writing in South Africa. 1 noticed over the week-end that an important publisher like Howard Timmins has been fighting for years to have writers placed on the same footing as composers and musicians. He would like to see authors receiving an author’s fee in respect of books which are lent out free of charge by a library, Just as a musician receives a fee for the use of his music over the radio, so this publisher feels that it is only fair, that the product of the writers should receive similar treatment. I should like to give this my full support. The idea expressed by him is that for every book lent out the writer should either receive a fee or there should be a pool from which writers can in due course be compensated for the public utilization of their products. I do not want to go into the technical side of this; it can be investigated, but I was sorry to see that Mr. Timmins had already put the matter to the late Dr. Karl Bremer and that as far as the Government side was concerned, it went no further. I hone the hon. Minister will make this one of his first tasks, and perhaps the hon. member for Rissik can, together with the United Party, remind the governing party from time to time to take action in this regard.

There is another matter which I should like to have clarified and that is why the hon. Minister reserves to himself the right to appoint commissions. The commissions must make recommendations to the Advisory Council and this Advisory Council must then in turn make recommendations to him. Is that not a little circumlocutious? Would it not be better if the Minister exercised the right which he has to issue instructions to the Advisory Council, the Cultural Council, to appoint commissions which are directly responsible to them in regard to matters on which the hon. the Minister would like to have recommendations, or in regard to which he would like a study to be made? I think it would be easy enough if he confined himself to instructions to the Cultural Council. As matters stand at present, it seems to me as if the hon. the Minister will make certain in advance that the findings of the council will be what he wants them to be.

Another point I want to mention is that nowhere in the Bill is there any recognition of the bilingual character of our country. I want to say to the hon. the Minister at once that I see nothing sinister in this whatsoever. It is true that we still have old-fashioned Jingos in our country who begrudge the other man his language and his way of life. Jingos of that kind one finds on the Afrikaans as well as the English side. The one is as offensive as the other. As far as the vast majority of the Whites in the country are concerned, however, and we can most certainly say as far as the Afrikaans-speaking community is concerned, the bilingual character of South Africa is accepted, not only as something permanent, but also as something which is to South Africa’s advantage and which enriches our lives. I want to repeat therefore that I see nothing sinister in the fact that mention is not being made of the bilingual character of South Africa. It seems to me—and this is a good sign—that we are now accepting it as self-evident. I take it that that is the reason why no mention is made of that bilingual character in this Bill. However, I have come across English speaking persons who attach special significance to the debate which is sporadically taking place on the Government side in regard to the question as to whether or not the Afrikaans and English-speaking people do in fact form one cultural community, one nation. I find it interesting to note that the Bill treats the word “culture”, of the white population as a singular concept. A year or so ago a publication such as Die Beeld which is the mouthpiece of enlightened thinking on the Government side wrote that the stated policy of the Government party, the policy which it as Government applies, was that Afrikaans and English-speaking people with their “two languages and two cultures” would enjoy equal rights in the Republic. I must say however that the most useful contribution which I have ever seen in this connection was that of Dr. P. J. Meyer, chairman of the S.A.B.C. In 1966 Dr. Meyer delivered an address to Sabra on this interesting subject, the white South African cultural community. He came to an interesting conclusion. I cannot read out the entire address, only a few main points out of it, without doing him any injustice (translation)—

He then goes on to mention, inter alia, the positive contributions by each—

He finally comes to the following conclusion—

Dr. Meyer adds to this that the process is far from complete, and that it is something which will depend upon the future. What is interesting however is that he sees here an integrated Afrikaans/English cultural community as one nation with two languages. It would seem that this Bill is in complete accord with the view of Dr. Meyer. I want to say that this, in general, is also the interpretation the United Party has always attached to the concept “nationhood”, that is, namely that there are two languages with equal rights, and an open road ahead for each language group. No attempt must be made by either of the two groups to use any position of power it may have to try to change the other. Nor must the right or desire of any person to be himself and to develop what he regards as his own, be prejudiced in any way. We feel however that there must be acceptance of the idea that Afrikaans and English speaking persons are equally as much part of the same nation. The Afrikaans speaking person may not be regarded as being more of a South African because he speaks Afrikaans than the English speaking person, and vice versa. Now I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is our point of view, and that is why we support the Bill, but the mere fact that in certain circles, no matter how small those circles may be, doubts are being raised and a debate is being conducted on the question as to whether Afrikaans and English speaking persons do in fact belong to the same nation, has the effect of marring the image of the Afrikaner among many English speaking persons. I, as an Afrikaans speaking person, who works together with English speaking persons all day, have had experience of the damaging effect which these exclusionistic ideas on the part of Afrikaners has on the thinking of English speaking persons. That is why I think that the hon. the Minister should give recognition in this Bill to the bilingual character of our country—and this is a further reason why I feel that it can be redrafted. I think the best way in which the hon. the Minister could do this, would be if he were to include in clause 3, which deals with the appointment of the cultural council, a provision to the effect that he will, in the appointment of the members of the council, give full consideration to the bilingual character of our society.

In conclusion I want to say that Parliament can be of great assistance in fostering and enriching the cultural life of our country. That is why I should like to insist that it should also be provided in the Bill that the cultural council should submit an annual report of its activities to Parliament, so that Parliament can remain well informed and can help by means of positive criticism to obtain what is best for South Africa. I repeat that the principles of the Bill are praiseworthy and that we support them. We are not objecting to the fact that it is only a humble beginning and that we hope that this Bill will gradually grow into a cultural manifesto for South Africa. However, the general care taken with an important measure such as this is in my opinion so poor and the Bill can be improved in so many respects that we would like to suggest that the Minister either has it re-drafted, or referred to a committee of the House so that improvements can be made.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just spoken, raised a few matters to which I should like to reply. In the first place, he suggested that the United Party also promoted the culture of the people of South Africa in the past. The hon. member actually takes offence if one suggests that this is not so. What is the position really? The United Party is the continuation of the old South African Party.

It is a new party.

It is not a new party; it has donned a new gard, but what is inside is still the same. The policy of the United Party, which is the continuation of the South African Party, was to promote only the English culture in South Africa, to place the English language first and to do the Afrikaans language injustice.

Is that what you think of General Hertzog?

I shall speak of General Hertzog right now; this is what he championed at that time. After the AngloBoer war he came forward in defence of the Afrikaans language and Afrikaans culture. He took the lead in preserving the soul of the people of South Africa, while, on the other hand, the predecessor of the United Party, the South African Party, tried to destroy the soul of the people and to render the people powerless through General Botha’s policy of conciliation. General Botha set himself this ideal. He said he took it amiss of people when they spoke of a nation of Afrikaners; he said we should speak of “a nation of South Africans” and he sacrificed one principle after the other. He admitted it himself in 1905 when he entered into an alliance with the Responsible Government Party in the Transvaal. At that time he said that principles were the main cause of Boer and Briton being divided and for that reason, according to the General, the General Committee of the Het Volk Party left some of its principles by the roadside when it entered into an agreement with the Responsible Government Party. This is the most important characteristic of the predecessor of the United Party and of the present party, even up to this day, i.e. that it is a party without a soul. The party has no soul and no inspiration either, and for this reason it does not inspire anybody. The entire political grouping in South Africa is based on this concept of: “What does the word ‘nation’ (volk) mean?” I have discussed this matter on a previous occasion, but I should like to elaborate on it now.

Order! Is it relevant to the Bill before this House?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The United Party and its predecessor adopted the attitude all along that the nation simply consists of all the Whites in South Africa; but the position is even worse to-day, because at present the Coloureds and the Bantu in South Africa also form part of their “nation”. Then one gets the nonsense that a person like W. A. de Klerk, who is now a great cultural figure of this liberal direction, writes in the Sunday Tribune. He says—

these are the Afrikaners—

This is what this wide concept, this wide concept of “nation” leads to; it now embraces the Indians as well as the Coloureds and the Bantu. Those people are now all part of the nation together with the Whites! Is it any wonder that this party could not make any contribution towards the culture of South Africa in the past? They were not imbued with that ideal. They were imbued with only one thing, namely to make South Africa a tool of the British Empire, and now that the Empire no longer exists, the party is still without a soul. They were left behind soulless by their predecessor, who paralysed and destroyed the soul of the people, so that they are still finding themselves in the position of being soulless to-day when there is no longer an Empire they can hold on to.

One appreciates the fact that a body will not be established in the cultural sphere with the object of promoting what is our own and developing it for posterity.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Kempton Park here this afternoon. In the first place he made the statement that the United Party is nothing more nor less than the old South African Party. He is far too intelligent a man to make such a statement. He ought to know, as everybody in this House knows, that the South African Party and the old National Party came together and formed the United Party. The name of the party to which I belong is the United South African National Party; that is still its name in 1969. I believe the hon. member has delivered a real slap in the face this afternoon to General Smuts but more particularly to General Herzog, and I hope the public outside will take notice of the way in which he has treated a great South African.

The hon. member referred to two concepts which have enjoyed a certain amount of prominence recently. He spoke about the word “volk”. I want to make it absolutely plain that when we in the United Party talk about the “volk” we mean the “blanke volk”; we mean English and Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans. That is what the word means to us, as it used to at one time to the Nationalist Party. It means the “blanke volk, die volk van Suid-Afrika”. I go further and, subject to correction, I wish to say I think it is common practice in South Africa that when we refer to “die Suid-Afrikaanse nasie” then in Afrikaans it means the South African white people, the English people and the Afrikaans people, together in the same “volk” or “die-selfde nasie”.

Now, in English there is a different definition of the word “nasie”. The word “nation” in English is not used in the same context as the word “nasie”. I think if one uses the word “nation” in English then one means a geographical entity, such as South Africa, with all the people that comprise that geographical unit. If we talk in Afrikaans about “nasie”, meaning “die blanke nasie, of die blanke volk”, then I cannot think of a suitable English equivalent, save to say “the South African white people”.

Now I should like to deal with points raised by my friend the hon. member for Rissik. He also gave a queer interpretation to the role that the United Party has played in the formation of the history and the traditions of South Africa, but then I am not really surprised because he has a habit of misinterpreting things. If I were to refer him to Die Beeld of the middle of last year he will see under banner headlines, “Vertolker se naam is Van der Merwe”. Then there follows a long description …

Order! The hon. member said the hon. member for Rissik has a habit of misinterpreting, and that means he wilfully misinterprets. The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, then I say on an occasion in the middle of last year the hon. member made a misinterpretation and yesterday and again to-day he made a further misinterpretation.

Order! The hon. member said the hon. member has a habit, and the hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “habit”. Sir. He maintained the United Party had done so little to build up the cultural side of South African life. I would refer him to the kind offer of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has had considerable experience of South African politics, both in the party opposite and in the party on this side of the House, who will enlighten him on the part played by the United Party in the development of the culture, the history, and the traditions of South Africa.

My purpose in rising here this afternoon is to talk about the Bill, and I wish to state that we on this side unreservedly welcome this piece of legislation. If anything, this Bill can be said to be overdue. It could perhaps have come sooner, as the present time is a difficult time for it to have been introduced here. The hon. the Minister describes “culture” in the following way: “Die algemene begrip ‘kultuur’ bestryk eintlik alle terreine van menslike aktiviteite.” In clause 3 we see specified those activities which the National Advisory Council will have to deal with. Frankly, I am sorry more activities are not specified because I agree with the Minister when he says this very wide word “culture” covers every aspect of human activity. I am very glad, being on this side of the House where we have always stood for equality between English and Afrikaans-speaking, that the Minister has agreed, and that it has come from his side of the House, that there should be only one cultural council. I, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, would have preferred to have seen it described as the South African National Cultural Bill, because I should like it to have a better connotation than it has at the moment. It is nevertheless appropriate that this Bill should come at this time, because over the past ten years, especially since the birth of the Republic, changes have come about in this country. I agree with the previous Prime Minister when he said that since the Republic there has been a re-orientation of thinking in South Africa. There is at the moment this fast-developing concept of South Africanism, which I make bold to claim has been the concept of this side of the House for many years. Therefore I feel the climate is ripe for this one cultural council to be formed instead of two, as I think it is fair to say would have been the case under Dr. Malan or Mr. Strydom, because in those days white separation was their aim, whereas to-day perhaps unity is more important.

I wish to refer to a very excellent article which appeared in The Cape Argus recently, quoting the Administrator of Natal, under the heading, “The New Breed of South Africans”.

He says—

Again I make bold to say that that is the conception of this side of the House and until very recently not the conception of the other side of the House. The feeling expressed by Dr. Gerdener in his speech was borne out by the Jeugkongres in Pretoria, when a report was tabled at that congress. An investigation was undertaken by the Department of Sociology at the University of Pretoria in conjunction with the F.A.K.-Jeugraad. Their findings definitely bear out the contention of Dr. Gerdener that there is this new breed of South Africans, a completely new species, if I can put it in that way. What were the findings of that committee? They found—

I think this is very significant, Mr. Speaker. In discussing this Bill I said initially that there were danger signals. While I welcome this Bill I feel that the hon. the Minister must not be unaware of others who will not be so happy with this Bill. I am not talking about the third group of South Africans I have just referred to, namely those who claim joint cultures and heritages, and recognizes two languages as well as having one loyalty to South Africa. Those are the new breed of South Africans but there are two other groups as well. The first group is the most important and now I am harking back to voices of the past of South Africa. I refer in this connection particularly to the article that appeared in Hoofstad on the 3rd January, written by Dr. Treurnicht. It is the “ware stem van die ou Nasionale Party” that he proclaims here. He said that—

Mr. Speaker, I look forward with great interest to reading the editorial comment of Dr. Treurnicht and his many followers, some of them in this House, on the advent of this Bill before Parliament. These gentlemen who think like Dr. Treurnicht thinks, are the true traditional representatives of the Nationalist Party. I go so far as to say …

Order! This has nothing to do with the Bill.

Then I move on to the second group. There is a second group for whom I also have pity, namely that portion of the English-speaking group which does not subscribe to full South Africanship. I now refer to those English-speaking persons who are lukewarm towards bilingualism and who take comfort in the shelter of their clubs and in their service organizations and do not play a part in South African life. I refer to those sportsmen who prefer the company of their fellow linguists to the company of those of both language groups. Those I put in the same category but on the other wing as those that are followers of Dr. Treurnicht and all that he stands for.

Lastly, I would say that I welcome this Bill not only for the reasons I have given, but also because I believe it will make a real contribution towards what both sides of the House, I think, regard as a problem that we jointly have to face, namely the assimilation of the immigrant into South African life. And if this Bill can make a constructive contribution towards making the immigrant, of whatever nationality before he came to South Africa, a better South African, then I believe it will have fulfilled a most important function. With these words I sincerely hope that this council achieves everything it sets out to do.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer back to the speech of the hon. member for Kensington which he made at the commencement of the debate. The hon. member made two assertions which I cannot merely allow to pass. The one was that the English-speaking population group in South Africa did not have a culture. I must differ from the hon. member very strongly. I want to concede that it was, indeed, the Afrikaans-speaking population group which made the most significant achievements through the years, especially in the field of literature. They gave birth to a new language; there was progress; there was inspiration and many writers and poets were produced. In the field of literature there was consequently greater activity among the Afrikaans-speaking people than among the English-speaking people. But it cannot be said that culture merely embraces literary actions and language—culture is surely a very much wider concept. To say that the English-speaking people in South Africa do not possess a culture, or that they make no cultural contributions in this country, is not the truth. It is now not specifically my task to defend the English-speaking people, but I must say that I differ strongly from him about this. In South Africa there are two cultures, i.e. that of the Afrikaans-speaking people and that of the English-speaking people. Both groups have made their contributions. With reference to the Bill on cultural institutions, I merely wanted to indicate how tremendous a contribution the English-speaking people have made, especially in the Eastern Province, in Port Elizabeth to be specific, in respect of the art gallery and the museum and their construction. I therefore merely want to say that the English-speaking people have also contributed their share to our culture. Now we must not misunderstand one another and think that, because we plead for co-operation and want to build together as a nation, we can eventually end up with something which is neither fish nor flesh, something halfway between English and Afrikaans. It does not and never can exist. We have the two language and the two culture groups here and as long as they exist as such and we consider it a good thing, they must continue to exist alongside one another.

The other assertion which the hon. member for Kensington made—as an educationist myself, I was somewhat disappointed in him in his capacity as an educationist—was that it was simply as a result of our system that Afrikaans and English-speaking pupils want to have nothing to do with one another, and that it had nothing to do with the parents. Surely that is not so. Here are many hon. members who have taught at parallel medium schools, where the children have been at the same school from their first year onwards despite their language differences. Two weeks ago I was at a parallel medium primary school in my constituency where three-quarters of the pupils were English-speaking and one-quarter Afrikaans-speaking. When I asked the principal what things were like there, he said to me: “Sir, here the Anglo-Boer war is fought again every playtime.” That attitude has its origin at home; it is not as a result of our system. We have many parallel medium schools but it is at home where the children are taught to be proud of that which is their own. It is probably also right for one to cultivate that initial pride for that which is one’s own, that which one ought to love, and because it is so, it cannot, of necessity, cultivate a tremendously excessive love towards the other. We have a history in this country and we can not bridge it with fine words. We must be realistic and face up to reality. Therefore, the fact that the Afrikaans and English-speaking people have not moved closer together has nothing to do with the school system. I just want to correct that assertion of the hon. member for Kensington.

This afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very moderate speech here. Perhaps it is illuminating, because here in the magazine New Nation I read about the shadow cabinet of the United Party in which the hon. member is designated as the Minister of Education for the United Party.

Order! What does the shadow cabinet of the Opposition Party have to do with this matter?

It does, Mr. Speaker …

It is very close!

Mr. Speaker, it does, in so far as it will be this hon. “new Minister” who will be up against this Act.

As Minister of Cultural Affairs?

Yes, as Minister of Cultural Affairs, and whether that is the reason why the hon. member delivered himself of so many profundities here, I do not know. [Interjections.] By the way, it is a very enjoyable party to belong to, because all the men are in the Cabinet except one or two …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly neglect to say that this member did, after all, at the beginning of his speech—later he became more positive—try to cast suspicion on the legislation, which is a very positive measure and in effect a constructive piece of legislation in connection with our cultural assets in this country. He tried to sow suspicion against this very positive Bill. He asked certain questions which, in my opinion actually sound absurd. This Bill is to a very large extent a consolidation of already existing things. Unfortunately I do not have time to answer all the questions. The series of Bills which the hon. the Minister of National Education is handling here, must, of course, be seen in the light of the division of the two Departments, i.e. the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Department of Higher Education. What the Department has done is definitely a very far-sighted and wise step. It will definitely be a tremendous incentive for the extension of our culture. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked here how one could extend movable and immovable property. I regard this Bill as a beacon-light on South Africa’s road ahead. A nation which only clings to material things and can show nothing but material possessions, can actually not yet lay claim to the status of a nation. If one travels to-day in European countries which have experienced golden ages, one sees that the golden age has long since passed for some of those nations. If one goes to their museums, libraries and art galleries, one will discover there those things in which their greatness once lay. Therefore it is extremely important for us in this country also to attach a great deal of value to these things. Therefore this nation must be very grateful for specifically having a Minister who is prepared, in this connection, to take on a pioneer’s task. We can also be grateful to the hon. the Minister for being prepared to do pioneer work in making a breakthrough in respect of obtaining financial assistance from the State to extend our libraries, museums, art galleries and culture in general. The Minister obtains powers under this Bill to award bursaries. As I have already said, this Bill is consolidatory and the Minister already has powers to award bursaries. But it differs in this respect that the Minister is empowered to make the awards for the undertaking of educational tours to foreign countries, whereby our culture can be extended and propagated. The aim, as contained in the long title of the National Culture Promotion Bill is, inter alia—

In clause 2 (1) (a) (ii) it is stated, inter alia, that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may—

Clause 2 (b) also mentions that the Minister may in order to foster educational cultural relations with other countries, in consultation with the Minister of Finance—

1. (i) award bursaries to persons in other countries for the purposes of study or research in the Republic;
2. (ii) arrange for visits by persons from other countries to the Republic, and from the Republic to other countries;
3. (iii) arrange for the exhibition of art, books and other objects of culture from the Republic in foreign countries, and of art, books and other objects of culture from other countries in the Republic.

I find it regrettable that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already prematurely prompted the liberalists abroad in what they ought to do when such an exhibition takes place under this Department. They ought to object and say: “This is only an exhibition representative of the White portion of the population. It is not an exhibition representative of the whole nation.” I find it very regrettable. In conclusion I want to say that I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for introducing this series of Bills. I believe that the South African nation will be very grateful for these laws in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the fact that there is such unanimity in regard to this Bill. I noticed that there was a great measure of unanimity. I am also very grateful for the fact that even the criticism expressed against the Bill was not so considerable that it would give me sleepless nights. I should like, in the first place, to say something in regard to the views which were expressed here. I hope that I will not meddle in party politics now, or try to steal a march on somebody, or make misuse of such an elevated Bill as this, because there are other platforms for that which are adequate, and which are more effective when it comes to the discussion of such an important matter. However, I want to repeat my political philosophy now, apart from any party political interpretation which may be attached to it. It goes like this: It would be a sad day for South Africa if we still, at this stage, found people, either on the English-speaking or on the Afrikaans-speaking side, who think that it should be necessary for the Government to try, by means of two cultural establishments, to allow separate cultures to co-exist under two umbrella bodies. That there are two cultures is an accomplished fact, that we all of us admit. There are people who derive their cultural development and their cultural gratification in a very one-sided way from either the one or the other, whether they are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking persons. But the majority admit candidly that the English culture for example is a rich and powerful heritage, which not only the English-speaking persons in South Africa utilize, but which the Afrikaans-speaking persons enjoy and utilize to an equal extent. It would be a sad day for South Africa if we were unable to take from one another’s culture the best features and appreciate, enjoy and understand, and make use of them. At this stage of our national development it is the duty of the State in fact to afford this cultural protection, not only unilaterally to one group, but to both groups, as has in fact always happened.

But now I find it a great pity that the hon. member for Kensington, for whom I had so much respect, nevertheless levelled the accusation that not enough care was being taken of the interests of the English-speaking people. He did so in this sense: He expressed the hope, that with the constitution of this Advisory Council, the Minister would take cognizance of fact, and would maintain the right proportions, so that when he appointed members to the Council, the ratio between English and Afrikaans-speaking persons would be correct. I would have thought the hon. member for Kensington, with all his experience, would have told me that with the appointment of this Council I should only appoint absolutely, perfectly bilingual South Africans. If he had progressed as far as I have on the road to true national unity, that is what he should have told me. If we cannot improve our bilingualism to such a degree that we cannot appreciate and understand one another in the cultural sphere—I am referring here to language, the written word as well as other cultural forms—and if we cannot make ourselves understood when we speak the second language, it will indeed be a sad day for South Africa. And now it makes very little difference to me whether that person’s home language is English or Afrikaans. However, it would make a good deal of difference to me whether such a person had progressed to such an extent in the sphere of national unity that he in fact had such a command of both languages that he would be a useful member. That is the first condition I lay down.

The hon. member referred to the National Education Council. He said that the ratio was not being maintained there. I shall reply to the hon. member as follows: It is impossible to-day to make the division so artificial. Should it be 60 per cent as against 40 per cent, or perhaps 61 per cent against 39 per cent? These matters simply do not work out like that any more. However, I want to promise the hon. member something. It is my standpoint that we can with this one council, accommodate these two cultures and these two languages under the same umbrella body. We have over the years understood one another very well in this sphere. There are certain cultural forms in respect of which the English-speaking people are far in advance of the Afrikaans-speaking, but there are also other cultural forms and cultural expressions where the Afrikaans-speaking on the other hand are far in advance of the English-speaking people in South Africa. One should therefore not make a mathematical calculation in order to determine precisely how many English-speaking and how many Afrikaans-speaking members should be appointed. I am sorry if we are in fact still so far removed from where we all maintain we already are, and if we condemn those who are not there with us. I hope that we can settle this matter in respect of the appointment of Councils once and for all, and that it will not be raised in this way.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed a good deal of criticism. It was, as the hon. member for Algoa said, a fine and moderate speech. In the beginning this was not exactly the case, but this must probably be tolerated. I will not make myself guilty of the same kind of thing. I would rather reply to a few of the points made by the hon. member. I want to begin by being positive. I want to say that I agree with him that we may as well omit the word “advisory” in the designation of the Council. If there is a clause to the effect that it is the Council’s function to give advice, I would prefer to see it disappear. In fact I intend, when we have proceeded to the point of introducing legislation in respect of the National Advisory Education Council to propose that that word should disappear. “National Education Council” is quite adequate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.