Hon. members on this side of the House and the majority of the electorate outside looked forward to the Part Appropriation debate with the greatest interest, for this is the most important financial debate that will take place before the general election on 22nd April. In all probability we on this side of the House and the public outside expected the hon. members of the Opposition, who want to pose as the alternative government of the country, to avail themselves of this precious opportunity to state their own policy in positive terms, and also to avail themselves of this opportunity to tell the world how they would try to solve the financial problems of South Africa, as they see them. But, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that viewed from that angle, the contribution made by the hon. members opposite was a piteous failure, and that they have tragically failed to offer the voting public anything remotely resembling a positive financial policy in the place of our financial policy. All we have had from those hon. members, was a negative, destructive policy and general statements which, in point of fact, are meaningless. We have had unparalleled politicising. Even hon. members who used to speak exclusively on financial matters, now made party politics their primary motive in this debate, and then they searched for so-called financial arguments to substantiate that party political motive. In this respect I want to refer in particular to the hon. members for Pinetown and Parktown, who gave the poorest performances they have given in this Parliament for years. The hon. member for Pinetown is the perpetual questioner. His speeches consist of staccato movements which form a disjointed pattern, and other than that they consist of endless questions, one after the other. It is not a case of his expecting a reply to those questions, but he puts those dozens of questions in order to conceal the dearth of a policy of his own. I have always had a very high opinion of the hon. member for Park-town as a speaker on finance in these debates, and I have told others and himself as well that I have always held him in high esteem as a person who could speak financially on financial matters. But after what happened here two days ago, I am really afraid that I shall have to revise my opinion of the hon. member, because I have never heard from him, of whom I thought so highly, a speech which was so negative, which was of such a defeatist nature, and I may add, which was such an unpatriotic performance. In future we shall have to measure him against different criteria.

I am coming back to the hon. member for Constantia. As I understand that this will be the last second-reading debate on financial matters which the hon. member for Constantia will attend in this House, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to him. For more than 20 years the hon. member and I have been crossing swords across the floor of this House. We often differed with each other, but I think I can say that I have always regarded the views of that hon. member with the greatest respect. Although he has often dragged in politics, the hon. member has at least always tried to meet financial arguments with financial arguments, and economic matters with economic matters. I want to pay my tribute to the hon. member and express my regret that in the future we shall no longer be dealing in this House with a person of his calibre.

Then there is the hon. member for Kensington. He and I served together on many bodies, and apart from the political speeches he made at times, I must also say that I can speak appreciatively of the speeches he made on financial and economic matters in these debates. Of course, it was the hon. member for Kensington’s wont to speak about two topics in particular, namely relief in respect of the goldmine tax and a select committee on public corporations. But when the hon. member spoke, he spoke with authority and it was a pleasure to listen to him. The hon. member for Durban (Central) mainly spoke about other matters, but since he, too, is going to disappear, I want to tell the House that the speeches the hon. member for Durban (Point) so often made here on economic and financial matters were worth listening to. Those three hon. members will no longer be here at the commencement of the next session of Parliament.

Nor you.

I want to tell the hon. member, in the words of his colleague, the hon. member for Parktown, that “that is an exploded dream”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will now, when we meet here next time, be saddled with the hon. members for Parktown and Pinetown as his main speakers on finance. After the events of the past two days, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to consider whether those two persons are still suitable for that position oi whether he should not consider making a change.

Mr. Speaker, I am now coming back to the hon. member for Parktown, in the first place because of what he said here across the floor of the House in regard to gold and the gold agreement. The hon. member made so bold in this House as to say that the agreement we concluded in December last year in connection with the marketing of our gold, was a useless, weak and worthless agreement, without adducing a shred of evidence in support of that allegation of his. The hon. member complained that that agreement was worthless because I was allegedly out of touch with the thinking of the people of the world in this sphere and because I was allegedly so obsessed with the idea of a higher gold price that I failed to see the real facts. Sir, how did the hon. member arrive at that allegation for which he cannot adduce any proof? How did he arrive at that charge against me—and I am sorry to be personal—I who have over the past two years been working on the gold question day and night, who have been making a study of it day and night and who have not only read everything I could find to read about it, but have also availed myself of every opportunity, in countries abroad, in Western Europe and in America, to confer with the economists, with bankers, with statesmen and with everybody who knows something about the matter? I challenge the hon. member to prove to me that there has been one single move on the gold market or in regard to the gold question of which I have not been aware. But that is the patriotism one finds on that side. When a member of the South African Government goes abroad to negotiate an agreement for the good of his country, an hon. member such as that one disparages that agreement in the eyes of the world.

But is he to suppress the truth?

We shall deal with the truth. He disparages the agreement, without knowing what that agreement implies. That is the tragedy of the thing. Mr. Speaker, wherever I appeared in countries abroad, I did not appear in my personal capacity; I did not appear as a member of the National Party or as a member of the National Cabinet, but I appeared on behalf of and for South Africa. In trying to disparage what I, along with my team of experts, accomplished there, the hon. member is doing South Africa disservice. Sir, he talks about the value of the agreement as though it were worthless. How does the hon. member arrive at that? Mr. Speaker, if I want to know what the value of the agreement is, I am not going to ask this hon. member or that hon. member. I know of friends of gold and of friends of South Africa in Europe and America who have sent me letters and telegrams to congratulate us on this excellent agreement in regard to the marketing of our gold. I know of our enemies, who said that South Africa had received too much. I know of movements in the United States of America seeking to annul this agreement as it is allegedly too favourable for South Africa. If I want to know what the value of this agreement is, I shall not ask that hon. member what the value or the significance of the agreement is; I shall approach a body such as the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines has constantly been informed about every step we have taken. We did not inform them of every step taken in regard to the sales of gold—they know this—but as regards the procedure concerning the agreement we reached, we informed them continually and obtained their approval. At every conference of the I.M.F. —at Rio, at Washington and then at Washington again—a representative of the Chamber of Mines was present. We were continually in touch with each other. We explained to them what tactics we would follow and they signified their approval. They heard my speeches on those occasions and conveyed their congratulations. After this agreement had been concluded in December last year, the Chamber of Mines expressed to me their gratitude and their appreciation for the agreement we had negotiated. To the hon. member this means nothing. What is significant to me, is the opinion of the Chamber of Mines whose product is involved here.

You wanted to nationalize the mines in 1943.

That is an absolute untruth. The hon. member is merely trying to put me off the track. If the hon. member for Parktown does not want to believe me or the Chamber of Mines, he will perhaps believe the Americans. In one of its Research Reports dated 12th January, the American Institute of Economic Research dealt with this whole gold question and this agreement. It refers to these people who wanted to demonetize gold, who wanted to oust gold in order to replace it by the dollar, who wanted to force South Africa to sell all its gold on the free market in order to declare the dollar king? With reference to this agreement, the American Institute of Economic Research said the following—

This is what they are saying with reference to this agreement. Sir, the hon. member has probably heard of a man called Gordon Tether, a famous columnist in the London Financial Times, who wrote an article on “Who won the gold war?”. Mr. Gordon Tether, who is a famous person in this sphere, dealt with the whole matter and then said—

I do not like mentioning these things; I am not inclined to shout victory. Our interviews with the American representatives in recent months took place on a most friendly basis. They were tough negotiations but they took place in a friendly spirit, and it is not for us to shout victory. Let us rather say that nobody won; gold won and that is what is important.

I can furnish the hon. member, who says the agreement is worthless, with scores and scores of other quotations taken from statements made by people whose views on the significance of this agreement are quite different from the ones he holds. The hon. member said that in this agreement I had had to abandon all the objectives I had set; that I had not retained one of them. What is the position? Has the hon. member read that agreement? Did he understand it when he read it? Sir, if he read it and understood it while he read it, it would not have been possible for my hon. friend to say these things here. In the first place, what were those objectives? The first objective was the right on the part of South Africa to buy foreign currencies from the Fund in exchange for gold. Mr. Speaker, we have not given up that right; on the contrary, the Fund has now decided to take the one million fine ounces which we offered the Fund two years ago. We have never abandoned that right. The second one 9 mentioned, was the possibility of a further flow of newly mined gold into monetary reserves, irrespective of the price. In his speech the hon. member mentioned this as well. We have obtained that right. Apart from the right to sell gold to the Monetary Fund when the price of gold drops to $35 per fine ounce, or lower, we have the right, when we have a surplus on our balance of payments, to absorb such surplus gold into our reserves, and when we have a deficit on our balance of payments, to sell such newly mined gold to monetary authorities. How does the hon. member arrive at this criticism, i.e. that we did not get what we said we wanted to have? In addition, there is the right we obtained in International Monetary Fund transactions, to allow gold to flow into monetary reserves in such transactions.

In the third place, the hon. member mentioned the right to sell directly to other monetary authorities. Mr. Speaker, we have not abandoned that right. But if the hon. member would read that agreement again, he would find that an appeal was made to other countries not to buy gold from South Africa directly, but South Africa has never abandoned her right to sell gold to other monetary authorities. In the fourth place, the hon. member made mention of the attempt to differentiate between the so-called monetary gold and newly mined gold. He said that that attempt had to be reviewed. It goes without saying that that attempt has to be reviewed. We are still adhering to the same principles, i.e. that that attempt has to be reviewed, although we concede that even now there has been a slight breach of the dividing line in the sense that under certain conditions newly mined gold may flow into monetary gold.

The hon. member for Parktown said that I had abandoned our sovereignty in respect of gold, and the hon. member for Pinetown agrees with him. These are fine words, Mr. Speaker, this “sovereignty in the sphere of gold”. These are fine words, but what do they mean? Has South Africa ever had any sovereignty in the sphere of the marketing of her gold, and the price of her gold? Has South Africa ever had any sovereignty, after 1934, when an American president arbitrarily fixed the price of gold at 35 dollars per fine ounce? Have we ever had any control over the price and the marketing of our gold? Did South Africa have any sovereignty over the price and the marketing of her gold until the Gold Pool was established, and Britain and certain other nations deposited gold in it the moment the price of gold on the free market rose, in order to keep the price of gold low by these means? Did we have any sovereignty after March, 1968, when the ten countries led by America decided that there had to be a two-tier system, and when, at the instance of America, the monetary authorities of the various countries were prevailed upon to refrain from buying any gold from South Africa?

Can the hon. member for Parktown or the hon. member for Pinetown tell me whether we were sovereign when the monetary authorities of the world decided not to buy any newly mined gold or monetary gold from South Africa? Where do they get this fine word, “sovereignty”, when it comes to the marketing of our gold? If there ever was a time when we obtained a measure of freedom, then it was with this agreement of December, 1969, because it has granted us the right to sell and market gold with a floor price, and without a ceiling. Once again we are able to move on a national and international level. After the hon. member for Parktown had spoken in such a negative manner, I could no longer help saying: “Can you not come forward with something positive?” Then the hon. member said: “Wait a minute.” I waited for a while, and the hon. member did come forward with something positive. I wonder whether the hon. member for Karoo knows what positive suggestion he made?

Yes, he suggested that there should be a new Minister.

We are dealing here with matters of a much more serious nature. If the hon. member for Karoo wants to make jokes, he should rather do so somewhere else.

It is not a joke.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. member for Parktown’s solution to this gold question is? He says that in 1968, when the gold price rose to 40 dollars and more, we should have run to the markets, and South Africa should have dumped all its gold on the markets in order to force the gold price down to 35 dollars per fine ounce.

That is correct.

The hon. member says it is correct. Just imagine, Sir, that when the world is prepared to pay us 40 to 45 dollars for our gold, South Africa is to tell the world, “We do not want your 40 or 45 dollars per fine ounce. You can get our gold at only 35 dollars per ounce.” [Interjections.] The hon. member is laughing at himself, Sir. Just imagine, Sir, when other people of the world show confidence in our gold and are prepared to pay a high price for it, we in South Africa are to say to them, “You should not have that confidence in gold. It is not worth it. Go ahead and sell your gold for 35 dollars and less, and we shall see to it that the price remains at 35 dollars and lower.” Thank goodness, Sir, that that hon. member and his party were not in power at the time. This is his solution, and what would have happened if we had done so? He would have dumped all our gold on the free market at 35 dollars an ounce, and we would have been without gold to-day. We would to-day have been without that premium which we earned, and we would have been without an agreement, because he would have abandoned all his powers. I have never heard such a solution from a responsible speaker. Now the hon. member says that we should have negotiated back in 1968, because our present negotiations were conducted from a position of weakness, whereas at that time it would have been possible for us to negotiate from a position of strength. Does the hon. member not know the history of the past two years? When, in September and October, 1968, we conducted in Washington negotiations in regard to the marketing of our gold, South Africa was in a tremendously strong position. We had a large surplus on our balance of payments. We had high reserves and a tremendous inflow of capital. We were strong, but when we were strong, we received our worst offer on the part of America. In September and October, 1969, when our position began to weaken more and more, when we did not have that large net capital inflow and our reserves began to show a downward trend, when we were in a weaker position generally, owing to the adverse balance of payments, we negotiated the best agreement with the Americans. And then the hon. member says we negotiated from a position of weakness. In 1968 we could not negotiate the benefits we negotiated in December, 1969.

Subsequent to that the hon. member raised a very serious matter. He said one of the weaknesses I had to deal with, was that I negotiated under the illusion of a higher official gold price, the dream of a higher official gold price. Allegedly I was so obsessed with that, that I did not know what I was doing. I have often said in this House and in public that this operation in which I was engaged, did not concern a higher official gold price. This operation concerned the marketing of our gold and the maintenance of the place of gold in the international monetary system. The higher official gold price is something which would only come later and be brought about by circumstances. I have told the hon. member this both in this House and outside. The hon. member is in fact scoffing at the idea of a higher official gold price for our gold. Mr. Speaker, just imagine: South Africa, the largest producer of gold in the free world. South Africa which produces 75 per cent of the free world’s gold; just imagine. Sir, that our gold which represents almost 40 per cent of our export earnings, and that this, which is our greatest single article of export, has had the same price for 36 years already, and that over all these years all of us have been striving after a higher official price, and then an important speaker of the United Party says that the idea of obtaining a higher official price for our gold is “an exploded dream”. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that? I want to know whether it is the policy of the Opposition that we may now tell the public outside that the idea of obtaining a higher official price for our gold, is an illusion and a dream and that we should forget it? All South African Governments, be they National Party Governments or United Party Governments, and to my knowledge all Ministers as well, have always striven after an increase in the official price of gold. This is the South African policy, but now the United Party has come forward with a new policy and they tell us that this is something impracticable; we had better forget about it. They are so unpatriotic that they find it possible to attack and blame a Minister who strives in public after a higher gold price. What a wonderful thing has now entered our political and financial life!

We are talking about the facts, not the dreams.

We are talking about the facts and not the dreams, and it is an undisputed fact that the hon. member has said that the idea of a higher official price is “an exploded dream”.

Is it or is it not?

It is not.

The hon. member for Pinetown, who preceded that hon. member, was slightly more careful not to fall into the same trap all the time. I find it very striking that the hon. member for Pinetown read out here a newspaper article which was supposed to place me in a bad light, and in which it was said, inter alia, that not 1, nor others, but Dr. Gerhard de Kok was responsible for this favourable agreement being concluded. I am not keen to discuss officials across the floor of the House. Dr. Gerhard de Kok is a very good official, a particularly able economist of whom I have the highest opinion. But to claim in an article, which the hon. member submitted here, that Dr. Gerhard de Kok is responsible for this favourable agreement being concluded, is something which is devoid of all truth. This person, who is apparently an embittered journalist and who writes this way, forgets that this was a team effort. He loses sight of the valuable services rendered in the team work by people such as Mr. Browne, the Secretary for Finance, and Dr. De Jongh, the President of the Reserve Bank and other officials in this country. But why did the hon. member use that particular clipping? If the hon. member had searched around, he would have found many other clippings telling a different story. I am sorry that this has to be personal again, but it is known and it has been said throughout the world by our friends and enemies alike, that in these negotiations South Africa conducted herself with the greatest measure of patience and dignity. But the hon. member prefers to read out here an article in which South Africa is represented in an unfavourable light. The Sunday Times, for instance, to mention only one, said the following—

The hon. member for Pinetown also questioned me here on the phenomena of growth funds. The hon. member knows my point of view. We have on quite a number of occasions discussed growth funds across the floor of the House. Our views did correspond rather a great deal. The hon. member will recall that two or three years ago already I warned in this House against the dangers which might lurk in the growth fund movement, and that I warned in this House against the methods of advertising employed by certain growth funds, which promised the investor an infinite growth. I said in this House that growth funds were inclined to cause a rising economic cycle to rise more rapidly and a declining economic cycle to decline more rapidly, that they did not have any balancing effect on the economy. We issued our warnings. But a Government cannot introduce legislation on everything. Nor do I believe that this is what the hon. member meant. The Government cannot dictate to its citizens where they are to invest and where they are not to invest. Those hon. members, who are always complaining that the Government is allegedly interfering too much in matters which should be left to private enterprise, will agree with me. The hon. member has now asked whether we are going to do anything in connection with the growth funds or whether we are going to help them. I want to reply to this by saying that ail the growth funds have the backing of the strongest companies in the country. I take it that it will in the first place be the task and the intention of those strong companies to back those growth funds in their present position so that no panic need arise amongst the investors. But we on our part have also done our share. The hon. member will know that under the Act the growth funds are obliged to invest a certain part of their funds in approved investments, inter alia, in government securities. As it happened, growth funds have surplus investments in government bonds in the sense that they have invested more in them than is required. We told the growth funds that they would have the right, in cases where they had surplus investments in government securities, to sell such surplus securities back to us so that they might have liquidity. Then they would have cash funds available so that when they were pressed, it would not always be necessary for them to sell their shares on the market. This is the aid we granted.

The hon. member also referred to credit control. I find it strange that a party which claims to be the alternative government of the country, does not know the difference between a general credit relaxation and selective credit relaxation. In a previous speech we tried to explain this to them, but hon. members opposite merely shook their heads as though there were no difference between the two. We said that general credit relaxation meant that the ceiling was being raised over the entire broad front. A general credit relaxation will bring about considerable relief in respect of advances, discountings, investments, the percentage of the liquid asset requirements, the reserves and in many other spheres. Selective credit relaxation as we have done it in the past year, merely amounts to the ceiling being raised by 5 per cent or 10 per cent or the liquid asset requirements being reduced by a few per cent and for specific purposes. This is done selectively as circumstances permit. I should now like to put a question to the hon. member. Are the hon. member and his party in favour of a general lifting of credit control? In this very same House we were attacked about words which appeared in the State President’s address, namely that considering should not now be given to a general relaxation or lifting of credit control. I was also attacked here because I had subsequently said that there would be a selective relaxation of credit control. However, when I ask hon. members opposite whether they are in favour of a general relaxation of credit control, silence is the only answer we receive.

The hon. member for Constantia had a great deal to say about the over-taxation with which we were allegedly burdening the country. He mentioned here very impressive figures of surpluses which this Government had allegedly built up out of excess taxes over the past few years. The hon. member and other hon. members said that at these elections they would go to the public and charge the government with having over-taxed the nation and, for that reason, having large surpluses every year. We admit to those surpluses. Over the past number of years this has already become customary with South African Governments. We are prepared to tell the people outside that they have a National Government which knows how to balance off its budget with a surplus every year. The nation does not have a government which spends all the money it receives in the course of the year. We shall tell the nation that it has a government which saves the money and puts it away for when it may be necessary, just as every individual and every businessman does by not spending everything he receives, but by building up a reserve for the future. The hon. member for Hillbrow is smiling about this matter. It probably does his labour heart very good to hear that there is a government in this country which is able to preserve things and which is also able to teach thrift to the worker and the labourer by creating surpluses for the future. I want to tell the hon. member for Constantia that his outlook is quite one-sided. The hon. member only looked at the Revenue and the Expenditure Accounts of the Government. But a budget does after all consist of two accounts. It does not only consist of a revenue and expenditure account, but also of a loan account. We shall be able to tell the nation outside that a government has to go to the public every year in order to borrow money, and that there are years, as is the case at present, when it finds it difficult to obtain, by means of loans, the money it requires for proceeding with its services. It is in times such as these that the reserves built up by a government in the course of years, comes in very handy. In such a case the government can use such reserves to supplement the amount it cannot obtain from loan funds. The reserves we had built up, were a mighty weapon in our hands in combating inflation. If, during the past years, we had not drained away money from the buying public, the inflation would have been much worse. These reserves are a powerful weapon if there should be another recession. In such a case we would be able to pour these savings into the private sector so that increased liquidity may come about. In a year such as this one, in which there is a tremendous scarcity of loan funds, in which very high rates of interest prevail, the nation will remain grateful to this Government for the fact that it saved and that it held money in reserve in order to supplement its loan funds.

Now I come to a question on which I have often been attacked. This is the question of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. I am very glad to see that hon. members opposite accept my explanation of the rise and the fall of the prices of shares. During the whole debate conducted in this regard over the past two days, not one of the hon. members on that side of the House expressed criticism against the analysis I gave in my speech of the reasons why share prices had soared to such unprecedented heights and subsequently dropped so rapidly again. In other words, they accept all of it. These hon. members are now looking for a scapegoat who can be blamed for the conditions on the Exchange. They are trying to make a scapegoat of me, because according to them I allegedly made two contradictory statements on the same day, i.e. in this House and in the Other Place. Let us see what the circumstances were on that day. On 18th June, round about 11 a.m., I made a statement in this House to the effect that one way of combating inflation would be to drain money away to countries abroad, but that it would not be possible for us to do so if we had not solved the problem of marketing gold. After all, it is obvious that what I meant by that, was a systematic, continuous, large-scale relaxation of exchange control. This could only take place if it were possible for us to market our gold systematically and to obtain foreign exchange for our gold. After all, this is as clear as daylight. I added that there were no prospects of such a solution being obtained before the end of the year. I was right in both of my standpoints. I was right when I said that it would only be possible to drain money away to countries abroad on a large scale if we could obtain foreign exchange on a large scale. I was also right in saying that an agreement would only be concluded by the end of the year. But what happened in the Senate the other afternoon? Late that afternoon, when I had to appear in the Senate, I received a report which I did not have that morning. For quite some time my Department and the Reserve Bank were engaged in certain transactions which we did not know would go through. In fact, we did not believe they would go through. But late that afternoon the report was received that we had obtained extra foreign exchange through certain gold sales. Out of respect for Parliament I availed myself of the first opportunity, and before I started on my other debates, I made a statement in the Other Place in order to announce to the public of South Africa and Parliament that we had obtained extra foreign exchange through sales of gold and that there would be a relaxation in exchange control, a relaxation similar to the one that occurred in July, 1968. In July, 1968, there was a relaxation of import control.

Did you say that in the Senate?

I said it in the course of the debate. In July, 1968, we introduced a similar relaxation, and it had no effect on the Stock Exchange. As it was possible for us to sell a little extra gold, we proceeded in June last year with a gradual further relaxation. Hon. members are now saying that this was because of the state of the Stock Exchange. Hon. members wanted to know why I had not said that. I did. I mentioned it in the Senate. Unfortunately it was not recorded in Hansard. The next day I told the hon. member for Constantia that it had not been possible for me to make that statement here in the morning since I did not have those particulars at the time. I only received them late that afternoon. I can call the President of the Reserve Bank as witness. But what is wrong with that, really? What difference would it have made to the course of events if I had made that morning’s speech in the Senate that evening or that evening’s statement in the Senate in the House of Assembly that morning? What difference would that have made? Hon. members arc merely looking for an alternative which they know is not the real one. I did make that statement.

It is no improvement.

But these are the facts, and if the hon. member is so dense that he cannot grasp those facts, I cannot help it. These are real facts.

It is also an admission of guilt.

The hon. member who finds it so easy to write in The Argus and in other newspapers about things which he unfortunately does not understand and does that with a view to political gain, should accept these facts. I want to know from him what difference it would have made if I had made that evening’s statement in the House of Assembly that morning.

He does not know.

I shall tell you.

It is only by politicians and politically-inspired newspapers that I have been attacked as if I were the cause of the recession on the Stock Exchange. No economist of repute, no broker of repute and no businessman of repute and without political motives, has ever attacked me. On the contrary.

Except The Transvaler.

I am referring to economists of repute. The hon. member is feeling very sore. I cannot help it if he feels very sore. From all quarters I have had masses of evidence to the effect that I had sounded warnings in this House, time and time and again, that the Stock Exchange tended to be too high. I am not the only one who issued that warning. I have stacks and stacks of reports from economists who over the past two years warned the public not to pay those crazy prices and who said that at some time or other the Stock Exchange would have to collapse. I have done my duty. When I issued these warnings to the public last year, the hon. member for Parktown said that I could warn as much as I pleased, but that “the prices will go higher and higher”. It was he, Mr. Speaker, not I. I warned the public but in May a prominent member of the United Party told the public: Go ahead and buy! The prices will rise more!

Mr. Speaker, time is passing rapidly, I have here evidence from a very prominent stockbroker of Johannesburg whose name I may, of course, not mention. In January 1969, in in October, 1968, and in May, 1969, he warned his people against these prices by saying that things could not go on that way. He said the public could not buy at those impossible prices. I have here a quotation taken from what was said by another well-known broker in Johannesburg. It is taken from a confidential report which he sent to his clients. He said the following—

He went on to say—

Mulholland of the Sunday Times wrote as follows—

In Hoofstad Dr. Jacobs voiced a similar denial. On 22nd November, 1969, the Sunday Express had the following to say in an editorial—

After all, the President of the Exchange surely is a person who can speak with authority. Surely, as far as the Stock Exchange is concerned, he can speak with more authority than the hon. member for Yeoville can. In a speech which the President of the Stock Exchange made on 9th September, 1969, he said the following—

I can continue in this way to give you, Sir, one quotation after the other by people who are authorities as far as the Stock Exchange is concerned—not politicians like my hon. friend, the member for Yeoville. These people admit that the Exchange reached unprecedented and unrealistic heights in May, 1969. It had to collapse some time or other. If the Stock Exchange had not collapsed in that week, it would perhaps have collapsed later. Thank heavens it collapsed earlier! Thank heavens it did not wait longer before it collapsed and dragged along even more people! Perhaps that is what the hon. members wanted. It is very clear that my speech on a partial relief of exchange control was incidental to the drop in prices. It was by no means the cause of it. Everyone has to agree that those who suggest that this was the cause of it, are merely politicising. How can the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members blame me for that? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in the Eastern Transvaal not so long ago in which he, too, made these very same allegations. The next morning a very big businessman of Johannesburg telephoned me and said, “I am not a Nationalist, but what Graaff said last night about the Stock Exchange is pure nonsense.” This is the opinion held by one of the supporters of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Now these hon. members are asking me, “What now?”.

What about bearing the market?

Those hon. members have a few small ideas in their heads, such as “bearing the market”, but those ideas will not carry them to victory on 22nd April. They will have to come forward with something less tenuous and better. The hon. member has now asked me, “Now what about the Stock Exchange?”. I am now being told that the Government should do something in order to help the Stock Exchange out of the position in which it now finds itself. I am extremely sorry for the people who lost their money on the Stock Exchange. I am very sorry that after we had warned them that it would happen, it did happen. I wish something could happen which could help those people. It would be wrong for any person and any government to take steps, if they could do so, which would again force up the Stock Exchange to unrealistic heights. The best we can do, is to ensure that the economy of the country is sound and that its finances are in good order. Let us build up our economy and the soundness of the finances of our country. Let us keep South Africa what it is—one of the five strongest countries in the world financially, one of the five countries in the world that are the soundest financially and economically. Let us keep South Africa that way and make it even stronger financially and economically. Let there emanate from us a spirit of confidence in our country, its economy and its future—not the defeatism of the hon. member for Parktown; not the feeling that the struggle for a higher gold price has already been lost. On the contrary, let there emanate from us a spirit of inspiration based on confidence in our country. As far as the economic future of our country is concerned, I have that confidence, based on the fact that its policy this Government has ensured the growth and development of our country during the past 21 years, and has done so to such an extent that last year, in spite of the plaintive tones which came from my friends on the opposite side of this House, we could achieve a real rate of growth of between 7 and 7½ per cent—one of the strongest in the entire world. And what is more, we have succeeded in doing so under very difficult circumstances. Therefore, I believe in the future of my country in the sphere of economics. I believe that South Africa will go from strength to strength, and that each year will bring evidence of what was described in The Argus last night as, “S.A.’s biggest industrial boom”, and in which it was shown that South Africa had developed industrially as had seldom been the case before. If only the hon. Opposition would display the same degree of patriotism, if only they would have the same degree of faith in the future and if, to the same degree, they would only think less negatively, they, too, would possibly make a contribution to the improvement of the economy of South Africa to create confidence in the future and to bring about by those means an improvement in the condition of the Stock Exchange.

I also wanted to deal with the sales duty and other matters raised here by hon. members. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. I just want to tell hon. members opposite in all friendliness that we shall have no hesitation whatsoever in submitting to the nation each of the charges they levelled against us, and on the basis of facts, and not of politicizing, we shall show the nation that this Government has built up South Africa financially and economically into one of the soundest and, comparatively speaking, into one of the strongest nations of the world. Up to now there has been confidence on the part of the nation in the administration of this Government, and we know that on 22nd April the nation will once again show its confidence in this Government, and will, in fact, do so to an overwhelming extent.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—107: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S.P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Del-port, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwell, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Mool-man. J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Tay lor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill Parliament is requested to vote additional funds for the services of the Republic for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1970. In the Appropriation Act of 1969 a total amount of R2.348.3 million was voted. Now a further R127.6 million is being requested, namely R88.4 million on the Revenue account, R34.7 million on the Loan Account, R0.3 million on the Bantu Education Account and R4.2 million on the S.W.A. account.

Mr. Speaker, the amount on the Revenue Account is considerably higher than that usually requested in the Additional Estimates, but special circumstances have necessitated this. Thus, for example, an additional R10.5 million has to be provided for salaries. Hon. members will remember that I set aside R15 million for this purpose last year. This amount was, however, not voted because details still had to be worked out. I am grateful to be able to say that as a result of savings which could be effected on departmental expenditure, an additional amount of only R10.5 million needs to be voted for salaries. This amount is spread over several Votes.

No less than an additional R22.5 million has to be provided for the provinces, whether as statutory or extra-statutory subsidies. I am grateful to be able to announce that our investigation into a new subsidy basis for the provinces has reached an advanced stage, and that we are looking forward to a new, more satisfactory arrangement.

Of the R15.6 million under the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote, R6.5 million relates to the earthquake in the Boland. Of this amount, R1.5 million is for emergency housing, and R5 million a grant-in-aid to the Disaster Fund. The Government would like to express its real sympathy with the stricken population in this tangible way, and I want to add that additional amounts, if necessary, will be provided in subsequent years. Furthermore, an additional R7.5 million is required on this Vote for pension and provident funds.

The payments to neighbouring countries under the new customs and excise agreements amount to an additional R12.2 million.

On the Loan Account a further RIO million is requested for transfer to the Railway and Harbour Fund to cover expenditure which has already been authorized by this House. A further R15 million is required for the Land Bank. I made an announcement in this connection last week.

The Government must do everything in its power to ensure a sufficient water supply and an additional amount of R9.1 million is required for this.

A total amount of R4.2 million is required on the S.W.A. Account. When the Estimates for 1969-’70 were prepared, little information was available in some cases and accurate estimates could not be made. Savings are expected on some Votes, however, so that the total expenditure should not differ too much from the amount originally estimated.

Mr. Speaker, I do not regard it necessary to furnish any further details at this stage. As is customary, my colleagues will be prepared to answer any questions which hon. members want to ask, during the Committee Stage. I shall content myself with saying that I am satisfied that the amounts requested are essential for the performance of the services for which they are being requested.

I should like, before I start, to thank the hon. the Minister for the kind remarks he made about me earlier this afternoon. I have over the past years enjoyed crossing swords with him. Sometimes I felt a little sorry for him because my sword was so much heavier in weight than his and the case I was trying to argue was so much stronger than his. But nevertheless it was a pleasure to deal with him in this House and I thank him for his remarks.

Sir, in introducing these Estimates, which are customarily discussed in detail in the committee stage, the hon. the Minister has pointed out that they are more than twice as high as they were last year, and one can understand in the circumstances that they would be somewhat higher. I cannot help feeling nevertheless that the hon. the Minister has packed them as well as he can in view of the surplus he expects. He remarked that of the R88 million which we are asked to vote on Revenue Account some RKH million is for salaries and wages. It is noteworthy, when one analyses those increases, that over half of them are in respect of salaries and wages for prison staff and police. This emphasizes what the administration of justice is costing the country at the present time. The other amounts to which the hon. the Minister referred can be discussed in greater detail in Committee. Therefore, we have no objection to the House going into Committee on this Bill now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Revenue Vote No. 4,—“Prime Minister, R18,000”.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Prime Minister give us the reason for the additional amount of R8,000 which is required for his Department in respect of subsistence and transport, and can he also furnish more details in regard to the additional R6,200 for miscellaneous expenses? Can he give us an indication of what these additional miscellaneous expenses comprise?

Mr. Chairman, I shall first reply to the hon. member’s last question. These additional miscellaneous expenses are mainly, except for an amount of R300, in respect of the State funeral of the late Senator Tom Naudé, for which, naturally, no provision was made on the Estimates.

As far as the first matter is concerned, a portion of the additional R8,000 is accounted for by the appointment of the Commission of Enquiry into State Security. The subsistence and travelling expenses of witnesses and of the chairman and the officials of the commission are included in this. In the second instance, a portion of it is in respect of the official journey which the economic adviser, Dr. Rickert, undertook in Europe on behalf of the Government. A further amount is in respect of the subsistence and travelling expenses and allowances of the members of the Economic and Scientific Advisory Council.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 6,—“Cultural Affairs, R758.274”, and 7,—“Higher Education, R6,200,400”, and S.W.A. Vote No. 2,—“Cultural Affairs, R18,700”.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us some information as to the very big increase in respect of Subhead J—Grants-in-Aid to the National Advisory Council for Adult Education for the Advancement of Youth Services, Adult Education, Art and Science and Publicity—in Vote No. 6? Can the hon. the Minister explain to us why this large increase of 50 per cent was necessary? In Vote No. 7 an additional amount of R4,409,900 is required under Subhead G—Financial Assistance to Universities and Bursaries for University Education. Can the hon. the Minister please give us details of how that amount is being allocated?

Mr. Chairman, several items are involved here. In the first place, there is R20,000 in respect of the Hartebeespoort Dam camping site. Hon. members know that the spillway of the dam is being raised and that when the dam is full, the existing camp will be below the water level of the dam, so that a new camp has to be built. For this reason R20,000 has been provided for the purchase at this stage of the necessary equipment to carry out the work.

Then an amount of R496,000 has been provided for the Performing Arts. A new basis of subsidy is applicable for the promotion of the Performing Arts. In this connection, too, increased salaries to the amount of R114,200 are involved. There is a new subsidy basis in respect of community theatres as well. A smaller amount has also been provided in order to complete the theatre in Welkom. In addition, an amount of R16,560 has been provided for the Vaktaalburo of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. The payment of an improved subsidy as from 1969-’70 has been approved. Improved salaries are also involved here.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us why an increased subsidy is being paid to the Africa Institute?

Mr. Chairman, because of the increase in salaries as from 1st April, 1969, an additional amount of R7,664 has been granted to the Africa Institute.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister a question in connection with Vote 7, but he has not yet given me a reply. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he could tell us how the amount of R4,409,900, being financial assistance to universities, is being allocated.

Mr. Chairman, the amount is made up as follows. In the first place, the subsidy payable to universities was underestimated to the tune of R2.4 million. Then there were salary adjustments with effect from 1st October, 1969, to 31st December, 1969, to the amount of R1 million.

In respect of which university?

This is a combined amount in respect of all the universities. In the third place there is the non-pensionable allowance in respect of 1968 and 1969, which also amounts to R1 million. This comes to a total amount of R4.4 million. Then there is an amount of R5,000 in respect of the training of engineers for the South African Navy. So far engineers for the Navy have been trained overseas, but a start has now been made with the training of marine engineers at the University of Stellenbosch and additional provision had to be made for this. Then there is an amount of R3,750 in respect of bursaries for non-white medical students and an amount of R1,150 in respect of national stipendia. This amounts to a total of R4,409,900.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 8,—“Treasury, R618,000”, 10,—“Provincial Administrations, R22,504,400”, 12, — “Inland Revenue, R264.870”, and 13,—“Customs and Excise, R12,793,000”, Loan Vote A,—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services, R25,595,000”, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 3,—“Miscellaneous Services, R1,706,600”, 4,—“Inland Revenue, R5.100, and 5,—“Customs and Excise, R5.850”:

Mr. Chairman, in Vote 10 there are two items dealing with salaries and allowances, one under Subhead A of R4.700, and another item under the globular amount of R9,983,300. Why are these two salary items separated? That is my first question. Could we be told the amount under Subhead F in respect of the salary scales which have been revised?

Secondly, will the hon. the Minister please tell us how much the contribution to the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association is?

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information from the hon. the Minister on item H under Vote No. 8, namely “Taking Over of Private Automatic Exchanges: Compensation to the Post Office— R400,000”. As hon. members will know, this is a new item. It seems to be an item which contradicts legislation we have passed in this House. Actually, the Post Office was to control everything connected with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but now we find that the Treasury is taking over certain private automatic exchanges. I do think that we need a detailed explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to that. Are there going to be private exchanges now over which the Post Office has no control? I think the country should like to know, because the interest of certain other departments in the Post Office and in tapping telephone lines have been discussed at length during this session. It might very well be that this is a further development in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us information on two items, one in Vote No. 12, namely “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour”, and the same item in Vote No. 13, amounting to R130,000.

Mr. Chairman, as far as item H under Vote No. 12 is concerned, I may just say that this is a refund to a private company. Section 48 of the Income Tax Act provides that the income of a private company which is not distributed to its shareholders, but which is retained by the company, is subject to the undistributed profits tax. This company derives practically all its income from dividends. It pays out everything which it receives. It retains nothing. During its financial year it pays out everything which it receives. As the hon. member knows, the Act provides that, in the case where a company is made subject to the undistributed profits tax, it must make its payments within the period of 12 months, i.e. the period from six months before to six months after the end of its financial year. The financial year of this company extended from 1st January to 31st December, and it made its payments for 1967 correctly in the distribution year extending from 1st July to 30th June. This was the case in 1968 as well. The company subsequently changed its financial year so that it ran from 1st July to 30th June. It then had only six months in which it could pay out. The last dividend of the company was paid to shareholders immediately, but it was done ten days too early. If the company had not changed its financial year, it would have been completely in order in terms of the Act, but because it had changed its financial year, this was technically outside its distribution period of six months. For that reason undistributed profits tax was then imposed in respect of the amount concerned. In all other respects it was within the letter and the spirit of the Act.

Last year we agreed to two similar cases here, and my information is that we get one or two of these cases each year. It usually happens when a company changes its financial year. It usually happens then that some payment or other technically does not fall in that company’s distribution year, which does not coincide with its financial year. This is the only explanation for this and I repeat that this was done completely within the spirit and the letter of the Act. If the company had not changed its financial year, the payment would have been in order and not subject to tax.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this is now to be practice under the set of circumstances as enumerated by him? In cases that happen exactly like this one, can this now be considered as standard practice?

Mr. Chairman, I would not say that it can be regarded as practice. I only mentioned that I can remember that we had two similar cases last year. On the Treasury’s authority we can pay out. The payments have to be condoned by Parliament and that is the reason why it is shown here. We can investigate the matter in order to amend the law, but we do not think it is necessary. There are thousands of companies in the country and only one or two cases come before Parliament now and again.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville has asked me about the difference between the two types of salaries under item A and item F. The difference is that item A represents the salaries of Administrators and provincial auditors. Administrators and provincial auditors are officials of the Central Government. Item F represents the salaries of other members of the Provincial Service. The hon. member has also asked me about the contributions to the Provincial medical scheme. I am afraid that the only questions the hon. member may ask me are in regard to the reasons for a rise in expenditure. There is no rise in expenditure as far as this matter is concerned, and there fore no provision is made. I can therefore give no reply.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me about the reasons for the increase in the amount of postage to be paid. As we know, after the Post Office became independent …

I was talking about item H.

I am sorry. Item H deals with private exchanges and, as the hon. member will know, there are quite a number of them in State Departments. These exchanges and instruments belong to the Post Office. It has now been decided to buy these exchanges from the Post Office and elsewhere and for that reason a sum of R400,000 is being asked for. I hope the hon. member knows what I mean by exchanges. All Departments do not have exchanges.

Like the one in Parliament.

Yes, like the one in Parliament. Some Departments have such exchanges where one member of the Department for instance could ring another member of the same Department without going through the central exchange.

Some have round holes and others square holes.

Mr. Chairman, may I have an explanation of item G of Vote 13?

Mr. Chairman, the position here is that the South African Railways and Harbours, as hon. members know, has the right to buy its supplies tax free. However, it cannot always buy all its supplies tax free, and on certain goods tax is in fact paid. There is a fixed formula according to which it is compensated every year for the amount paid by it on goods which it cannot buy tax free. The South African Railways furnishes adequate documentary proof of these purchases every year. Then agreement is reached on the amount which has to be paid to it in terms of the formula. The amount which had to be paid to them was under estimated. This is the explanation for part of this amount which is being requested.

The rest of the amount being requested is money which has to be paid to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In the past this Department has always collected all customs duties on parcels entering the country from overseas. As hon. members know, the arrangement of free services to State Departments was terminated on 31st March. As from 1st April we have also had to pay for those services. The charges involved have been calculated and through negotiation it has been fixed at a certain amount. Then there is also the service which this Department renders to the Department of Customs and Excise in connection with the printing and distribution of all cigarette stamps. An additional amount has become payable to the Post Office for this, as it has increased the salaries of its officials.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not satisfied with the reply given by the hon. the Minister in regard to the R400,000 he asks to be voted for taking over certain private automatic exchanges. I am even less satisfied after having heard that these private exchanges which are being taken over, are largely those belonging to certain Departments of State. We previously had the position—and I was satisfied with that position— that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was in charge of these large exchanges. These exchanges are sensitive and sophisticated electronic instruments. I was satisfied when I heard from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that he had never given any instructions for any listening device to be attached to a telephone. However, if these exchanges are to be handed over to certain other Departments, those particular Departments can indeed attach listening-in devices. It can be done easily through their exchanges. They can listen in to calls from outside by attaching the listening-in instrument to their particular exchanges. That is for outside calls. At the same time they can monitor or “inluister” or “meeluister” or whatever the word is, inter-departmental conversations. They can attach listening instruments to those exchanges which will now be under the sole control of certain Departments. I am making a guess when I say that the Department of Interior has an exchange which is being taken over here. Possibly this is the case with the Department of Police or the Department of Justice. I do not know whether I am quite correct in surmising this. However, I should like to know where these exchanges are which the Government is now taking over at a cost of R400,000 and to which listening devices can be attached with impunity in future without the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who is an honourable man, knowing about it or having to come to this House and explain whether such listening devices exist or do not exist. I believe this is a dangerous measure. I do not like the explanation we have had from the hon. the Minister. I do want him to tell us which are these Departments where the exchanges are now going to be under the sole control of those Departments themselves. I should also like to know whether we shall have items in future on the Estimates under which we could question these particular exchanges and the way they work.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to subhead F of Vote No. 13, which shows an increase of R12,251,600 in respect of payments to neighbouring territories under customs and excise agreements. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister could give us further details in this regard and whether it includes the additional sales tax on goods that go to the neighbouring territories. In other words, does this item include provision for sales tax?

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what the respective amounts which are paid to neighbouring territories are?

Mr. Chairman, the reason for this increase is that the distribution of the revenue in the Customs Union formed by the Republic, Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana—the former British High Commission Territories—has up to now been based on a formula calculated on an average of three years before 1910. During all these years the revenue was distributed within the Customs Union and payments were made to these three territories on the basis of that formula. It stands to reason that after so many years the formula became obsolete as a result of the economic development in the Republic and the three territories concerned. As an industrial country South Africa in particular has developed very strongly in the economic field. In addition to that, we have been applying fairly strong industrial protection, which in turn resulted in a much smaller amount in customs duties being paid into the joint distribution fund. Apart from that, these territories, as you know, became independent States and new negotiations had to be entered into. These negotiations were concluded and out of them a new formula was born, a formula which takes into account the trade flowing into and out of the neighbouring independent states. This formula takes into account the trade between them and us. It most certainly takes into account the sales duty. Provision is made for it in the formula. The various amounts which will be paid to the respective territories this year will be as follows: Botswana. R4,846,853: Lesotho, R4,494,312; and Swaziland, R7,115,370.

I rise to register my protest. We have not had a reply from the hon. the Minister of finance about certain misgivings in connection with the enormous amount of R400,000 which is being requested so as to enable the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to take over certain automatic exchanges. As the hon. the Minister said, some of those exchanges belong to certain State Departments. I had misgivings in that it was not possible for certain departments to listen in, without the knowledge of the Post Office, by attaching an electronic device to those ex changes. There has been no reply from the hon. the Minister of Defence.

Not all people are like you, who likes to listen in.

I have far better things to do than to listen in. The trouble experienced by all hon. members of the House, myself included, is that if you dial a number nowadays you find someone else on the line two times out often. The fact that the hon. the Minister has not replied, can give rise to a great many questions. I hope he is now going to take the opportunity of giving us an assurance that when these exchanges are taken over, these listening-in devices will not be used. This applies not only to calls coming from outside, but also to inter-departmental calls. This can make it possible for any Minister to have his own little Gestapo, with their own listening-in devices, to listen into what one member of a department says to another. Tape recordings can also be made of telephone conversations. This is something which, if use is made of it without its having to be accounted for in Parliament, can lead to a terrible state of affairs in South Africa. It is far better to have all these telephone systems under the control of one Minister, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Then we can at least call him to account when listening-in takes place. The fact that control over various exchanges is here being given to various departments, which can do with them just what they please, is an infringement of the rights of the individual. It is an infringement of freedom of speech, and it is another sign that democracy is being undermined more and more by this Government.

The hon. member need not have risen to protest, because as far as I can remember, there is a rule in this House that no two speakers are allowed to speak at the same time. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke and I would have spoken after him, but the hon. member apparently wanted us to reply to the questions simultaneously. I was ready to get up and give the hon. member an explanation. The hon. member is conjuring up spectres here which do not belong here at all. This change is merely a mechanical change. Previously the Post Office supplied those large automatic exchanges to the departments. The Post Office has now said that it will no longer supply those automatic exchanges, so that the departments themselves will now have to buy those exchanges. The departments must, however, buy these exchanges from an approved private supplier. The Post Office is no longer supplying the exchanges, and the departments now have to buy the exchanges from private suppliers. Those exchanges which the Post Office supplied in the past, they now have to buy or hire from the Post Office. It has been decided to buy the exchanges rather than to hire them at a high rental.

Who will be doing the servicing?

It will be done in exactly the same way as in the past. There will be no change of control and policy; everything will be done as in the past, with the one exception that the Post Office will no longer supply the exchanges, but that private initiative itself will have to supply them.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how many lines are involved. Earlier this Session we have heard that a 10-line switchboard costs R64; that means R6.4 per line. If one takes that as an average, it means that over 6,000 lines will be involved. We should like to know whether it is in fact the case that 6,000 lines are involved. Otherwise, I should like to know how does it work out that a 10-line exchange cost R64.

The hon. the Minister did not reply to the important point raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove in regard to the number of exchanges which are involved and to which departments they are going. This is a new item on the Estimates and this appears to be a point to which the hon. the Minister has not yet replied. It refers to exchanges, in the plural, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give an indication of how many exchanges are involved and to which departments these exchanges refer.

I cannot give the hon. member the number of departments, but I may just tell him that practically all departments which have automatic exchanges to-day, are concerned in this matter. There are very few departments which do not have such automatic exchanges. The hon. member can take it that the vast majority of the departments have automatic exchanges.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member has already had three turns.

But I just want to ask a question. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will be able to give the information in reply to a question should such a question be put to him.

I think I shall be able to give it in reply to a question and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Tele graphs will also be able to do so. We are perfectly prepared to give you that information in reply to a question at any time.

On a point of order. Sir, are we limited to three turns on a financial Bill?

Yes.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 15,—Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration, R98,000; 16,—Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General, R1,723,000; 18,—Deeds Offices, R27,000; and 20,—Agricultural Technical Services, R2,565,000; Loan Vote D,— Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R50; and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 6,—Agricultural Economics and Marketing, R449,000; and 8,— Agricultural Technical Services, R333,000.

I want to deal with Loan Vote D, where an amount of R50 was obtained under a State President’s Warrant for an irrigation settlement on the Makatini Flats. Could the Deputy Minister tell us whether this irrigation settlement has been demarcated and surveyed? Is there an irrigation settlement on the Makatini Flats? A State President’s Warrant has been obtained so that the Vote has been opened. It must have been a matter of some urgency to get a State President’s Warrant for an amount like this, when we were coming along with our Estimates in any case. Has there been some money expended there? This R50 obviously is merely to open the account. That is the normal procedure. My question is whether money has been spent, and is there an irrigation settlement which has been surveyed and defined, and who is on the irrigation settlement, and what is being grown there at present?

Nothing is being cultivated on the Makatini Flats as yet, and I think the hon. member is aware of that, but there is a working team of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure who developed the Sand-Vet Scheme, and these people completed their work much sooner than we expected. It is strange that it was completed sooner than we expected, but these people are now being transferred, nine months ahead of time, to the Makatini Flats to begin work there. The provision that is being made is for pre-fabricated houses to accommodate the staff, and the object of having the staff on the Flats is that they should start with the deforestation work, and that they should start building the canal, etc., on the white side of the Makatini Flats, etc., but at present we are first doing the planning.

Under Vote 16E I just want to know from the hon. the Minister how the additional amount of R723,000 arose. This is the amount that has already been exceeded. I suppose it is a subsidy on the export of maize, but I should like to have the information from the hon. the Minister, and also under the following item of R1 million, the loss on the import of maize, which is only for a part of the year, while the other is for the whole year.

The hon. member is aware that our consumption of maize in the country has increased considerably as a result of the drought. There was a subsidy of 38 cents on white maize the previous year, which was increased to 41 cents as a subsidy per bag; and the subsidy on yellow maize was 67 cents, and is now 70 cents per bag. As a result of the increased consumption of maize in our country, additional funds were required to be able to supplement this subsidy, because that amount is not for maize that was exported. Then the hon. member asked a question about the import of maize. As a result of last year’s poor crop, we had to import 7 million bags of maize from Rhodesia, at a price considerably lower than that at which our producers could produce it. But we had to add railage from Salisbury to this country and other costs. The Mealie Board’s funds make no provision for the import of maize, as the hon. member himself is aware. For this reason we provisionally have this R1 million in respect of the 7 million bags of maize which we imported from Rhodesia.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it was exclusively white maize and why, since we are still exporting very large quantities of maize, it was necessary to import so much maize?

We had a shortage of white maize and a surplus of yellow maize, and we only bought 7 million bags of white maize from Rhodesia, and no yellow maize. We had a small surplus of yellow maize, which we exported, but we did not export any white maize.

May I ask the Minister to give us a reason for the increase in salaries and allowances in Vote No. 18, item A, in regard to the Deeds Offices?

There was an increase in subsistence and travelling costs, and there was a general salary adjustment in respect of all the posts. This caused additional costs.

It appears that the Minister has not taken my question seriously. I am asking the reason for this increase in the amount to be voted for salaries, wages and allowances, and he comes back with a clever reply that it is a general adjustment they have made, but he knows the position in his department. There has not been an increase in staff, but a decrease. [Interjection.] He knows what the position is in the Deeds Office in Pietermaritzburg and that they are holding back development in this country because of the shortage of staff, and in Pietermaritzburg, which normally has a staff of six, there is one to-day, but he asks for an increase in the amount to be voted for salaries. What is he going to do with it, and to whom is he going to pay it? He does not appear to have anybody to pay it to.

There was a decrease in certain commodities in this department, but not an allover decrease.

What do you mean by “commodities”?

I mean the staff in head Office. We have problems in regard to surveyors and we have some people leaving our employment, but the salaries went up. The hon. member only wants to make politics out of this thing.

Could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us how the additional amount of R896,000 which is to be made available under subhead W, Soil Conservation, is being allocated?

I have pleasure in replying to this question, because the hon. member for East London (City) rightly asked that we should pay out more quickly when farmers apply for the payment of subsidies for fences, watering-places, etc. We complied with his request; we paid out more quickly and hence this shortage. If a person applies for his subsidy now, it does not take very long before he receives his money.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 25,—Foreign Affairs, R960,000.

Sir, we are interested in item E, which includes provision for assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries. I should like the hon. the Minister to furnish us with the details. However, I want to put it to him that should he feel that any piece of information would embarrass any particular country receiving the assistance, we would be satisfied if he left the matter there.

This subhead consists of separate items. The additional amount requested is R632,000. There are two items, namely “Petty expenses: rate of exchange payments”, an amount of R169,000, and then “Assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries”. R463,000. The latter is the so-called technical aid. The additional provision is for items which were originally not provided for and the most important of these, in the first place, is devaluation aid to the Swaziland citrus industry to an amount of R130,000. As hon. members know, the South African Citrus Board has long been responsible for the marketing of the total citrus production of Swaziland which is not consumed in that country itself. This means that Swaziland producers and local producers share in the pool on an equal basis in so far as the earnings of the board from domestic and foreign sales are concerned. These marketing arrangements are of such a nature that in the payment of devaluation aid to citrus producers it would be difficult to differentiate between our own producers and Swaziland producers. Such differentiation would mean that it would not be possible for the Citrus Board’s claims for devaluation aid to be finalized before the closing of the full season’s pool accounts as the board would not be able to ascertain before that time what quantities of South African and Swaziland citrus were included in the respective pools. The Citrus Board could not wait such a long time for the payment of devaluation aid. The Government therefore decided that in view of this consideration as well as the fact that the Swaziland producers can essentially be considered as South African producers for the purposes of the board’s marketing arrangements, it would only be logical and fair that the Swaziland producers also share in the devaluation aid to the citrus industry. It was an explicit condition of this arrangement that it could not be regarded as a precedent in the future for the Swaziland citrus industry to share in any other assistance which the South African Government might grant the citrus industry in South Africa.

Then there is an amount of R250,000, being a subsidy payment on maize and maize products which are exported to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. In this connection our neighbouring states argue that, since they are members of a customs union along with us, there should be no difference between the maize price in the Republic and in their territories. We pointed out to them, of course, that the difference is in the first place attributable to the fact that we subsidize the domestic price here in the Republic. In reply to this, they argue that if they do not form part of the domestic market, they should be allowed to buy our maize at the export price, which is quite often lower than the price which they would pay for imported maize—a very important consideration. The Government has now decided that the subsidy payable on maize going to these three countries is no longer to be recovered in future. Whereas the amount concerned previously appeared on the Vote of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which then paid the subsidy that was recovered to Revenue, the necessary provision is now being made on this Vote, i.e. Foreign Affairs. In passing, I may mention that it is the intention to use these funds to finance urgent development projects in the agricultural sector in these three countries. Then another example: an amount of R59,000 represents the cost of assistance granted to Swaziland in connection with the combating of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in that country. I do not think it is necessary that I go into details in regard to this.

Could the hon. the Minister tell us something in connection with the supplementary amount of R35,000 under item G, “United Nations”?

The original provision, namely R394,100, for the Republic’s contribution to UNO’S budget for 1969 was calculated in June, 1968, and it was a provisional calculation. UNO’s final approved budget for 1969 has since been received and South Africa’s assessment in respect of its 1969 contribution, calculated on the basis of the UNO’s final budget, amounts to R468,300. However, this assessment includes items which the Republic, as in the past, refuses to pay, namely the so-called expenditure in connection with the Bond Issue, R32,600, and an item which has been referred to in this House as so-called picnic expenses, an amount of R3,600. After deduction of the last-mentioned two items, the Republic’s contribution for 1969 amounts to R432.100, which represents an increase of R38,000 on the amount originally voted. Then there is a saving of R3,000 on subhead D which can be set off against this, so that an amount of R35,000 remains.

May I ask the hon. the Minister to give us an analysis of the subsidy payment of R250,000 in respect of the export of maize to Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland?

Mr. Chairman, this amount is of course still an estimate. It is based on figures in respect of the past three years. In 1968-’69 the amount was R143,626 in the case of Lesotho. In the case of Botswana it was considerably less, namely R61,366, and in the case of Swaziland it was R57,074, which gives a total of R262,066. In the year 1967-’68 the total amount was R161,446, and in the year before that, 1966-’67, it was R331.148. This gives us an approximate average amount of R250,000 for the past three years.

Do I understand the position correctly, Mr. Chairman? Does the hon. the Minister here accept an average amount which is based on the amounts of the past three years? If this is so, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he did not obtain the approval of this House for those amounts in the past, or did he in fact do this in the past? I do not want to go into the merits of the payment of a subsidy of R-J-million on maize to these countries, but to me this seems to be a new policy. I think the hon. the Minister must provide clarity in this regard and tell us why this new policy is being followed. What special reason which did not exist in the past is there now for paying this subsidy? If the subsidy was in fact paid in the past few years, why did Parliament not know about it?

Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I can throw a little more light on this matter, as I dealt with it for a long time. The position is that we have always exported certain maize to our neighbouring territories. We have always made maize available to them. Our domestic maize is subsidized. Subsequently we always recovered amounts from the various governments on the basis of an estimate of what they used per year. Now, for the reason which the hon. the Minister mentioned, it has been decided no longer to recover those amounts. Should we not have recovered those amounts from them, this increased subsidy would have appeared on the Estimates on the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Vote together with the normal subsidies. However, because we regard it as a separate item, because of the fact that it is not a domestic subsidy which is given to consumers in South Africa, it was then decided to place these contributions on the Foreign Affairs Vote. In other words, the hon. member will now be able to see much more clearly what subsidies on maize are given to Lesotho and the other neighbouring countries every year, than when they were hidden away in the general estimates of Agricultural Economics and Marketing.

Were they hidden away?

It was not done in this way; this is a new principle.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 26,—Commerce, R18,000, and 27.—Industries, R584,100, Loan Vote J,—Industries, R50, and S.W.A. Vote No. 11,—Industries, R100.

Mr. Chairman …

Another stupid question.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern of that hon. member. There is a new item under Loan Vote J, namely “Loans for Shipbuilding”, amounting to R306.600. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us details as to how this amount is arrived at, to whom it is to be paid and for what purpose.

Mr. Chairman, the existing estimate provides for loans to the shipbuilding industry. This is a new item, and it makes provision for loans for shipbuilding. This change resulted from the fact that the Barends shipyard obtained tenders for the building of a large ship. The tenders were accepted by one of our own undertakings, namely Safmarine. It then appeared that they could not build the ship, and they had to place the order overseas: It was then asked, inter alia, that the loan we would have made available to the shipbuilding industry should be made available to this company when they had the ship built overseas. It was therefore necessary to change the name so that, as it now stands, it provides for shipbuilding and not for the shipbuilding industry. The funds made available for the shipbuilding industry will now be made available for shipbuilding. It is only to finance that undertaking, and it is as the position would have been if the ship had been built at the Barends shipyard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for that reply. Am I to understand that this amount will now go to this foreign concern which will build this ship? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can give us the name of this concern. Or does this amount constitute compensation to the Barends shipyard for work they have done so far?

Mr. Chairman, this is not a case of compensation. In the case of the shipbuilding industry it is a loan that would have been made available to it. The ship is now no longer being built by the Barends shipyards. It is being done by a foreign undertaking. This loan is now being granted to the firm which had the ship built, i.e. Safmarine, and not to the builder of the ship. This loan is therefore being granted to Safmarine to pay the purchase price.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 29,—Coloured Affairs, R2,115,000, Loan Vote G,—Coloured Affairs, R31,200, and S.W.A. Vote No. 13,—Coloured Affairs, R457.200.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us the details in connection with the item which makes provision for a supplementary amount of R2,075,000 on Revenue Vote 29?

This is in connection with the expenditure of the Coloured Person’s Representative Council established on 1st July last year. Since an amount was voted to the council for the present year only, an amount of R44,375,000 was granted to council from the existing appropriations on Vote 29 in order to cover its expenditure until 31st March, due regard being had to the funds that were spent until 30th June, 1969, and the requirements of this department for the period from 1st July, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. It now appears that this amount will not be sufficient to enable the council to carry out its functions until 31st March, 1970, and that is why this additional amount is now necessary. Perhaps I may just mention the heads for which it is required. If hon. members want to ask me about any of these heads, I shall gladly answer their question. It is required for salaries and wages, subsistence and transport costs, printing, miscellaneous expenses, and also for war veterans’ pensions, pensions for the blind, etc. An amount of R685,000 is required for these purposes. Provision is also required for departmental technical high schools, lower, secondary and high schools and the training of teachers.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 31,—Bantu Education: Special Education and Educational Services: Eastern Caprivi Zipfel Area, R18,800, Bantu Education, R296,050 (Schedule 3), and S.W.A. Vote No. 15,-—Bantu Education, R79.300.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some information regarding item J under Vote No. 31. Subhead J is for financial assistance to State-aided special Bantu schools in respect of buildings, ground, equipment and furniture. The particular items of R3,060, which is a new item, refers to the Kutlwanong School for Deaf-mute and Deaf-blind, Rustenburg. The general head reads “Bantu Education: Special Education and Educational Services: Eastern Caprivi Zipfel Area". Is there a place called Rustenburg in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, or does it refer to Rustenburg, Transvaal? If it does refer to Rustenburg, Transvaal, how does it come to be listed under this Vote?

Mr. Chairman, Vote No. 31 is not called “Caprivi Zipfel”, but “Special Education and Educational Services”. The Caprivi Zipfel is classified under it for the sake of convenience. There are two different subdivisions of the head. The hon. member asked for details of the Kutlwanong school. This is to make provision for proper water pumping services, because the existing pumping services have given in.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32,—Justice, R370.800, and S.W.A. Vote No. 16,—Justice, R51,000.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the South-West Africa Vote, No. 16. I should first like to know from the hon. the Minister what the reasons are for the increase under item H of R6.900 for casual interpreting and reporting including purchase and maintenance of mechanical recording equipment. I also want to ask him why these two are grouped together under one item.

Mr. Chairman, I am only giving the reason for the increase. It is as a result of the necessity of employing casual interpreters. Unfortunately it is not possible to determine beforehand when they will be required. The establishment of a regional court during the financial year also resulted in considerable additional expenditure. This is as far as the equipment is concerned. In addition to the explanation I have just given, I must also say that it should be borne in mind that since 1st April, 1969, the department is responsible for the administration of justice in South West Africa. This is an entirely new dispensation, with the result, of course, that we cannot estimate in advance. It is impossible to estimate the expenditure properly in advance.

Is this equipment only for use in the courts themselves in connection with the taking of evidence and interpreting?

Yes.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 34,—Mines, R6,911,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 18,—Mines, RIO,000.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of item G there is quite an appreciable increase. The original estimate is R5 million, but the revised estimate amounts to R12 million. There is therefore a difference of R7 million in the total amount that has to be voted. Will the hon. the Minister give us the reasons why he wants an additional R7 million under this heading?

Mr. Chairman, this provision is being made for a payment to the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. A round figure of R7 million will be required. Of this amount, R279,000 will be defrayed from savings and the House is being requested to vote R6,721,000. This is being done as a result of the arrangements in terms of the 1962 legislation, that is, that the C account must be supplemented from time to time. The Treasury deemed it fit that this amount should be paid in now.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 40,—Community Development, R109,000, and Loan Vote K,—Community Development, R150.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy if the hon. the Minister would elaborate on item K. Is this contribution in regard to any specific acquisition of land for a specific undertaking or is it in general and part of the policy of the Public Works Department now accepting responsibility for the provision of all Government Offices?

Mr. Chairman, this contribution is in regard to the purchase of a piece of land near Edenvale, namely a farm called Rietfontein. We are buying this piece of land from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure at a price of R4,800 per morgen. The Cabinet, however, decided that we should only pay R2,500 per morgen for a housing scheme. This item is only to correct the bookkeeping.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether this money is only for the purchase of the piece of land itself, or are there any further plans in connection with the purchase of this land? The hon. the Minister undertook to inform me of any further developments in connection with Rietfontein. Are there perhaps any further developments he can now tell me about?

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member for Orange Grove the assurance that not one cent of this amount relates to anything other than the purchase of that land. There is nothing included which relates to any form of development, and I shall keep the hon. member informed of any further developments.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41,—Public Works, R1,117,000, Loan Vote B,—Public Works, R650, and S.W.A. Vote No. 21,—Public Works, R150.

Mr. Chairman, under the head Foreign Affairs of Loan Vote B, R31,500 is being requested for the purchase of a flat for the Minister of foreign Affairs in London. This is no inconsiderable amount. Even with the high inflationary prices we have in South Africa to-day, and in other countries as well, I should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why this R31,500 is being requested for the purchase of a flat for the Minister. I should also like to know from the Minister whether this flat is additional to the official residences of Ambassadors and other Ministers already existing in London. Will this flat serve as the second residence of the Minister for whom it is purchased?

Mr. Chairman, I shall give hon. members a full explanation. A flat known as Abbey Lodge No. 14 has been rented in London since 1956 by the South African Government as official quarters for the Minister attached to the Embassy. The annual rental is R3.370. The contract of lease will expire in September, 1970. The present owners are not prepared to renew the contract of lease, as they want to sell the property. The property is held by the lessors under leasehold, the unexpired term of which is 38 years. In this connection it may be mentioned that all property in London is held according to the leasehold system. The owners offered the flat to the South African Government at R29,670, which is regarded as a good buy. The costs of transfer amount to R1,830. The building is not an ultra-modern one, but is a solid and stately structure with large grounds, and is strategically situated approximately 2½ miles from South Africa House in Park Road opposite Regent Park. The accommodation consists of three bedrooms, two bathrooms, lounge, diningroom, study, kitchen, two servants’ rooms and toilet facilities. I may tell the hon. member that we made inquiries to find out whether any other suitable properties were on the market, but only two offers were made to us. The one was for R50,000 and the other for R70,000. All in all they were not nearly as good buys as Abbey Lodge. That is why Abbey Lodge was then bought.

Is Abbey Lodge the name of the entire block of flats, or is it only the name of this specific flat?

I take it that it is the name of the entire block of flats.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please give us the reason for the ex gratia payment to the Municipality of Saldanha?

Mr. Chairman, this question of the Municipality of Saldanha is a whole mix-up. It is not a mix-up on the part of my Department. It must be on the part of the electricity department of the Municipality of Saldanha. They installed certain meters which worked completely wrongly. For example, they measured that in August, 1968—I am only giving the round figures—25,0 units of electricity were used. In September of that year 51,000 units were used. In October also 51,000 were used and in November 52,000 units were used. Then suddenly in December 54,000 units were used. So they discovered that these meters measured completely wrongly. Then new meters-were installed to measure this electricity which is used by the Department of Defence. Whereas the old meters showed that in August, 1968, 25,000 and in September, 1968, 51,000 units were used—I do not know whether they went late to bed those nights—the new meter showed that in August, 1968, 198,000 and in September, 1968, 163,000 units were used.

It is almost as inaccurate as telephone calls are being metered.

No, these are electricity meters. I am not so sure whether it has not something to do with listening-in or lighting-in. When this matter was investigated it was found that the municipality had lost something like R120,000. After negotiations between the municipality and the department, it was agreed that the department should pay out R26,000.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to the item under subhead (22), namely "Earthquake damage-erection of alternative accommodation”. Is the amount of R386,000 intended to deal only with public buildings and buildings occupied by the State? The amount therefore makes no provision for private restoration work?

Yes, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare will deal with the whole question of damage. This amount is only in respect of public buildings and repairs to public buildings in the earthquake area.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 43,—Interior, R291,000; 44, —Public Service Commission, R75,000; and 45, —Government Printing Works, R633,000; and S.W.A. Vote No. 22,—Interior. R4,000.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to Vote 43, where an appreciable additional sum is requested in respect of printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister which new publications or new ventures are causing this additional expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, this amount is required mainly on account of the election, which was not foreseen last year. I can give the House the details. There is no question of publications being included in it. That is merely the heading of this item. As was done in the Main Estimates, it has again been included here. I can give an indication of the items the amount consists of. Printing provided directly for the election alone amounts to R318,800. As far as stationery is concerned, an amount of R11,000 is being provided with a view to the election. The other few additional items I would gladly give to hon. members, but I do not think they are of sufficient importance. The amounts I have mentioned are already considerably more than the additional amount being requested. This amount, however, will be party defrayed from an amount of R70,000, being savings on other subheads. The savings on the other subheads are mainly due to the fact that no general registration has taken place.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on a point of order. I should like to get the record straight. Earlier on you ruled that hon. members could not speak more than three times on each Vote. I therefore wish to direct your attention to page 40 of the Minutes of Proceedings where the House took the decision that “no member, except the Minister in charge of a Vote or Head, shall address the Committee more than three times on any Vote or Head nor speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time”. That was the decision of this House. But in dealing with Ministers and their Departments, the headings are being grouped. I submit that while that ruling applies, it should be possible for members to speak more than three times on account of the fact that the headings are grouped. For example, under the Revenue Vote 8 grouping there are over 10 heads. I therefore submit that while we are bound by the decision of the House, namely that members can only speak for three times on any one Head, this should not mean that members could only speak for three times under any grouping of subheads. The decision adopted by the House says three times on any one head. I submit that that is the decision of the House as confirmed on page 40 of the Minutes of Proceedings. It will be appreciated if we could have the position clarified for purposes of the record.

After having heard the hon. member, I may just say that in special cases this matter will be given special attention, and I shall abide by what has been accepted by this House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when I was speaking on one of the Votes of the hon. the Minister of finance, I had three turns and was told I could not speak again. However, I did want to say something on one of the other Votes. Will you give me the opportunity later on to say something?

I regret it, but the Vote has been passed and the point of order has been raised only now. I have now given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, with you permission, I want to say that the point was raised, but you ruled it out of order.

No point of order was raised. A question was asked on how many times a member is allowed to speak. So I said to the hon. member that earlier on this session the Leader of this House moved that a member be only allowed to speak three times on a Vote. No further points of order were taken and it was accepted as such. In any case, I have given my ruling now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, arising from what you said, is the position not that when those Votes were dealt with, you ruled that no more than three speeches could be made? The Votes were then taken on the basis of that ruling. That ruling now appears to have been incorrect. Therefore, the basis upon which the Votes were taken, was incorrect.

It was definitely not. That is not under question at the moment. I put the Vote and objections could have been made against the Vote. I had given my ruling and now I have given another ruling, that I will be more lenient in particular cases.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was unable to raise a matter which he wished to raise and could have raised on the basis of your present ruling. With respect, Mr. Chairman, since your previous ruling was not correct, I do submit that he is entitled to raise the further matter.

My ruling was final at that stage, but I have altered it now. I cannot bring anything before the Committee that has already been disposed of. We must now proceed on the new ruling. I have given my ruling that in exceptional cases I shall meet members in this regard and treat them as exceptional cases.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, either you can speak more than three times on a Vote or you cannot. I do not think that it is for the Chair to decide which case is an exceptional case and which is not. I submit that, as the rules read, a person must be allowed to talk only three times on a Vote.

The exceptional cases will only be made where a grouping of Votes has taken place. If an hon. member has spoken three times on a particular Vote, I shall not allow him to make a fourth speech on the same Vote. However, I will give an hon. member a further opportunity if he wants to discuss another Vote which is grouped under that same Vote.

There is an additional sum of R75,000 in respect of Public Service bursary schemes. Could the Minister tell us whether this is an extension of existing schemes, or merely additional funds to carry on the schemes which are already in force? In other words, are bursaries being offered for purposes additional to those for which they were available before, or is it merely a question of additional finance for the existing bursary schemes?

The Government decided to increase the bursaries as from 1st January, 1970, as regards the first, second and third year students from R500 per year to R600 per year, and as regards the fourth and fifth year students and thereafter, students will get an increase from R600 per year to R650 per year. This increase in the bursaries is responsible for that amount.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 46,—“Water Affairs, R269.641”, Loan Vote E,—“Water Affairs, R9,079,000”, and S.W.A. Vote No. 24,— “Water Affairs, R971,000”:

Will hon. members, when addressing the Chair, point out under which Vote they are speaking? This will enable me to number it as the first, second or third speech.

I want to talk on Loan Vote E, Water Affairs. Item 8 refers to an advance to M. C. Dumez-Borie Dams, R5 million, which was the subject of a State President’s special warrant. It is a new item. Actually, two special warrants were obtained. I wonder whether the Minister would give us some information about these dams. It is rather a new one to me. Can he tell us where they are situated?

The firm concerned, which is working on the construction of the Verwoerd Dam, approached the Department at a certain stage and told us that they were making fairly rapid progress and did not have enough funds to proceed, and then asked for a loan. The Treasury then obtained a State President’s warrant for the issue of a loan of R5 million. You can understand, Sir, that the form in which this item appears is a little different from what it was in the past. That is why this amount, which was advanced by way of a loan, has been introduced here as a separate item.

What puzzles me is the name Dumez-Borie.

Dumez-Borie is one of the firms constructing the dam.

But the Estimates give the name of the firm constructing the dam. Are the dams to be called after the names of the firms constructing them?

No, it is just a way of putting it. It is actually the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. That is the name of the company to which the advance is being made.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 48,—“Information, R425,000”.

Could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us some information about the reasons for the increase of R262,000 under item F in connection with publicity?

This expenditure is actually due to the fact that we have achieved so much success abroad and at home with our information services. The overseas liaison services had an additional expenditure of R74,000, which has been provided for. This relates to the increasing demand for our regular newsletter and our information publications and, secondly, as a result of reciprocal trade missions between our country and various other countries, there is greater interest and a greater demand for information in respect of various matters.

Does this include the Afrikaans edition of the “Digest”?

No, that appears on the ordinary Estimates. It only comes into operation as from 1st April. Furthermore, there is the S.A. Panorama, which has expanded enormously overseas, and then we have made an unexpected breakthrough with our films in certain countries, especially in the German-speaking countries, on television, etc., and there are certain additional costs we could not have foreseen as a result of the fact that certain doors which used to be closed to us are now open. In addition we have audio-visual services and publications, the extra expenditure in respects of which amounts to R186,000. Our foreign editions of Panorama are now also going to appear in Spanish and Dutch, and there is an enormous demand therefor. Then I may add that in connection with the S.A. Panorama, it has repeatedly been proved on a high level that it is widely read in the outside world, and consequently its distribution overseas was increased considerably during the year, and in order to achieve this object, the number of copies printed has been increased. The existing provision was insufficient to cover the additional costs. The appearance of the publication has also been improved, and it will be modernized by making more use of full colour, and this has inevitably increased the costs. I may still add the following: the addition of brochures we are publishing in other foreign languages, and then exhibitions, in the case of which the opportunity suddenly arose of arranging an exhibition at Maduro Dam, which we had not envisaged, and which we accepted immediately, because it is to our advantage; and then, finally, as I have mentioned, the German-language films.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We on this side of the House have never objected to the Government’s putting this country’s case overseas, and I should not like to make the hon. the Minister blush or make him think that we have become allies, but I really want to congratulate him on this Spanish edition of Panorama, which his Department was good enough to send to me. I have paged through it. and it is of a very high standard, as I have told the Secretary, and I hope it will be able to do good work for our country in South America.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 49.—“Social Welfare and Pensions, R15,637,000”, and S.W.A. Vote No. 26,—“Social Welfare and Pensions, R40,000”.

I wish to refer to an item on page 24 under the Vote “Social Welfare and Pensions”, under Subhead H, a new item amounting to R5 million, which is a special contribution to the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund. I believe that as this is a new item and also deals with a new fund, we require a statement from the hon. the Minister giving full information in regard to the present state of this fund. Last year this fund was established in terms of legislation passed by the House, which meant that the 11 existing funds in the various provinces, as well as the Territory of South-West Africa, the pension funds on behalf of the teachers, hospital officials and other employees of various categories who were in permanent employment with the various Provincial Administrations and the Territory of South-West Africa, were transferred to this new fund. In view of the fact that this is a new item and of the information the hon. the Minister gave the House last year when these funds were transferred to this new fund, it calls for greater explanation in view of the fact that the Minister indicated last year that most of the various funds were showing very large deficits. The Minister indicated that the Transvaal funds had a deficit of R12.7 million, the Cape funds a deficit of R43.4 million, the Natal funds a deficit of R2.96 million, and the Orange Free State had a deficit of almost R1.5 million. This makes a total of something like R59.5 million in deficits, while the South-West Africa fund showed a surplus of just over R½ million. I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should give an indication to the Committee as to what the latest position is in regard to the actuarial position of the present Provincial and Territory Public Service Fund. In terms of legislation passed in this House it would appear that the fund is on a basis similar to the Government Service Pension Fund, and therefore it is evidently Government policy to make a special contribution to any fund which is administered by the Government and which shows a large deficit. We would like some information therefore with regard to the total assets and liabilities of this fund at the present moment so that one can assess the actuarial position of the fund. Then we would like to know whether this Committee will be asked annually to vote money by way of a special contribution to meet the deficits which arise in this fund. This year we are being asked to vote R5 million under this heading. We shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister can give us some clarity in regard to the actuarial position of this fund.

The position as regards this fund is quite clear. The figures furnished in this House last year, are the latest figures available in this regard. The position of the funds is not assessed actuarially every year. From the nature of the case, it would be impossible to do this; the actuarial position of the funds is assessed every three or five years. The figures furnished last year in this House, are, therefore, the latest figures available. As the hon. member knows, all these are actuarial calculations, and the Department has recommended to us that an amount of R5 million be paid into the fund this year in order to place the fund on a sounder actuarial basis. The matter will then be considered again at a later stage. According to the departmental actuaries, an amount of R5 million would be adequate and for that reason we are asking for this amount to be paid into the fund.

I do not think the explanation of the hon. the Minister goes quite far enough because when this Bill went through last year, when we created the fund, it was quite clear, as the hon. member for Umbilo has pointed out, that many of these funds were really, to put it bluntly, bankrupt. They could not meet their obligations. Will this sum of R5 million which is to be paid into the fund be sufficient to place the fund absolutely in a position to pay all pensions, or will it be necessary to continue from year to year to add more money until these funds are solvent?

The position is quite clear, that is that this amount of R5 million is inadequate. We should not regard the total amount, i.e. R60 million, as a real deficit; it merely represents an actuarial assessment of the amount that will be required over a period of some years in the future; this is not a cash amount that is required daily; as the hon. member knows, this is an actuarial assessment. The fund can carry itself at present, and the amount of R5 million that is going to be paid into the fund in real hard cash, will enable the fund to carry itself for a further period of time. But we shall come back to this House from time to time to ask for further contributions to be made to the fund under this Vote. However, the present financial position of the fund is sound; it can meet its actuarial obligations in full, but for actuarial purposes an even greater amount will have to be made available in future over a period of time.

Is this an instalment then?

Yes. Further contributions will be asked for from time to time.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the item “Grant-in-aid to the Central Boland Disaster Committee”, R5 million. After the earthquake had taken place, the people in the Boland were very grateful when the hon. the Prime Minister, shortly after his visit to that area, announced that nobody would be left worse off than he had been the night before the disaster occurred. There was some delay in granting assistance. I believe matters have been co-ordinated now, and one should like to thank everybody who helped to alleviate the lot of those people. In this regard, I have in mind particularly the Defence Force, the Police and other bodies as well as the committee in that area, but I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give me some more information. The first question I want to put to him, is: Where does the disaster area begin and where does it end?

Where the disaster occurred.

In many cases the boundaries of the divisional council area were taken as the boundaries of the disaster area, and there were naturally areas which were, in fact, closer to the epicentre of the earthquake itself than the boundaries of the divisional council. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will indicate to us what method he uses to determine the boundaries of the disaster area. There were cases where people suffered damage as far as Mossel Bay, and one can naturally not include the whole country, but I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will more or less indicate to us in which way the extent of the disaster area will be determined. The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister, is the following: According to the announcement made by the Minister the maximum would be the valuation of the building plus 30 per cent. Is this valuation the divisional council valuation or is it the valuation of the building as determined by the officials of the Department?

Yes, determined by the officials.

I am glad to hear that, and I am very grateful to hear that. Of course, it would have been most unfair to have taken the divisional council valuation. I am grateful to hear that the valuation will be determined by the officials of, I take it, the Department of Community Development.

There is also a third point I wish to raise and that is the question of tenders. I believe it is the intention that one firm, a reputable firm, will be requested to erect all the houses to ensure a good standard of construction throughout. Would the owner of a building have any say as regards the acceptance of the tender, or would he merely have to accept it? If he does not have a say in the matter as well, things might not always work out. Arising from that, is the owner allowed to have the building erected himself and thereafter apply for State aid? I now come to the fourth question I should like to ask the Minister. I do not know whether I am asking too many questions; perhaps the Minister would prefer re plying first to those questions I have already put to him. My next question is this: What is going to be done in the case of a house which was partly damaged and which need not be demolished? I take it that an estimate of the damage will be made in this case as well and that assistance will be rendered on the same basis, that is valuation plus 30 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, there is yet another point, and I must say that the Government acted quite decently as regards this matter and one would not like to see the situation being exploited. I am sorry to say it here, but the hon. the Minister has already heard it said in the disaster area that some of the insurance companies are inclined to hide behind the kindheartedness and sympathy of the Government. Sir, may I cite you an example?

Which companies?

Insurance companies.

We would rather not mention names.

I know of one case, for example, where one person was insured with two companies. What happens in most of the cases where people insure their buildings, is the following: The owner is approached by the agent of, for example, a board of executors. The owner asks the agent to insure his buildings; the buildings are insured but the owner does not know for how much. His agent does the work and pays the account; the agent tells the owner what the amount is and the owner pays at the end of the year. It appears now that many of the people were insured against fire only, because certain companies had been taken over by others over the years. These companies were taken over by tariff companies, which insured the buildings at a fixed tariff. The owner now finds that nobody has ever looked at the premiums, because the farmers do not see the receipts; takes it that the agent of the company looks at the receipts. Sir, I can tell you that the comprehensive tariff for a dwelling, for example, is R1 per R1,000. This is the tariff charged by the tariff companies, but these people—not only the farmers, but also those living in the towns—now find that they have been paying R1.50 during the last few years. Nevertheless, these companies now tell the people: “You paid R1.50, but you did not have a comprehensive policy.” The person concerned was under the impression that he had paid the tariff applicable to a comprehensive policy. Some of the companies did pay out the claims—and I should like to mention their names here, but I would rather not.

A few companies refused to pay out the claims and the accusation was made that some of those companies were hiding behind the kindheartedness of the Government. I wonder whether this matter should not be investigated, because lawyers tell me that when you are insured against fire and damage, the policy expires every year, which does not happen in the case of a life policy. A new contract is entered into every year. Some of the lawyers say that when one pays a premium which covers everything, it will be no excuse for the company to say: “I have accepted the premium, but I refuse to accept the obligations.” They say one would then find oneself in the same category as a person who buys three different types of motor-cars, for example a luxury motor-car, for R10,000, a fairly large motor-car for R5,000 and a small motor-car for R2,000. When one sends a cheque for R10,000 to the company, it cannot send you a small motor-car which costs R2,000. The company has to give you a motor-car to the value of the amount you have paid.

That is the position, because some of the insurance companies paid out while others did not. One merely feels that the insurance companies have done well enough out of the community, and that the taxpayers should not be expected to pay in respect of an obligation which is really that of the insurance companies, if one can call it an obligation. I do not want to discuss this matter unduly, but I merely wanted to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I leave it to him to decide what should be done.

Sir, there is one final point I wish to raise, and this concerns Coloured houses on farms. I think we are going to have problems in this regard. At present the Government helps farmers under other schemes—not under this scheme—to build houses for Coloureds. I am not sure, but I think they pay 4 or 5 per cent interest on the assistance they receive for this purpose. Certain requirements are laid down for the houses. For example, the houses have to be of a certain size and have to be built according to certain specifications. I agree that such specifications have to be laid down, because I think these are fine specifications, but many of the houses which have now been damaged, did not comply with the specifications the Government now lays down for houses for Coloureds. What is the policy going to be now? Should the houses which have been damaged now be replaced by houses of, for example, the same size and same accommodation or would it be possible to enter into agreements for the houses to be built once and for all now? Perhaps the person who has to have these houses erected again, would have to be assisted in some way or other in order to enable him to have the houses erected according to the standards at present required of him by the Government and the divisional councils. I do not think this is an unfair thing to ask, for this simple reason: All these houses I am talking about are sub-economic houses, and the Department of Community Development makes money available to local authorities at present at a very low rate of interest.

At three-quarter per cent.

Yes, at three-quarter per cent. One wonders whether we could not make the same facilities available in cases where the houses that have to be replaced are in a poor state of repair. In such cases I would even go so far as to say that I do not even want the Government to pay a subsidy, but for the money to be made available at the same rate of interest applicable to sub-economic housing so that a start can be made in this respect. Sir, what I am asking for in such cases, is not a gift, but for a loan to be made on the same terms as those on which the Government makes available loans in areas situated outside the disaster area. This would be of tremendous help and it would give us on the platteland the opportunity to start providing better houses for those people who are not in a position to compete.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the questions which have a bearing on the general policy, and so forth. The Minister of Community Development will be able to reply to questions regarding details in connection with construction work, and so forth, because he is directly concerned with that matter. I want to say, firstly, that the extent of the disaster area was specifically proclaimed in a notice published in the Government Gazette. I am not sure on what date the proclamation was published, but the area was specifically proclaimed recently under an announcement which was published under my name in the Government Gazette. The second question I want to reply to deals with finances as such. For the information of hon. members I can say that, according to surveys carried out, the total damage in that area is estimated at approximately R19 million. The Minister of Community Development will also deal with particulars concerning insurance cover; however, an amount of R6 million was paid out in that area in the form of insurance cover. I am speaking in round figures now. Damages to municipal, provincial and Government buildings, i.e. not private buildings, amount to approximately R2 million. We have provided an amount of R1½ million for temporary housing to render immediate relief in the emergency. I now want to pay tribute here to the public of South Africa and to everybody who rendered assistance. Funds were established and contributions made thereto. The public contributed approximately R½ million for this purpose, which gives a total amount of R11 million contributed for relief. In the Budget which is before the House now, provision is made for a further R5 million, bringing our total contributions to R16 million. If necessary and to allow for some leeway, we will have to ask for another R3 million at a later stage. We shall have to see what precisely could be done in this connection.

As regards the general policy, I can just give hon. members an indication of what the government has decided compensation should be paid for. The following State-aid has been approved—

These conditions also apply to people who want to carry out repairs themselves. The hon. member also inquired about farmers who want to carry out repairs themselves. The fourth point reads as follows—

We do not want to involve the Department of Public Works in the matter. The sixth point reads as follows—

An amount of R5 million has already been provided for this purpose, and in addition there is a further R3 million which may possibly be made available. The seventh point reads as follows—

The eighth point reads as follows—

The ninth point reads as follows—

If provision were to be made for this purpose, it would mean that we would have to pay enormous amounts of money. The final point reads as follows—

These are the broad principles as approved by the department. This is the system in terms of which it is applied. These are the broad lines. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will better be able to furnish particulars as regards the buildings themselves.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has already said that buildings situated in areas immediately outside the proclaimed area may be treated and also repaired by the Disaster Committee on merit. The hon. member for Sea Point must realize that hundreds of buildings are damaged. It is impossible to invite tenders for every one of them. For that reason the Inter-departmental Committee dealing with this matter, agreed that the Disaster Committee may enter into a contract with one or more of the major construction companies. These companies can then be asked to repair the buildings. These companies will then have to repair the buildings to the satisfaction of the Disaster Committee. They have to comply with all the requirements laid down by the Disaster Committee and, if special requirements are laid down by the local authorities, these companies will have to comply with such requirements as well. The contractor will then have to draw up a claim for every one of the buildings he has repaired. The contractor will then have to submit the claim to the Disaster Committee. I may just add that the government is not going to make any payments to any individual person. The Disaster Committee, in turn, will then have to submit a claim to the government, which will pay out the amount concerned. Claims submitted will only be paid out after satisfactory construction work has been carried out and after the necessary documents have been submitted according to the normal procedure. As regards persons who do not want their houses repaired by these contractors with whom the Disaster Committee made an agreement, they are quite free to repair their houses themselves. However, they also have to repair their houses to the satisfaction of the Disaster Committee. The requirements laid down by the local authorities should also be complied with. They can then claim their money back after submission of the necessary documents. I may just say that they will have to pay themselves for any additional work they carry out. As regards the position of the insurance companies, I should just mention that, after the Prime Minister had announced that the government would do its best as far as possible to put those people in the position in which they were on the evening before the disaster occurred, there was undoubtedly a tendency among insurance companies to say: “We are going to apply these policies and premiums rigorously, because the government is going to take care of the rest.” I may just say that the Inter-departmental Committee conducted negotiations with the insurance companies, and in the majority of cases the insurance companies acted fairly and reasonably. One case was brought to my attention where, to my mind, the insurance company acted somewhat unreasonably, but this is a matter for the court to decide. In this case it is fortunately a large company that is involved, which can take the insurance company to court if it wants to. It concerns the interpretation of the policy. I think the hon. member for Sea Point must accept that neither the Disaster Committee nor the Inter-departmental Committee is in a position to decide on the validity or not of an insurance policy.

I come now to the final point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, that is the question of houses for the Coloureds. I just want to explain briefly why we have decided not to build temporary houses for the Coloureds. It has been found that the erection of temporary houses will only be slightly cheaper than the erection of permanent houses and it has, consequently, been decided to proceed with the erection of permanent houses immediately. If we were to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Sea Point, that is that those people should be paid in a manner so as to enable them to provide better houses for the Coloureds, the farmer concerned would be in a different position to what he had been in before. As a matter of fact, he would then be in a better position. However, I think the hon. member has a point when he says that the farmer merely wants to repair the ordinary little houses of the Coloureds, but that the divisional council compels him to build a better house. All I can say in this connection is the following—and this was how I put it to the various Disaster Committees in the various towns during the week-end: It is absolutely impossible to cover every individual case with such a formula. I want to suggest that when such cases do arise, they should be submitted to the Disaster Committee so that the latter can discuss them with the Inter-departmental Committee once more. If there is any substance in this, I have no doubt that they will approach the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions or my Department or whatever the case may be, to enable us to bring these matters to finality. I may just add that I have gained the impression that this formula of the government meets with the approval of the Central Disaster Committee as well as the individual disaster committees in the various towns.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want to be ungrateful for the relief we are going to receive. This is not my intention. Neither was it my intention to suggest that, in the case of Coloured houses, the owner should be placed in a better position than before the disaster. That was not my intention. The point I made, was this: Since we have to build houses now and since these houses have been destroyed in any case, let us build once and for all now and let us build correctly according to the requirements laid down by the hon. the Minister.

I now come to the second point I made. For the very reason that I do not believe the owner of a house should not be placed in a better position—because he will be placed in a better position when the hon. the Minister has to build the house for him—I ask that he should not be placed in a better position. Let us rather grant the person concerned a loan for the additional amount.

Surely, he can get that from the Department of Agricultural Credit.

It is for that very reason that I ask you to make representations of that nature. The farmer or the owner of such a house will not be placed in a better position than that of the owner of a house in a sub-economic area if the money could be made available to the fanner rather than to somebody else on the same conditions. What is the difference? In the one case the Coloured person works for the owner of a farm and in the case of a sub-economic area he works for an industrialist. The State subsidizes the industrialist to the extent of three-quarter pet cent and the State may just as well do the same in respect of farms or in respect of that area.

A scheme like that does, in fact, exist.

A scheme like that does not exist, because in terms of the present scheme one has to pay 5 per cent

But, as far as this whole question of sub-economic housing is concerned, do you now want me to …

No, I am merely asking the hon. the Minister to keep it in mind that when a person is placed in a better position, the assistance should be given in the form of a loan, but it should be given in such a way that he will be able to make a living.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 50,—Immigration, R435,000.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether, in the case of sub-head G, the increased amount is attributable to a greater number of persons …

Order! The hon. member may only ask for the reasons why the amount has been increased.

That is precisely what I am asking. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will furnish us with the reasons for the increased amount, and, if possible, more details in regard to the nature of assistance to immigrants.

Mr. Chairman, this increase must be attributed to the fact that as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia a group of Czech refugees fled to Austria, and we decided that we were here in the position to get skilled and highly technical people, engineers and others. Of course we could not make provision for this in the previous financial year. Because they were treated as refugees and not as immigrants the assistance to them was greater and more than to ordinary immigrants, for they arrived in Austria with only a few items of clothing and we had, in fact, to take responsibility for them there. The result of this was that assistance to them was greater than to ordinary immigrants and that is also the reason for this increased amount. We are dealing here with Czech refugees.

Does this amount reflect additional facilities or is it for an extra number that has come into the country?

It is in respect of an additional number of Czechs. The Czechs are regarded as refugees and not as ordinary immigrants, just as the Hungarians a while back were regarded as refugees.

How many of them were there?

To date we have brought over approximately 1,600. They are regarded as refugees and that is why we are helping them to a greater extent than the ordinary immigrant who wants to come out here of his own accord.

Vote put and agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was pointing out that the previous general registration had taken place in 1963 and that an Act was passed in 1968 which required another general registration to take place in 1969, so that there would be a new electoral list of the ensuing election. The Minister was under an obligation to implement that provision. He did not do so. He neglected to do so in 1969 until near the end of the year, and then, with the announcement of an earlier general election, he did not comply with the Act at all. He simply pushed that provision aside. I said that the Minister had no authority to do this, and that it was contempt of Parliament, which had passed that Act. It was a manifestation of high-handedness on the part of the Government which we are not prepared to put up with. The registration would have commenced on 13th October. Then it was postponed to 17th November. Although a proclamation was issued to the effect that a general registration would take place as from 17th November, and although the Minister had signed that proclamation, he subsequently did not carry out his own proclamation. On 17th November a start was not made with a general registration. Eleven days later, on 28th November, he withdrew that proclamation. That is completely unlawful. The Minister had no authority to withdraw that proclamation, nor did he have any authority to state, as was done in the proclamation of 28th November, that there would be few advantages in holding a general registration. Where does the Minister get the right to brush aside an Act of Parliament and to say that there would be few advantages in implementing that Act?

He must realize what the important implications of such an act are. If the Minister assumes to himself the right to brush aside an Act of Parliament in that way, he may as well assume the right to say in due course that there would be few advantages in holding a general election.

Tripe!

No, it is not tripe. In principle it is exactly the same thing as when Parliament passes an Act which provides that a general registration of voters must be held in 1969. and the Minister omits or refuses to do so. The reason for passing that Act was given by the Minister himself in Parliament, namely that it was essential that there should be a new, complete voters’ list before an election. Then he himself brushes it aside. He says that it will have few advantages. With all due respect to the Minister, he does not have that power and he knows that he does not. He knows that it is a breach of an Act which was passed by Parliament. It is a completely unlawful act. It is no use the Minister’s saying that he did this after consultation with the Opposition. Let me tell this Opposition that it failed to do its duty in this matter. It has no excuse. In this country Parliament can pass Acts, but the Minister and the Opposition have no right to change or ignore Acts. This was a case of two conflicting interests, namely the interest of the governing party against an Act of Parliament. This is the fundamental conflict that existed.

The Minister of Transport was reported by The Transvaler as follows this year (translation)—

I skip a few lines and continue—

Here we now have the reason from the horse’s mouth why the election date was advanced. It is the leader of that party in the Transvaal who stated the consideration why the date of the election should be advanced. Therefore that consideration, a purely party-political consideration, had to prevail over the implementation of an Act of this Parliament. Now we have the situation that the whim of a “cynical old man”, as he was called by his colleague, must be decisive against the requirements of an Act.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Innesdal entitled to refer to the Leader of this House as a “cynical old man”.

Mr. Speaker, I have used those words here before and I said that it was the Minister of Defence who had called him that. Because it was in the interests of the governing party, an Act of Parliament was brushed aside. The interest of the party was preferred to the obligation to the people because this Parliament is representative of the people. This Parliament passed that Act. Party interest is chosen in preference to obligation to the people! This is an authoritarian act. It is not in agreement with democratic requirements. This same attitude of putting the interests of party first, we find in the hon. the Leader of this House, the Minister of Transport. The electorate in a democratic state must have a choice. Democracy demands that the electorate should have a choice, but the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Transport is precisely that the electorate must be denied a proper choice. He said that the party to which I belong would have wanted the election in 1971, so that it could strengthen its organization. For this reason he advanced the date of the election so that that choice could be denied at the election.

Where is this stipulated in the Act?

This is the whole background against which this legislation is being introduced. That hon. member should know better than to try to make such a nonsensical interjection. This matter of the voters’ list on which a general election is held is the key to the maintenance of democratic government. Its significance is not measured in terms of the R600,000 which it will cost to draw it up. A complete, correct, new voters’ list is the most essential requirement for a democratic election and consequently for democratic government. Now we have to hold an election in April this year on a general voters’ list which is at least 6 years and 8 months old. I have not looked up the records, but I am almost certain that it is the oldest voters’ list on which a general election has ever been held in South Africa. Those who want to take the trouble to look up the history, will see that in 1924, when General Smuts held an election before the normal time, one of the charges levelled at him by the National Party was that he had advanced the date of that election so that it could be held on the old lists and so that the young people could not exercise their votes. This is what lies at the basis of this action of the hon. the Minister. We do not deny that the Government has the right to call an election at any time. This is its prerogative. But the Government does not have the right to ignore and brush aside an Act as the hon. the Minister did, and now, by means of belated action, to legalize it.

This party was established on 25th October. Then there was still the prospect of a general registration in terms of a proclamation of that hon. Minister. Only on 28th November, out of the blue and quite arbitrarily, did he illegally repeal his own proclamation. He had no power to do that. Is it ethically correct, in terms of democratic requirements, that a Government should prejudice an Opposition party so deliberately as can be seen from the evidence of the hon. the Minister of Transport? Juridically the Minister’s action is totally indefensible. Politically it is an utterly reprehensible action. Administratively it is a culpable omission on his part.

Why do you not make a court case?

The hon. member asks why I do not make a court case. There is a court case pending, but in the midst of that process this Bill is introduced which makes it impossible to proceed with the court case. I want to tell the hon. member that if this is the action about which he is laughing or on which he wants to pride himself, I leave it to him.

Order! The hon. member said there is a court case pending. What court case is this?

An application has been lodged by the hon. member for Wonder-boom.

Has that application not been withdrawn?

It has not been withdrawn.

Then the hon. member is not allowed to discuss the matter here.

I merely referred to it in passing.

In this whole action and omission on the part of the hon. the Minister there is an arrogant disregard of legality and of the parliamentary requirements which should apply in this country. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Act is there chiefly to regulate the procedures in connection with provincial and Parliamentary elections in South Africa. As a result of the nature of the Act it is necessary for continual amendments to be made. Since the date of its introduction in 1946 this is the twelfth amendment that has come before this House.

The Select Committee that was constituted last year and the subsequent law amendments were intended to make the electoral procedure more streamlined. This amendment at present before the House is, in my opinion, plainly and simply an extension of the intention to modernize the Electroral Act further. The Select Committee’s deliberations last year proved very valuable and these amendments do not actually interfere to any tremendous extent with the broad principles we deliberated about at the time. For me the establishment of the special vote in last year’s amending Act remains one of the important steps in modernizing the electoral procedure. I know that on this side of the House there are some of my colleagues who do not altogether agree with me about this, but I believe that the objections will disappear in the course of time. I also appreciate the problem which the hon. the Minister said might result from section 17 quat-(3) as it now stands. I acknowledge that, particularly in the metropolitan areas, it is now necessary to supply one presiding Officer per constituency. However, I trust that the hon. the Minister will, in fact, find it possible to make the provision that presiding Officers shall be available on Saturdays for the whole day. These presiding Officers are now disappearing as a result of the deletion of section 71 quat( 3).

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to this election as a panic election. I should like to use the word “panic” in its English sense. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that it is not the National Party that is panic-stricken about this election. The National Party is the party that is always ready for action when it comes to the organization for an election. It is the United Party members who panic. However, they would also have panicked if we had held an election in 1968. They would also have panicked if we had held an election in 1971. They always panic about an election, no matter what the day or the year, whether it be in summer, winter, spring or autumn. The United Party members are afraid of elections. We are now already witnessing their nervous boastfulness in anticipation of the results of the election. I should also like to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that I cannot agree with his objection in respect of the special vote already being available on the day after nomination. The hon. member will remember that we discussed this matter in detail on the Select Committee. I think the hon. member will also agree with me that we did not foresee this specific problem, i.e. that on the day after nomination the presiding Officer could be inundated with people insisting on exercising their rights. Particularly not at present where we have had a bunch of political desperadoes who are going to be loose on the country in this election. At present this is a particularly foreseeable prospect. I think that in the coming election we may expect all kinds of technical objections and threats of court applications in an endeavour to block the election as such.

I now come to the hon. the Deputy Leader of the dissenters. He let fly here last night with an uncontrolled tirade, which he continued to-day against the Government because there was not a general registration of voters during 1969. At first he was opposed to the voters’ list, because it was supposedly as old as the hills. However, what is the true position? After the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that the nation would go to the polls on 22nd April, and when the hon. the Deputy Leader of his supporters stood exposed before the whole of South Africa, there was a spontaneous reaction from the country. There was an enthusiastic welcoming of the election and there was a voluntary supplementary registration such as never before in South Africa. The fact is that we are not going to vote on a voters’ list which is as old as the hills, but, in fact, on a perfectly new one. In my constituency alone almost 7,000 more voters registered than were on the voters’ list with the last election. What is the effect of this? The result of this voluntary and spontaneous registration is that the State, and therefore the tax payers and the voters themselves, are being saved almost R600,000. But that the hon. the Deputy Leader does not notice. R600,000 is not something for him to be concerned about. All he sees in this is the frustration of his clique’s plans. Their plans were made and their bungling and wangling was focussed on 1971. His whole group’s actions are those of desperadoes. The hon. the Deputy Leader is desperate because he is living evidence of the collapse of his political house of cards. He is desperate because the voters he supposed there would be for his political sect, and which there were not, will not be registered for him at State cost. He and the other three and their lieutenants outside obviously cannot register voters themselves. They are too important to register people. They do not have voluntary workers and they apparently do not have money with which to buy workers, because they buy their workers. The hon. the Deputy Leader is desperate because he now discovers that his self-supposed political attunement and timing were complete blunders. Their long-planned putsch turned out, in fact, to be a trick that backfired. The hon. the Deputy Leader, in the most unbridled language, accused the hon. the Minister and the Government, directly and by implication, of neglecting duty and of a disregard for Parliamentary laws. In a loud voice the hon. member called out (translation)—

But he has surely been a member of this Parliament since 1958. He surely also had a seat in this House last year. Why did he, the guardian of our Constitution, not attack the hon. the Minister about that then? Then the hon. the Deputy Leader was busy with other matters. Then he did not use his time in the House of Assembly to ensure that the laws of Parliament were implemented, because then he was not here and his seat in this House was usually empty. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Leader for having, I believe, during this short 1970 session, sat here for many hours more than in all the other years in which I have been with him here.

I want to finish off with the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to tell him that the lanuage he used in this debate, and which he and his Leader and their deputies used during this Session, does not belong in the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa.

If you are being serious I could reply to you about that.

I want to repeat that your language is that of a desperado. Without comment I want to read to the hon. member what Marcus Tullius Cicero said to a certain Catiline centuries ago. He said to him—

The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

It is the biggest lot of nonsense that the coming election and the postponed general registration have any connection with one another, such that neglect of the one could invalidate the other. On 16th January a little old newspaper appeared in South Africa. The newspaper made its debut with the leading article and poster caption: “M.P. in court about election.” The article was to the effect that on the following Monday, 19th January, a certain W. T. Wonderboom would make an urgent court application in connection with the election. That was apparently one of the many promised bomb blasts. That Monday came and went; the week came and went, but no urgent application was made. And so the bomb was a wind-egg. I advise them simply to re-christen their newspaper The Wind-egg, because the majority of their bombs have thus far been wind-eggs. What is the true position as regards the election and the Electoral Act?

Read a bit louder.

I shall read it to you in a moment.

Section 47 (1) of the Constitution provides that every House of Assembly shall continue for five years from the first meeting thereof and no longer. However, it may at any time be dissolved by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. It is, as far as the election is concerned, the Prime Minister’s prerogative to advise the State President. He does so as he deems fitting and desirable. There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about this election. Or does the combined Opposition now want to come along and say that it is their right to decide when an election must be held? On the other hand, the Electoral Act as such is a regulating law; a law that determines procedures, rights, etc. Looking at the Electoral Act we see that it incorporates the legal provisions concerning the right to vote, registration of voters and election of members of the House of Assembly and of provincial councils. If we look at the arrangement of the sections and chapters we find that Chapter I regulates the franchize, Chapter II deals with the registration of voters, Chapter III with the conduct of elections, Chapter IV with election expenses, etc., but the Electoral Act has nothing to do with the election as such. This Electoral Act is amended from time to time. The postponed registration would in any case not have been in operation on 22nd April. Had that been continued with it would, as the hon. the Minister already indicated, only have caused disruption in the Office of the chief electoral Officer, as a result of the preparations for the coming election and the influx of additional registration cards. It would have entailed the wastage of Government money and also the wasting of labour forces and energy.

It became unnecessary because the people of South Africa themselves reacted to the hon. the Ministers announcement. The people reacted by registering themselves. The people indicated their earnestness in respect of their right to vote. The right to vote is there and every citizen of the country gets a direct say in State affairs by means of his right to vote. A nation which values it right to vote so highly, as we have seen with this self registration which has just ended, is a nation with a bright and assured future; a nation that will remain a free nation as long as it keeps its right to vote out of the hands of a man such as the hon. member for Innesdal. That hon. member suggested here this afternoon that this Government would perhaps, at a later stage, interfere with the nation’s right to vote; the right to vote which is protected in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I want to conclude by telling that hon. member that one must not judge others by oneself. I have already listened a great deal to the hon. member for Innesdal, but I have never heard him or his Leader carry on to such an extent about democracy and the rights of the electorate as they have done during this Session. I think they are people who themselves have such plans for South Africa up their sleeves, people who are now trying to project this onto the actions of the Government. But I do not believe they will return to this House; I think that on 22nd April the voters themselves will free South Africa from those four hon. members and their camp-followers. Then we will not hear such nonsense again as we heard today in this House in connection with this Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Waterkloof, who seems to have a Beetge in his bonnet this afternoon, will forgive me if I do not follow this little discussion which he has been having between himself and the Herstigte Party members who are sitting to my left.

The Bill before us to-day is one which I think should be approached having regard to the circumstances which have arisen as a result of the announcement of the general election this year. The hon. member who has just sat down said that he did not agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) who referred to the announcement of this election as being a panic announcement. It is a strange thing that when one looks at this announcement one finds three aspects of it which are very material in considering the Bill before us to-day. First of all, there is the hasty action in so far as the selection of the date was concerned which made it impossible for a general registration to be carried out and for it to be effective for the election itself. It seems that scant thought was given to that aspect of the matter. Because of the situation which arose following the announcement, we on this side of the House have said and are saying now during the course of this debate, that we agree that it became necessary to put off the general registration because of the chaos that would have been caused amongst the voters and the intolerable burden which would have been imposed on the electoral Offices throughout the country.

It is a matter that became necessary once this date had been selected. For that reason we feel that that is a provision of the Bill which by agreement we will stand by. One only has to think of what would have happened in this country if the general registration had been proceeded with. One can imagine what the position would have been when one had thousands upon thousands of people who had completed RV.l.s—the registration cards—and had handed them to representatives of the parties or to the electoral Offices, but who, when called upon by an enumerator who would not have these cards in their possession, would be told that they were not registered. The man would say that he filled in a card, that he had given it to this person and that he was issued with a receipt. He would then be told that he was not registered according to the records upon which he, the enumerator, is required to carry when doing the general registration. One therefore realizes how ill-advised it was at the time that the Prime Minister should have chosen a date without taking this aspect of the matter into consideration.

But there is a second aspect. Here I find an omission from the Bill that is before us. The announcement of this date offends the religious practices of certain sections of our population. The hon. the Prime Minister in attempting to extricate himself from the second problem which arose because of the hasty way in which this date was selected, announced that these people could vote by special vote. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell me where in this Bill or where in any law governing elections can the orthodox Jewish person exercise a special vote because of the fact that the 22nd April falls on a religious holiday?

[Inaudible.]

The Prime Minister made that announcement. I do not have the quotation with me. The hon. member is now asking me but I think we have all seen it. The Prime Minister said that there would be no hardship and that these people could vote. Sir, they can only vote according to the Act as it now reads; there is no provision in this clause.

There is a third interesting point which has arisen from the announcement of the hon. the Minister. It really shows the flutter in the dovecot on that side of the House when it comes to this election. The hon. the Minister has now announced 13th March as nomination day. Shall I remind him of the classic expression namely “Beware the Ides of March”. He has now chosen that date for this battle and the consequences which will come to him and his side are now of his own making.

13th March is our lucky number.

The hon. the Leader of the House adds to this that they have even chosen a Friday of the 13th.

I want to deal with an aspect of this Bill, other than getting some organization out of chaos by the precipitate announcement of the day of the election, and that is the question of the postal and special vote systems. This is not a new matter that is being raised. The terms contained in this Bill are rather to give more emphasis and more importance to the use of the postal vote system rather than to the special vote system. Now, Sir, that is contrary to all the tendencies and thought which have gone into the remodelling of our electoral laws in this country. The whole tendency has been to get away from the postal vote system and to simplify the procedures by a declared vote under the normal special vote system. I was astounded listening to the hon. member for Mamesbury last evening—I am sorry that he is not here now—talking with such piety about the value and the quality of the postal vote system.

The hon. member stood here before us last evening and said how necessary it was that the postal vote system should be given priority, he gave as a reason the shortage of manpower in so far as electoral Offices were concerned. That was one of his reasons. But, Sir, what is the burden on the electoral Office? With postal votes the electoral officials must receive an application, they must check it and must issue a postal vote. They must post it off and must then get back the completed postal vote with declarations. They must then deal with them a second time and check them against the application. Then they are required to deal with them a third time at the count to see that they are approved by both parties. That now is said to bring about a saving of manpower when the special vote system is one visit one declaration, the vote is cast and the whole process is at an end. That is the fallacy of this argument that was put forward by the hon. member for Malmesbury.

It means more work for the parties … manpower shortage.

I am looking at this manpower shortage from the point of the officials of the Department itself who are charged with running the elections. The tendency has been to move towards the abolition of postal votes and to substitute therefor the special vote system. The hon. the Minister and particularly the hon. member for Malmesbury seem to have forgotten a commission which was appointed by this House and which reported in 1963. This was an inquiry into the postal vote system and the registration of voters in the Republic.

I think I should remind hon. members of some of the recommendations of this commission. The hon. member for Malmesbury himself was a member of this commission. It is interesting to note who all served in this commission, because we will have some of these gentlemen expressing their views in this debate. The chairman was Mr. D. I. G. van den Heever. The members were Messrs. T. N. Hickman, P. S. Marais, W. V. Raw, F. S. Steyn, S. J. M. Steyn, M. C. G. J. van Rensburg and J. W. van Staden. This was the commission. What were their views after a very careful and deep study into the electoral system? Their views were, and I quote from page 9, paragraph 48 of the report:

It continues in paragraph 49 and I quote:

It continues to say in paragraph 50:

What nonsense is this that the member for Malmesbury suggests that this is a system which puts emphasis, a determination and a value into the vote? This method, as was found by the commission, is a method of doing voting in an easy way when circumstances do not really permit it.

Was that not a minority report?

The hon. member asks me whether this was not a minority report? This report of 1963, from which I am quoting, was a unanimous report. One of the witnesses expressed himself as follows:

This pampering of voters has certain further disadvantages. Reference was made to the very high percentage of the postal votes which are resulting under this particular system instead of the vote where the voter appears personally before the electoral Officer. The report also deals with the malpractices and abuses in considerable detail. I will not deal with them, but the reason why I am referring to this, is to show that the hon. the Minister is back-pedalling so far as getting away from the postal vote and making more effective the special votes are concerned. This report goes on in this particular manner and then deals with the special votes. On page 36 this report deals very effectively with the special vote system. It investigated the position in other countries. Certain recommendations were made. These recommendations were not lightly made, they were made after a considerable amount of investigation. These recommendations do not justify the action of the hon. the Minister who now wants to do away with section 71 quat- (3) of the Act and to limit the number of returning Officers who are available for special votes.

That is not limiting it.

Of course it is. I do wish the hon. member for Vasco who will probably speak later on in this debate, would look at the amendments which were made to this Act during last year. The amendments were made to deal with this very point which the Minister now wants to repeal. He wants this House to repeal a provision which was adopted last year.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended for supper I was dealing with the recommendations which have been placed before this Government and before the hon. the Minister by not only the Commission of Inquiry, but also by a Select Committee of this House. There is a pattern which is developing and it is continued in this Bill, and that is of a government which chooses on every possible occasion when there are any difficulties, to appoint a commission or to appoint a Select Committee. They then ride roughshod over the recommendations which have been made to them by the commission or Select Committee. That is happening again in this legislation. As I was saying before business was suspended, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Postal Vote System and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Electoral Laws, were that we should move away from the postal vote system to a more effective system, namely the special vote procedure. I again want to refer to the report of this commission on which the hon. member for Malmesbury served and which made a unanimous recommendation that the special vote system should be developed. I want to quote from page 36 of the Commission’s report:

This was the recommendation of the commission. It was based on the vital point of elections, and that is that a voter should be entitled to go to a responsible returning Officer and to cast his vote without being molested by party political agents. He should be able to go in there and know that he has been able to cast his vote in a secret ballot, that there will be no comebacks from any government party or anyone else, and that his vote cannot be tampered with in any way. That is what the law said and that is what the commission recommended, and that is what the Select Committee recommended to the Minister. And that is what, in fact, Parliament only last year, in the amendment to the Electoral Laws, agreed to, and the Act which was promulgated in July last year was to provide for just this sort of facility to the voter. But what does the Minister say? He says these different bodies cannot be burdened and these different officials cannot be burdened with handling these votes, and so he wishes to repeal this particular section 71 quat(3). But the Minister knows as well as I do …

I never said that.

The Minister says he never said that, but he has given us no reason for the withdrawal of this provision. All that the voter in South Africa asks from the Minister and from this Government is that it should be made convenient for him, if he is unable to attend at a polling station on election day, to cast his vote without interference, without duress and without undue inconvenience. But what does the hon. the Minister do? He expects that a voter who wishes to cast a special vote must drive into the centre of a metropolitan area and not be able to have easy facilities for parking in order to cast his vote. Now the Minister must show why he cannot carry out the recommendations of this Select Committee and why he must override what was the unanimous decision of this Select Committee. I do not know why hon. members opposite sit back and tamely accept the decision of the hon. the Minister to override the recommendations of the Select Committee. They after all were the majority on the Select Committee—it was not a decision of this side of the House … [Interjections.] But they sit back and take this type of treatment from the heads of the various departments in imposing their will upon hon. members on that side of the House.

It is autocracy.

They impose their will on those hon. members who sit back. There is absolutely no reason why in every polling district, let alone in every division, there should not be available to the voters a returning Officer for special votes. [Interjection.] Let me just mention why this commission so wisely made this recommendation. The Deputy Speaker of the House sits there and he was chairman of this commission. He made a very wise suggestion regarding this matter. There are throughout the Republic—I may be out one or two, but not more—at the present moment 125 magistrates’ courts; there are 934 police stations, and there are 285 stations other than suburban stations. Surely amongst these 1,344 institutions there can be found the facilities to enable a voter to cast his vote without the long process of a postal vote and without running the risk, which the commission found, of the abuses which occur in regard to postal votes. Sir, the Minister has not given us any reason why it should not be done. He did refer to manpower shortages; but I wish the Minister would realize that the postal vote system trebles the work to be done by the officials in connection with the casting of these votes.

Now I come to the further point, and that is the recommendation of the Select Committee that this system of special votes should be available immediately after nomination day. Surely it is not—or perhaps it is—beyond the availibility or the capability of this present Government to be able to inform those responsible as to whom the candidates are immediately after nomination.

They have to use Basie’s postal system.

One realizes the difficulties under which they labour in trying to carry out efficient government. But I am sure this hon. Minister can seek some priorities through his colleagues to see that this information is distributed and that it does not take seven days to distribute this information to the various areas. So the only conclusion one can come to on reading the Bill before us is that the Government considers this legislation, as it does other legislation, in the light of what is most convenient to the Government, and not in the light of what is most convenient to the voter. [Interjection.] My hon. friend says it is in the light of what is most convenient to the Nationalist Party and I assume that we all accept in South Africa that the Nationalist Party equates itself with the people of South Africa. There is the evidence, which was placed before the hon. the Minister and which was asked for by the members of this House on the Select Committee, that a certain procedure should be adopted. It has been supported by the officials who will be responsible for carrying out that procedure. But for some reason or other it does not suit the Minister or the Cabinet, and therefore we must now have these facilities denied to the voters.

Might I just say in conclusion, Sir, that one wonders why that is so. When one reads this report of the commission of inquiry into file postal vote system and one sees what can be done in regard to postal votes, one wonders why it is that this Government should like to continue, to advance and extend a system which is condemned by the commission. That is what the hon. the Minister is doing. He may laugh, but that is what he is doing. He is extending and elaborating upon a system which his own commission has found to be one which is unsatisfactory and should be removed. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have regard to the recommendations made by the Select Committee. This Select Committee sat and had a number of meetings. I am sure the hon. the Minister has apprised himself of the evidence, the representations and the arguments that were put before that Select Committee, and I trust that the hon. the Minister even at this stage will be able to go a step further than he went in the Other Place and will see that these amendments which he has now suggested here are eliminated, and accept the recommendations made by the Select Committee.

The hon. member for Green Point will forgive me for not following up immediately what he has said. I shall do so in the course of my speech, because the approach of the hon. member for Green Point to this matter more or less corresponds to that of the hon. member for Durban (Point), apart from the fact that the hon. member for Green Point may speak more boldly on the disadvantages of postal votes than the hon. member for Durban (Point), who is a real authority in that field.

Sir, you will allow me, first of all, to come back to the speech which the hon. member for Innesdal started before the adjournment of this House last night and continued here this evening. [Interjection.] Now, there is no need for the hon. member for Durban (Point) to be so sensitive. I shall not launch an unreasonable attack on his ally. We shall try to weigh up argument against argument. What the hon. member for Innesdal really tried very hard to do last night was, in the main, to introduce two ideas into this debate by way of suggestion. He tried to suggest, in the first place, that the hon. the Minister had no respect for an Act of this Parliament and, in the second place, that he had introduced this amending legislation into Parliament with an obvious intention and with a political end and a political move in mind. He merely suggested that last night, but this afternoon the hon. member for Innesdal was somewhat more brave as far as this matter was concerned, and he blatantly made the statement this afternoon, completely in line with the image he and his party are trying to create, that this side of the House wanted to introduce an enlightened dictatorship. He blatantly made the statement that the hon. the Minister was overriding an Act of Parliament by means of this legislation and that he could employ the same procedure to eliminate an election in future as being unnecessary. Sir, have you ever heard such a foolish argument? Surely the fact of the matter is that this Minister postponed a proclamation in respect of general registration, which was in conflict with the law in the view of the hon. member for Innesdal. And here the hon. the Minister is approaching this House, the body that is responsible for that legislation, with the very object of giving the House a report on that action and to request this House to condone that action. Sir, surely this is not a matter of a decree that has been issued that there will be no general registration. Surely it is not a question of his having the authority to issue a decree that there will be no election. The hon. the Minister is still bound to return to this House to give us an account of what he has done.

It is true that the hon. the Minister stated the position in 1968 that it would have served no practical purpose at that stage to have a general registration and that that should only happen by 1969. At that time both sides of this House accepted that. These four hon. members in front of me accepted it too, while three of them were members at that time of my party’s Interior Group, the group that is intimately concerned with the Electoral Laws. As far as that matter is concerned, we have absolutely no dispute. But now the hon. member for Innesdal has come forward with the statement that during the first nine months of 1969 this Minister and this Government had not done anything about the situation. They had been fast asleep for the first nine months of the year and had not realized that 1969 had started on 1st January. They had failed to implement the provisions of the Act as passed by this Parliament. That is his present argument. But by proclamation a general registration would in any event have commenced on 13 October, 1969, completely within the ambit of the provisions we passed here in 1968, and completely in time as regards the provincial election which will be held later this year; but what is more, that date of 13 October was fixed without the intention of having an earlier election. What happened then? In the meantime the announcement was made by the hon. the Prime Minister that the election would take place at an earlier date and that we would have a general election on 22 April.

Why?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asks why. It is completely within the prerogative of the Prime Minister to do so. Even the hon. member for Innesdal does not deny that fact. Therefore I do not understand the lack of intelligence on the part of the hon. member for Durban (Point). But, Sir, immediately after that announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister, we found that electoral Offices were being flooded and we experienced an intensified supplementary registration.

What are your results like?

Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) …

Has eaten too much.

Yes, he has eaten too much. I wish I could use the words of the late Langenhoven to describe the hon. member. Langenhoven said, “Lee vat, hou toe jou kraan; dalk sien ons jou vir ’n voile aan.” (Empty barrels make the most noise.) From an administrative point of view this tremendous flood of new applications for registration made the Department face up to the question whether, in spite of and in the midst of this tremendous flood of registrations, it should proceed with the general registration laid down for 13 October or whether it should proceed with the general registration and in that case leave in abeyance for the meantime the thousands of applications that were pouring in. Sir, surely you can think for yourself what confusion that would have caused administratively; what duplication it would cause to have a general registration on that basis taking those new registrations into account. But the cardinal point which the hon. member for Innesdal as well as the hon. member for Green Point is overlooking is that general registration no longer is what it was in the past. In the past the entire voters’ list became invalid and each voter had to register anew. Sir, our general registration no longer functions on that system. The new system of general registration requires the existing voters’ list to be taken as the basis for the general registration. Sir, if one had regard to this fact, one’s general registration of to-day has become an intensified supplementary registration in essence, and this is the very point which these hon. members are overlooking, i.e. that general registration is not the magic formula they are trying to make of it, but purely and simply an intensified supplementary registration. In other words, if the general registration were to have commenced on 13 October without this intensified flood of applications having been taken into account, one would not have had a sound basis for one’s general registration. The result was that the general registration, in order to make provision for it from an administrative point of view, was postponed to 17 November, and to reply to the charge made by the hon. member for Innesdal, this date of 17 November still fell within the period of 42 days which have to elapse for a general registration in terms of the Act. Sir, up to this point the charge of contempt for the provisions of this particular Act which was made by the two hon. members definitely has no basis. I know the hon. member for Innesdal does not like to tire himself with practical realities, but what did, in fact, happen with this supplementary registration? We found that there was overwhelming reaction from the electorate to this supplementary registration which closed on 31 October. The hon. the Minister told us that 750,000 registrations were dealt with during that period. In other words, what one wanted to achieve with the general registration was an intensified supplementary registration but as a result of this overwhelming public reaction one did get that intensified supplementary registration. The hon. member made the verkrampte allegation that the voters’ list was more than six years old. Sir, to say that this list is more than six years old is to lose sight of reality. If by means of a general registration, which is purely a supplementary registration, one achieves the end that one has a new voters’ list, surely one has achieved the same end by means of this supplementary registration. One has achieved it at a cost of R1,380 to the State. For that expenditure one has a brand new voters’ list to-day, but in spite of everything that has happened, the hon. member nevertheless wants us to try to achieve along his lines what we have already achieved, and to do that at a cost of R600,000. If the hon. member wants to be practical for one moment, does he really want to tell me that if he were the responsible Minister in this situation, he would in any event have wanted to achieve the same end at a further cost of R600,000?

I would rather have complied with the Act.

The hon member is now occupying himself with what his leader described here yesterday as technicalities. As far as this matter is concerned, he is truly occupying himself with technicalities. Sir, we should really try to retain our sense of proportion in this matter. We should also have regard to the fact that the State does not have trust funds at its disposal which it may simply throw out of the window because an hon. member has ideas that are up in the air.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and at the same time to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Durban (Point) made a speech here last night in very good Afrikaans. If his arguments had been as good as his Afrikaans, I would have been able to-night to compliment him on a very good speech. However, we do know that this hon. member is a very ingenious political hack. He tries to make politics out of anything. He maintained that there were hon. members on the opposite side who disagreed with the Minister in respect of certain of these provisions; in point of fact it was the entire Select Committee that disagreed with him.

And he is right.

He said that he was taking the National Party members of that Select Committee under his protection against the Minister. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that you must please protect me against my protector. How unanimous was the Select Committee on all the aspects of this particular Bill, particularly on the aspect of the special vote? In 1969 we had before the Select Committee a Bill which would have resulted in the total abolition of postal votes if that Bill were to be enacted. If we were so unanimous with regard to this matter as hon. members opposite tried to suggest, why is it that provision still exists for postal votes as well as special votes in the legislation we have on the Statute Book to-day?

Who saved the postal votes?

The postal votes were saved by the National Party members on that Select Committee, not because we are married to the system of postal votes, but because the system of postal votes as opposed to the system of special votes has already proved itself as reliable in our active politics. Sir, it was on account of the very misgivings which hon. members on this side of the House had as to whether sufficient facilities could be created by the State for the recording of special votes, that this compromise was made, the compromise to retain both systems, to retain the system of postal votes and not to abolish it altogether as the proposed legislation sought to do. Sir, this evening the hon member for Green Point sang the praises of the advantages of the system of special votes, and he did so on the basis of various reports. I do not know why he found it necessary to do so, nor whom he tried to convince. The fact of the matter is that members on this side of the House are as well-disposed towards the system of special votes as he himself is. We agree with him on the question of special votes; we have no objection to that, but he argued as though this legislation made provision for the abolition of the system of special votes, and that simply is not so. The position is that hon. members of the Opposition wanted to eliminate the system of postal votes altogether; they wanted to have only this system of special votes. Sir, we can understand that very well.

Why?

Because the United Party wants the State to fight its elections for it. The advantages of the system of special votes are not sufficient reason for discarding a proven system of postal votes in a general election.

Let us now come to the specific objection which the hon. member for Durban (Point) in particular had. The first objection he had concerned clause 4, in which the words “7th day after the nomination day”, are being substituted for the words “day immediately following the nomination day”. But, Mr. Speaker, what do we find? We find that the only practical objection which the hon. member was able to devise against that arrangement was that it might happen that a voter wanted to go overseas on the day immediately following the nomination day and as a result would lose his vote. Surely, Sir, there will always be people who want to do that. Surely there will be numerous people who will want to go overseas prior to nomination day and who will lose their votes in that way. We know that the hon. member is arguing with his tongue in his cheek as far as this matter is concerned. Consequently I am of the opinion that we need not elaborate on this aspect. Sir, I now came to the main objection of the hon. member. His main objection concerns the deletion of section 71 quat (3) which clause 5 of this Bill seeks to do. This is also the clause the hon. member for Green Point regards as the fatal impediment of the system of special votes. He is of the opinion that we are wrecking the whole system of special votes as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the argument you will allow me to read a verbatim report of the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I quote what he said last night—

This is the argument which the hon. member for Durban (Point) advanced here. But the fact remains that this argument of the hon. members for Durban (Point) and Green Point is based on a false assumption. Sir, these two hon. members are completely confused as far as this clause is concerned. This confusion arises from the fact that they are confusing two completely different concepts here, i.e. the concept of a returning Officer, on the one hand, and the concept of a presiding Officer for votes of special voters, on the other hand. This Bill we are considering to-day has never made provision for a returning Officer to be inside the electoral division for which he has been appointed. [Interjections.] Such provision has not been made in this legislation. It is not being done now, nor was it done in the past. Section 71 makes no provision for the seat of the returning Officer. On the contrary, section 35 (6) of the Electoral Laws makes provision for that. Because these hon. members obviously do not know their Electoral Laws, because they obviously have paid no attention to that, I shall read it to them.

Don’t read it.

Sir, it is obvious that the hon. member for Rosettenville is allergic to more knowledge, but he need not listen. Section 35 (6) reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, what is the basis for that argumet that we are now concentrating returning Officers at one place, and that the legislation passed last year provides that these returning Officers have to be within the electoral division?

May I put a question to the hon. member? Where in the Electoral Laws is it provided that a polling station may be outside the electoral division concerned?

Sir, that may be an intelligent question, but it is irrelevant. [Interjections.] Of cours it is irrelevant. This section deals exclusively with the seat of the returning Officer. The statement of these hon. members is that the Act, as it emerged from the Select Committee last year, provides that the returning Officer has to be within the electoral division, and this is not so. The Act has never contained that provision, and the Select Committee never touched on that idea. The provision has always been that the returning Officer has to be within the municipal area. This is a section which was not amended last year, nor is it being amended now. In other words, to advance the argument that we want to curtail the facilities for special votes by means of this provision, is simply absurd. I simply cannot follow that argument. The only essential thing that is happening as a result of the deletion of this section, is that the literal obligation that there has to be a presiding Officer for votes of special voters in every electoral division or in every magisterial district is being removed. When we had to consider this specific question on the Select Committee, we had strong misgivings about the very question whether the State would be able to provide those facilities if it were to be obliged to appoint such a person within every electoral division. We foresaw, however, that this arrangement had to be given a chance. At that time we did not know that a general election was to be held. I recall from the discussions that we decided as follows: Let us give the special vote the maximum opportunity of proving itself during the provincial election, which is being held this year, because the scale on which a provincial election is held is usually not so large. Our considered opinion was that if it were to appear during the provincial election that this was not feasible in practice, we would come back to Parliament to amend that clause. I do not believe that hon. members who serve on the Select Committee with me can disagree with me in this regard. Surely it is not advisable that we should retain this obligation with regard to the State in a general election if the possibility exists that it might miscarry. In practice we do have, after all, the assurance that the Department will in any event do everything in its power to stick as closely as possible to this obligation that used to be in the Act. We have the assurance that during this election the Department will make use of all the means it has at its disposal in as practical a way as possible without there being any overlapping as a result of that obligation. Surely we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements with our respective returning Officers without any need for the State to rent and staff Offices, whether or not those Offices are really necessary, wherever government Offices are not available.

Sir, I want to proceed. Hon. members do have a security in the existing Act. What gives them this security is that in terms of section 71nov of the Act, the voter may request a presiding Officer to visit him within the electoral division. Surely hon. members know of the arrangements that may be made with returning Officers to visit large concentrations of absent voters, such as those in military camps, etc. To use this as an excuse, and to say that it will cause a complete crippling of the system of special votes, is no argument.

Sir, I want to conclude …

Hear, hear!

I know that hon. members will be grateful if I conclude my speech. Sir, I want to conclude by telling the Minister that we really welcome clause 7. Clause 7 makes provision that the special covering envelope may be opened as soon as eight days after nomination day. I want to give the assurance that this will eliminate an unnecessary accumulation of such envelopes at returning Officers, and that this will also facilitate to a very large extent checking by political parties.

In this Bill we are discussing to-night, as well as in the present Act, we now have a practical and workable set of rules in terms of which this election may be fought. I believe that hon. members on this side of the House are prepared to give these various systems the chance they deserve. We shall fight according to the rules of the Electoral Laws. Within the framework of these electoral laws, we shall make short work of our joint opposition without there being excuses that that has happened as a result of these Electoral Laws.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei touched upon a few matters to which I want to give attention for a moment. He mentioned that there had been an overwhelming reaction from the voters during the supplementary registration. Is that not indisputable proof of the need which existed for a general registration of voters? The figure of 750,000 voters was mentioned here inter alia by the hon. the Minister. The general speculation is that there are approximately 2 million registered voters in South Africa to-day. That means that 37½ per cent of the electorate had to be reached by means of voluntary assistance during a supplementary registration. Now I ask myself this question: To what extent was that supplementary registration a complete one? How many voters, if 750,000 already appear on the supplementary new list, have not been registered? In the second place the hon. member kicked up a row and said that this brand new voters’ list had cost the State only R1,380. I would be grateful if such a brand new list were to cost that much. I now accept that a brand new list will also be a complete voters’ list. I would be pleased if such a list had only cost the country R1,380. There is an important aspect which the hon. member did not deal with, however. This is that the motor cars of the volunteers who helped with such registration do not run on water. Did it not cost them money to effect that supplementary registration? What that means in fact is that voluntary assistance subsidized the State. I would be the last man to advocate that money should be wasted, but now I am asking myself this question: Is it necessary that the State should be subsidized in order to obtain this brand new voters’ lists of which the hon. member for Tygervallei is so proud? I think it is an unnecessary burden which has been placed by these events on the white population of the Republic and the voluntary assistance.

That is a fallacious argument.

No, it is not a fallacious argument. The hon. member cannot tell me that those people got their petrol for nothing. Or who paid them for their work? I just want to put one question to the hon. member: Does the hon. member for Tygervallei advocate that the practice by which political parties take over the function of general registration from the State should now be applied? That is what he is so proud of, i.e. that the political parties have taken over the function of the State in the completion of what he mentioned, and what he is so proud of, the brand new voters’ list.

You are disparaging the voters’ own attempts.

No, I am not disparaging the voters’ own attempts. I want to ask the hon. member this: How many of the voters of the Republic were instrumental in the compilation of the supplementary voters’ lists?

All the fine words of the hon. member for Tygervallei and hon. members before him amount to one fact, and one fact only, and that is the following: This Parliament passed an Act which has been contravened by the Government and now the Government is returning to this Parliament with a new Bill to legalize their breach of the law. Those are the concrete facts facing us. The reason put forward by the hon. the Minister is contained in Government Gazette Notice No. 316 of 28th November, last year, in which he stated—

This is the reason that is being advanced, namely that a general registration will constitute few advantages, and that after a general registration, proclaimed in a Government Gazette on 3rd October, had been announced. Mr. Speaker, let us glance briefly at the possibilities of having this general election on 22nd April.

Are you afraid of the election?

I am not afraid of the election. There are other people who are very afraid of the election. The fact is that what matters here is not me; what matters here is the right of the voter in the Republic of South Africa to be able to exercise his democratic rights as a voter properly. I want to repeat something we have already said before. Nobody in this House denies the hon. the Prime Minister the right to announce an election at such a time, day and date as he may determine, but in terms of the Electoral Laws Amendment Act which was passed here in 1968 a general registration of voters should have taken place. Now I want to state that in terms of the proclamation of a general registration with effect from 17th November last year, an election could still have been held within the limits of the Act on 22nd April, 1970, for in terms of subsection (3) of section 8 the list of the general registration of voters comes into operation not later than—it could in fact be earlier, but not later than—180 days after 17th November, 1969, but not earlier than 30 days after the list has been handed over to representatives of general political parties. Under the present circumstances the lists would therefore have been able to come into operation not later than about 17th May. The Minister would also have been authorized to let it be announced in the Government Gazette that the list would come into operation at an earlier date. He could have said that the list was to have come into operation on 25th January. That was within his power in terms of the Act. If it had come into operation on 25th January, provision would have had to have been made for a period of 30 days after the list had been given to the representatives of all the political parties. Those lists could have been in the process of being compiled since 29th December already. Subsection (4), however, qualifies the commencement of the lists compiled after a general registration even further in this sense that they can only come into operation after a supplementary list has been put into operation. In terms of the Act that supplementary list could have been compiled from 1st March and would have come into operation 42 days after that, i.e. on 12th April. The Prime Minister deemed it fitting to announce that the election would take place on 22nd April. In terms of the Act therefore, as it reads, a general registration of voters could have taken place, therefore a supplementary registration could have taken place, and the voters’ list in its entirety would have been available on 12th April. The point I want to make is that it is therefore wrong to say that a general registration was impossible or would not have constituted any advantages. Mr. Speaker, I display the courtesy towards hon. members of sitting still and listening when they speak.

No, you make interjections.

No, that is not true. Mr. Speaker, according to paragraph (a) of clause 1 of the Bill which is before us at present, the existing provision in being amended by the substituting for “1969” of “1973”. There is also an amendment of the period which may elapse before a general registration takes place again. According to paragraph (b) the supplementary lists come into operation on the first day of May, September and January respectively. The provisions of paragraph (a) are now being made applicable with retrospective effect from 6th March, 1968. This is the date on which the Electoral Laws Amendment Act of 1968 will come into operation. According to clause 8 the withdrawal by the State President of Proclamation No. 264 of 1969, to which reference was made, is now being legalized. The effect of that is of course that it is being conceded by application that the aforesaid withdrawal was without legality and that an attempt is now being made to legalize it. This situation gives rise to certain questions. The first question to which I should like to be given a reply in this regard, is the following: What is the position of a man who was entitled to have his name included on the voters’ list prior to 31st October, but who in view of the proclaimed general registration which would have begun on 17th November decided that it was not necessary for him to have his name placed on the voters’ list because there was to have been a general registration with effect from 17th November. That registration was legal and valid for the period 17th November to the date on which it was withdrawn, i.e. 28th November. There was therefore a period in which applications for registration could have been made. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position of that man is who was entitled to vote but who in view of this nullified general registration, which had a life of approximately 10 days, made application, but did not find his name on the voters’ list? This is perhaps applicable in particular where it concerns people who were doing compulsory military service and who moved out of their parental homes or from their home environment, and in view of the proclaimed general registration did not, in expectation of the registration at a new address, make use of their rights to register up to and including 31st October, 1969?

There is another very important aspect of which the hon. the Minister and the Government must have been aware, and that is that since the date of the last general registration of voters a tremendous population shift has taken place. Every year since I came to this House we have been hearing about the depopulation of the rural areas. I happened to see something in last night’s Argus.

The Argus is your authority.

No, it is not my authority. Let me just quote to the hon. member now what it stated on page 2 of the Argus of 17th February—

For the information of the clever hon. member for Waterkloof sitting at the back there, this is my authority. What appears from that? I shall mention only four rural areas and four urban constituencies, and they will see that my point in fact is that a general population shift has taken place since the last general registration. Take Caledon for example. Caledon had 10,559 voters. At present there are 785, or 7.5 per cent more. Take for example the constituency of the hon. the Minister dealing with this Bill, the Ceres constituency. In 1966 his constituency had 8,629 voters. Now there are 218, or 2.5 per cent more voters. I am mentioning Swellendam to you, Sir. Swellendam had 10,296 voters. There was an increase of 422, or 4.1 per cent. I want to mention Worcester.

Order! I cannot see what this argument has to do with the Bill. It has to do with the new delimitation and not with the registration of voters.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Minister in his Second Reading speech pointed out the desirability of a general registration with a view to the stipulation of a delimitation date. I am trying to reply to that.

This Bill contains no provision in regard to a delimitation.

May I quote to you from the Second Reading speech made by the hon. the Minister? I quote—

Sir, my argument is that the general registration of voters should take into account the need for a delimitation before the next general election.

It is in any case in conflict with the Act to allow it to take place, for the Act provides a minimum of five years between two general registrations. The last delimitation took place just before the last election.

That was in 1965, with respect, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. The hon. member is out of order, for that point does not apply to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling.

I shall make haste to deal with the next point. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister stated that the supplementary voters’ list now came into operation within two months after the supplementary registration of voters, which took place three times a year, instead of the present 42 days after such registration. My question to the hon. the Minister is, why this chopping and changing? Originally it was two months. Then it was 42 days. Now it is being changed back to two months. This seems to me to be totally arbitrary. It seems to me to be bound up with the same lack of good reasons and arguments which we find in the speeches from that side of the House on this Bill.

There is another aspect to which attention ought to be given. In the case of a supplementary registration of voters, such as that in October last year, it is obvious that the large political parties will be benefited in this sense that they have access to the voter. It has become the practice, and hon. members on both sides of the House can deny this if they like, that when one comes to a person who does not belong to your specific political party, one lets him fill in that form and then makes some arrangement or other to ensure that that form does not reach the hands of the registration Officer. [Interjections.] Sir, methinks hon. members protesteth too much. There is even worse evidence than this. It is well known that in Natal instructions were given to the National Party, and hon. members from Natal can deny this if they like, to ensure that people who moved from certain marginal seats to new addresses were not registered at the new addresses but remained registered in that constituency where they had previously been registered. [Interjections.] If this is not so, and there are Natal members on both sides of the House, then I challenge them now to deny this. It is my information that the Government party gave instructions to the effect that people moving from certain marginal seats should not be registered at their new addresses. The purpose of this is clear. It seems as if the Government party does not want to lessen its chances in those seats. This seems to me altogether too much like a manipulation of the voters’ list with the purpose of deriving specific party-political benefit from it. In the light of this evidence I second the amendment of the hon. member for Innesdal.

Mr. Speaker, I am no novice to politics. I confess, of course, that I am far and away no match for the hon. member for Durban (Point) when it comes to these matters, but I have never been as shocked as I was about the statement of the hon. member for Wonderboom about the kind of practices he has been guilty of through the years. Now the hon. member is suddenly so saintly, now that he is so very concerned about the marginal seats. Why is he so concerned about those seats? He is concerned that they will perhaps not fall into the United Party’s hands. I am afraid that the hon. member has exposed himself thoroughly with this “holier-than-thou” attitude. He most probably applied those political practices in his constituency, because it is something I knew nothing about. The hon. member for Wonderboom could rather have told us whether he is continuing with his court case or not. He raised two arguments here which I should like to approach from a practical point of view. The first matter he mentioned was that the voluntary assistance, as the hon. member put it, is actually subsidizing the State since they had to attend to the supplementary registration which the State should otherwise have done. What a far-fetched argument! The hon. member surely knows that the interim registration closed on 31st October. The general registration would have taken place in November. Does the hon. member think for one moment that the political parties would have sat with their arms folded in October waiting for the general registration which would take place in November? Does the hon. member think for one moment that political parties would have left the organization of voters in their constituencies to a general registration? If the hon. member has even an elementary knowledge of party organization he ought to know that after each general registration the political parties on all sides have a great many problems in eliminating the omissions and incompleteness developing as a result of general registration. This is one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister must change the Act. It is true that those lists would have become legal on 12th April. Those lists could then not have been used because the parties would not have had sufficient time, as is customary, to examine and supplement this general registration that is done by the State. It is a centuries-old task of party organization. The voters’ lists are never as incorrect as they are after a general registration of voters. All of us sitting here who know the practical aspects of politics, for example the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Yeoville, have to admit that voters’ lists are never as incomplete as they are after a general registration.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Has there ever in a supplementary registration been more voters registered than in the one that closed on 31st October?

I cannot reply to the hon. member’s question because I do not have the figures at my disposal.

But the hon. member says that the lists are never as incorrect as they are after a general registration.

The lists are never as incorrect as they specifically are after a general registration because we find that the people doing the work for the State, in all sincerity, cannot do it like the political organizers can. The hon. members will admit that after each general registration hundreds of complaints are received about errors in the list. The hon. member for Wonderboom must have experienced this in his constituency as well. It is an acknowledged fact and I hereby also want to deal with the hon. member’s second objection, which is a totally hypothetical argument. He spoke of the man who did not register in October because he thought that a general registration of voters would take place on 17th November, and that he would then still be able to register and cast his vote in the election. That is now the hypothetical argument of the hon. member for Wonderboom. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is not the obligation placed upon the voter by the Electoral Act. If the hon. member were to read section 9 of the Electoral Act he would see that every voter who has the right to vote must register within 30 days subject to the exclusions in terms of subsection (3); otherwise such a person must register within 30 days. This is such a person’s obligation in terms of the Electoral Act. Such a person cannot postpone his registration when there is an interim registration because there is the possibility of a general registration. This is an altogether hypothetical argument the hon. member conducted here and I do not know what he wanted to achieve by it. I honestly think that the hon. member for Innesdal made a better job of kicking up dust than the hon. member for Wonderboom.

I now want to deal with what the hon. member for Green Point said. In principle hon. members opposite agree with most of the amendments in this Bill. The hon. member for Green Point allowed himself to be misled by the hon. member for Innesdal by trying to accommodate him and to reinforce his arguments. He bent over a long way towards the hon. member for Innesdal’s arguments. One of the hon. member’s main objections concerns the question of the shortening of the period for special votes so that voters cannot vote now immediately after nomination day, but only seven days afterwards. The hon. member is afraid that this would favour postal votes at the expense of special votes. He claims that it favours the postal vote in relation to the special vote. I cannot follow the hon. member’s arguments. It is not so. It is a fact that there will now be seven days less; this depends upon the determination of nomination day by the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister has a tolerance of 10 days in this connection. If the hon. the Minister were to exercise this right, and even if the provisions in the Act, to the effect that votes could be cast the day after nomination day, were still applicable, we would still be precisely where we are now. From seven days after nomination day, i.e. 20th March, time is being granted for special votes up to 20th April, i.e. two days before polling day. This means that one full month is being given for the casting of special votes, while postal votes can be cast from 21 days before polling day up to five days before polling day. This means 17 days for postal votes and one month for special votes. How, then, are postal votes now being favoured when one month is being given for special votes? This is not the only argument in favour of special votes. The hon. member knows, since he also served on the Select Committee, that there are many other considerations that place the emphasis specifically on special votes. This was indeed the committee’s whole endeavour, i.e. to let the emphasis fall on special votes. I do not want to mention it all; hon. members opposite know more about this than do the members of the Hertzog Party. They know that in the case of special votes presiding Officers go to the voters in order to let them vote at their homes, in institutions or in workshops. This is a privilege postal votes do not have. I cannot share in the hon. member’s argument that this change in the Act places emphasis on the postal vote.

His other argument was that the presiding Officers could not sit between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. in all magisterial districts and constituencies. In this respect I think the hon. member unjustly offended the hon. member for Malmesbury. He quoted here from the commission’s report in which a recommendation is made in favour of special votes. He also said that the hon. member for Malmesbury served on this commission and that he agreed about this matter. According to that hon. member this is a unanimous report. But the hon. member for Green Point ought at least to know better than that. I can hardly believe that he could have said such a thing without knowing better. He surely knows that that commission did not issue a unanimous report about this matter. He knows that the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Moorreesburg delivered a minority opinion in this connection. But in support of his argument the hon. member conveniently did not refer to that. He also linked the hon. member for Malmesbury’s name to that while that hon. member and the hon. member for Moorreesburg had delivered a minority opinion.

They did not issue a minority report about those points I referred to.

The hon. member spoke of the question of the special vote having preference over the postal vote. His argument was that the hon. member for Malmesbury had recommended the postal vote system with a great deal of bravado. According to that hon. member the hon. member for Malmesbury preferred this to the special vote. Is that not so? Surely the hon. member did say that the hon. member for Malmesbury was very strongly in favour of postal votes, while the hon. members for Malmesbury and Moorreesburg specifically retained a minority opinion about that, in which they said that they could not see how this special voting system could be implemented in practice. I think that in fairness to the hon. member for Malmesbury the hon. member must correct these facts in the House.

In addition, I just want to deal with a last point in respect of the hon. member for Green Point. This hon. member and other members before him implied that the proposed deletion of this section, which provides that there shall be a presiding Officer in each constituency and magisterial district, will result in there being no more presiding Officers. If this hon. member were to read section 71quat, he would see that, in consultation with the political parties, such presiding Officers can be appointed where ever practicable. No hon. member sitting here need fear that if he goes to his returning Officer with a legitimate case he will not find presiding Officers at all the practical points. The hon. the Minister surely gave us that assurance. If I now doubted the goodwill of the hon. the Minister and his Department in respect of this matter, and if I had reason to believe that they were purposely discriminating against special votes with a view to retaining the postal vote system, I would have had the right to argue as the hon. member for Green Point has done. But I find the goodwill of the Department in respect of special votes specifically embodied in the fact that this Department and the hon. the Minister introduced a Bill last year in which it was asked that postal votes should be done away with. They wanted to retain the special vote system as the only system. Why would a department and a Minister, who feel this way about a system of voting, now take steps to make the practical implementation of this system impossible. I therefore do not think that we have any reason to fear that the casting of special votes will in any way be impeded by this relevant amendment. I think that after this the hon. member for Green Point will no longer know whether he has an argument against this amendment either.

As usual the hon. member for Innesdal is not in the House. In my day I had a great deal of difficulty with that hon. member. It is true what the hon. member for Waterkloof said here to-day, i.e. that the hon. member for Innesdal was never in his place when you looked for him. He reminds me of a donkey: when you do not want him he is lying there, flattening your camp fences, and when you are looking for him he is gone. I wanted to speak to the hon. member but now he has gone again. However, I want to refer to him in his absence. According to him the hon. the Minister allowed the whole of 1969 to pass without carrying out his duty and, as provided in the Act, holding a general registration. That hon. member said this because he, as vice-chairman of the Interior Study Group, which was most closely concerned with these matters, never gave his attention to his task for one single moment.

Is this now Jaap?

This is now the hon. member for Innesdal. That is why the hon. member does not have a clue about what is going on in this entire affair. Not the hon. member for Innesdal, nor any of the members sitting there, knows for example that during the previous Parliamentary session an amendment of the Act was introduced specifically to change the Act so that a general registration could be held. If we had, for example, held a general registration in April of last year we would have had to do it under the old provision which stated that the registration must take place de novo. In other words, all old voters’ lists and cards are thrown away. The hon. member for Tygervallei has already mentioned this here. We would have had to throw away all the voters’ lists and then register the voters anew. But we specifically amended the Act during that session so that the voters’ list could be retained as the basis of the general registration. That also answers the hon. member for Innesdal’s other complaint, i.e. that we are now going to contest an election on an old voters’ list. The hon. member for Tygervallei pointed out that after that amendment we would in any case have contested an election on the old voters’ lists. But this only goes to prove how little the hon. member for Innesdal knows about these matters.

I want to cut short my speech. The hon. member also raised a second argument, i.e. that when the National Party decided to introduce these amendments into the Electoral Act last year, they only looked to their own interests and gave no consideration to the Act or to the interests of anyone else. The fact is that these amendments were discussed beforehand with the official Opposition. At that time the Hertzog Party was not yet a Dart of the official Opposition. Therefore we did not only look to our own interests; we also consulted the Opposition’s interests in this connection.

But I want to conclude. The hon. member for Innesdal made a great fuss here when he spoke of the will of the people which is given expression in this Parliament. The hon. member for Innesdal represents the voters of Innesdal, does he not? The Nationalists of Innesdal. If, therefore, that hon. member wants to be as much of a democrat as he implied here this evening that he was, why does he not resign his seat?

Why did Lewis not resign?

But surely the hon. member for Umlazi did not raise this argument. That hon. member must not take up the cudgels for the hon. member for Innesdal like this. The hon. member for Umlazi did not kick up such a fuss about this matter. However, the hon. member for Innesdal did do so. He says that the will of the people is expressed in this Parliament. He represents the Nationalists of Innesdal in this House. We must specifically hold this earlier election to give the voters of Innesdal the opportunity of exercising their democratic right in this Parliament. In other words, to elect a Nationalist.

The hon. member for Innesdal frankly admitted here that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of this country to call an election at any time. This is provided in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Almost every previous Prime Minister of South Africa made use of this right to call elections when they felt like doing so. The late Dr. Verwoerd did so in 1961. But now the hon. members are kicking up a tremendous fuss about the earlier election. They want to make the calling of an election subject to a general registration. In other words, the prerogative which the Constitution gives to the Prime Minister of the country to call an election at any time, the hon member for Innesdal wants to subject to a general registration. This is the way they observe the Constitution of the Republic. The hon. member for Innesdal is now, all of a sudden, allergic to voting for a Bill which authorizes certain actions of the Minister. I want to ask the hon. member for Innesdal, the hon. member for Ermelo and other hon. members how many times, yes, innumerable times, they did not vote here for amending Acts that authorized the interim actions of Ministers while Parliament was not in session. Those hon. members voted for that innumerable times. Now, all of a sudden, when an amending Bill comes before Parliament to legalize the actions of a Minister when Parliament is not in session, they are terribly allergic to it. Whence this piety? These hon. members realize, of course, that the earlier election is advancing the rope around their necks. I therefore cannot blame them for wriggling like this to escape their doom.

Mr. Speaker, It very seldom happens that I find myself agreeing with the hon. member for Parow. I do this evening in so far as the concluding part of his speech is concerned, when he laid emphasis on the fact that one cannot dispute the prerogative of the Prime Minister to call an election at any time he considers suitable for whatever reason. It is an unqualified and unfettered prerogative that the Prime Minister enjoys. When one considers the sound and the fury of the dispute between the obsolete and departing Nationalist Party and the reconstituted Nationalist Party, one has to consider, too, that one cannot judge what has happened in connection with the presentation of this Bill to Parliament if one does not take into consideration the fact that the Prime Minister was stampeded by the hon. the Minister for Transport into calling out a much earlier election because of his fear of the effect of the split in his own party. One cannot judge the situation unless one appreciates that the Prime Minister of South Africa, unable to lead his own party as a united Nationalist Party, found himself facing a little defection. Four members—look at them. I look at them, but I retain my equanimity. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet look at them and they dissolve in horror. We get what we have seen in Parliament, namely that almost every measure that is presented for your attention, Sir, in the Chair, develops into a dog-fight between the Cabinet and these four gentlemen who look so harmless and pathetic. It is unbelievable that they can cause so much concern, so much misery and so much uncertainty in government ranks that we are to face an election a year before its time, on a voters’ roll which indisputably is not the type of voters’ roll upon which a country should be called to vote at a general election. But that we cannot argue about. The mere fact that the supplementary registration which ended on the 31st October broke all records as far as registrations were concerned shows in what an unholy mess the voters’ roll was when the Prime Minister was panicked into this premature decision about a premature general election. Let us face that. I think that once we accept that, we appreciate the difficulties which the hon. the Minister and his department found themselves in. We appreciate the difficulties that many of our Nationalist friends opposite find themselves in. We also appreciate the discomfiture and the embarrassment of the four gentlemen who constitute the reconstituted Nationalist Party. We appreciate all that. But that is background.

While under the rules of the House we are fully entitled to discuss all the surrounding circumstances of a Bill at Second Reading, I want to restrain myself. I do not want to enter into this quarrel too much, except to repeat that in judging the merits of this Bill we have to appreciate that the Prime Minister of South Africa, with a Parliament modelled on the British Parliament, has a prerogative, unfettered, unlimited and unquestioned, to determine the most suitable date for his purposes on which to hold a general election. This the hon. the Prime Minister did not do of his own volition, according to the evidence of the hon. the Minister of Transport. He was led, intimidated and frightened by the hon. the Minister of Transport into calling an election on the 22nd April. We face that fact. We cannot deny it. It is there. It is the truth.

Nonsense!

Can you believe it, Sir, that there is an hon. member in this House who does not know that there is going to be an election on the 22nd April? He thinks it is nonsense when we talk about it. I am sure the hon. the Minister will support me in this, namely that there will be a general election on 22nd April and that we will have to face it. But we as an Opposition, and I want to concede at once, also the hon. the Minister, are now faced with the preposterous fact that we have to go to the country a year before the time because four Nationalist members have decided that they cannot follow the Nationalist Party any longer. We now have to decide what should be done to look after the interests of the people. The law provided that in 1969 there should have been a general registration of voters, but the Electoral Act also provides that after a general registration there should be at least one supplementary registration before a general election. That is something which nobody thought about in this debate. It is a fact. In other words, it was quite impossible to have an election on the 22nd April at which the new general registration of voters which was to take place in November or December could have been valid. That would have had to be held, in any case, on the old voters’ roll. Now, Sir, all the parties in South Africa mustered all their resources to bring the voters’ roll into as near decent order as possible in the supplementary registration that ended on 31st October. I think that all of us in this House can on behalf of our parties claim that we did a creditable job. We did a jolly good job in seeing that as many people as possible were registered and that the voters’ roll should be as clean as possible. We did that with our own resources as political organizations. I found this work absolutely fascinating. I think the United Party did well. We registered tens and tens of thousands of our own supporters. I am serious about this. But what is so interesting is that while the United Party registered tens and tens of thousands of its own supporters, now that the canvassing is progressing, we realize that the National Party with a supreme effort registered some of their own supporters, a great many Reconstituted Nationalists and almost as many United Party supporters as their own. So, you see, Sir, there is justice in this peculiar situation after all.

I ask you to imagine the confusion in the minds of the electorate if, within a month after this mighty and remarkable effort which ended on 31st October, we went back to the voters of South Africa telling them that they would have to re-register if they wanted to vote in the provincial elections. They would have thought that there was something wrong with the administration of the citizens’ rights in South Africa. They would have thought that the Government, the authorities, the State were making fools of them. That is why this would have been a ridiculous situation. To have had this mighty effort up to 31st October, and then to follow is immediately with a general registration of voters, would have made our electoral system, our democratic machinery, the laughing-stock of South Africa. That is why the United Party, as responsible as ever, indicated to the Minister concerned that we would support and assist him to get legislation through this House if he decided not to have a general registration. We do not apologize for this. The Government Party and the official Opposition are at one that in order to save the prestige of our democratic machinery in this country, the Bill is necessary as regards one clause. We will not apologize for that, and that is why we will not support the amendment which was moved by the Reconstructed Nationalist Party wherein they express their extreme displeasure at this Bill. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of the Interior that he did not quite play the game with Parliament or the Opposition in this matter. We came to an agreement, as I have said, that in the interests of the democratic machine of this country we would support him in this particular aspect of the Bill. Now he comes with a Bill that contains more than just that, considerably more.

So little.

The Minister must not come to me with the argument of the woman who was expecting an illegitimate baby and who said, “You cannot be angry, look what a small baby it is”. I cannot accept that argument. I do not care how small this departure from an agreement is; it is a departure in principle to which we, the Opposition, attach considerable importance. We attach considerable importance to this specially in regard to two aspects, namely that the special vote will no longer be given more favourable treatment than the postal vote by its being available to the voter on the day after the nomination. That is now to become seven days after the nomination which makes it more or less equal as a facility with the postal vote. What is more important is that the Minister now indicates that they will not be able to carry out the provision, which was an agreed provision and the recommendation of a Select Committee, which had been supported by both sides of this House and justified to the House by this hon. Minister a year ago. This provision was to the effect that the State would see that for special votes at least one presiding Officer would be in attendance in every constituency during voting hours. Now, all of a sudden, that cannot be done. If the Minister felt that these two measures were necessary for a reason that I want to suggest to him, and which he must deny if I am wrong and in view of the fact that we told him that this would be controversial and that we would oppose it, why did he not bring in a separate Bill for these additional measures? Why did he not come forward with an agreed measure between the Government and the Opposition which we could have put through in half an hour?

What about your friends over there? They would not have agreed.

I am not concerned with those hon. members. That is where the hon. the Minister and I differ. He lives only for his fight with that little group over there; we live for South Africa. In other words, there is a slight difference between us. We do not determine all our thinking and all our planning and every decision we make because we hate the people who sit on the crossbenches. We are concerned with the interests of the people of South Africa. I will not say that the hon. the Minister is dishonourable. I will never make such a suggestion and he knows it, but I want to say that it would have been an honourable thing to do to separate what we had agreed upon from what we disagree upon. I want to say that I think it is unfair of the hon. the Minister to do such a thing. It is inconsiderate of the hon. the Minister and I think it is ungrateful of the hon. the Minister to do such a thing in view of the attitude we have taken up in this matter. I want to express our displeasure in no uncertain terms about this matter and I want the hon. the Minister to realize that we do not like this sort of action. We do expect better from this hon. Minister. He has a high reputation in South Africa for his integrity. He must not disappoint us and he must not force us to change our opinion about him. I think the hon. the Minister should be a little bit ashamed of himself. This is sharp practice, if one may call it that. It is sharp practice to append matters of controvery to a matter which is an important agreed measure between the Government and the Opposition. I want to deplore it and I hope it will never happen again. I am quite sure that the Minister when he sits down in a sane moment, when all the excitement of the election is gone and the reconstituted party has disappeared from Parliament, will suffer a pang of conscience. I take it that the Minister, like all of us, sleeps with his conscience. I am sure he is going to have a sleepless night once his terror of the reconstituted party has diminished. Where the hon. the Prime Minister has exercised his prerogative to anticipate the date of the election as laid down in the Republic of South Africa Act by more than a year, which it is his undisputed right to do, he faces us with an accomplished fact and the hon. the Minister and the Opposition in Parliament must now do their best for the people in the face of this accomplished fact. This accomplished fact was brought about as a result of the indiscretion of the hon. the Minister of Transport, and the weakness and the vacillation of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is however still a fact and here we are. We want to save embarrassment and inconvenience to the people and we want to save the reputation of our democratic institution. I do not think that one can have better motives than that. Now the hon. the Minister comes and he says that he is bringing in two other provisions in order to make it less easy for people to have special votes and to encourage people indirectly to revert to the thoroughly discredited system of postal votes. I have expressed my regrets that these two provisions are included in what should have been an agreed measure. I want to go further. I have only been in this House for 22 years, and therefore I cannot speak of longer, but in that time it has been the practice of the South African democracy that we do not bring about changes in the electoral laws unless they have been canvassed in a Select Committee, consisting of all the major parties in the House. Perhaps the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party who has been in this House much longer than I have been and who has almost become an institution over a long period of service, will tell me if I am wrong when I say that this has been the practice over the years. Having served in several of those Select Committees I have found that they always conduct the discussions on the highest level seeking agreement, and even if they failed to get agreement, it was not because of the lack of trying. I want to pay tribute in this instance to the Chairman of several of these Select Committees, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), for his approach to this matter. The hon. member for Parow did not know what he was talking about, when he said that we did not come to an unanimous decision. I am amazed at him. I have great respect for his memory, his wit and his turn of language. But in this case his turn of language did his memory a disservice. This is so, because in an eloquent moment he hold us that there was a minority report attached to the commission of 1963.

Just read paragraph 336 on page 68.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) and I were looking for this paragraph but we could not find it in time. Therefore, I thank him for finding it. I quote:

From that hon. members can see that we were unanimous on the matters that really did matter. There were differences but they were on a few minor matters. This report was signed by every member of the commission, including Mr. J. W. van Staden, M.P. and Mr. P. S. Marais, M.P. Where did the hon. member for Parow come with his idea that there was a minority report? Here is the report. Nothing of that kind! It was a unanimous report. They had certain reservations during the discussions, but the evidence was so overwhelming that they did not have the cheek to vote for their minor reservations. It is a fact that there was no minority report. We now face the position where the hon. the Minister, for reasons which do not concern principle—and I want to give him credit for that—but for reasons purely of administrative convenience …

For practical purposes.

Sir. at last I speak the truth in the opinion of the Minister. I am progressing, Sir.

That is what I have been saying all the time.

Not because of matters of principle or because the Minister disagrees with the report of the commission, or even because he has changed his mind on the matter since last year, but for pure expedience, and purely for reasons of administrative convenience the Minister now asks Parliament to reject in important aspects, a well-considered Bill, accepted unanimously by Parliament, if I remember correctly, a year ago. What is this administrative convenience? Apparently the Department of the Interior, for which, as you know, Sir, I have the greatest respect when it comes to electoral matters, has difficulties regarding manpower. Can you believe it, Sir? South Africa overburdened with a swollen Public Service, with one in four people engaged in the service of the State, cannot find one presiding Officer for special votes to attend in 160 constituencies each day, excluding Sundays and public holidays, for a month. What in heaven’s name do we have a Civil Service for? I am satisfied that if the Minister believed in the principles he supported last year, and had faced the Civil Service with a challenge and said to them: “This is the law; we have to carry it out”, the Civil Service would have responded to his challenge. Now I am beginning to wonder. I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I shall put the correctness of my suggestion to a simple test. I want to ask the Minister: Is it not because the Government is becoming so scared of the possible result of the election on 22nd April that they want the postal vote? Is that the reason why the prefer the postal vote to the honest special vote system?

In an urban constituency, which I once contested, I think we broke the world record, because we had a 96.2 per cent poll. My opponent who is not a member of this House, came to me at half past six that evening, when there were long queues of people standing around the city hall of the town concerned, and said to me: “Lord, Steyn, what do we do if we have more than a hundred per cent poll?” [Laughter.] Sir, I want to know what the true motive of this Bill is. I do not want to read the report to you again, Sir, but this report of the commission of the early 1960’s made one thing clear, namely that the postal vote system was a corrupt system. I want to say that there is not a single member of this House who, if he were to get up and speak the truth, would deny that he did not have moments of shame because he was at least an accomplice to dishonest and malpractices as far as postal votes are concerned. It is a wicked system. It is a dirty system. It is an undemocratic system. In the words of the report it destroys two fundamental principles of the electoral system in a free democracy, and that is firstly the principle that the voter should have secrecy, and secondly the principle that the voter should be free from intimidation. I am not making reproaches. I am not saying that the Government party alone is guilty. I am not admitting guilt either. I said earlier that I had a method by which we could test what is happening in this country in regard to postal votes, this corrupt system. That test was given to me by the hon. member for Tygervallei, and the fact that there were reservations about this report, according to the hon. member for Vasco. What did the hon. member for Tygervallei say in reply to my question: “Who saved the postal vote system?” He replied: “Die Nasionale Partylede”. [Interjections.] That is not true, Sir. That is unfair to the members of the Nationalist Party who served on this commission. Some of the most influential and most respected members of that commission were as much against the postal votes as we were. Two members of the Nationalist Party saved the postal vote system. Of course the hon. the Minister will not repudiate that. The Minister is to-day coming to the assistance of their point of view. There is a story in the Good Book I should like to remind you of. Sir, This is the story of two women who came to Solomon, claiming the motherhood of the same child. Solomon in his wisdom said: “Let us cut the baby in two, and you can each have a half”. The one woman protested and she was the mother of the child. Now the commission says: “Here is a baby, the postal vote system. Destroy this system. Gradually eliminate it.” Who tried to save this baby, Sir? According to the hon. member for Tygervallei, it was the National Party. In other words, Sir, who wanted to save what was found by this commission unanimously to be a corrupt system? The Nationalist Party. I hope I am wrong and I want to make the following appeal to the hon. the Minister and the National Party: For heaven’s sake let us from now onwards direct our energies to the entire abolition from South Africa’s electoral system of a system which every expert found in evidence before the commission to be corrupt, evil and destructive of the rights of the citizen. Let us get rid of it, Sir, and let us not have measures like this, which tend to prolong the life of this villain in the democratic drama of South Africa.

Sir, we want to fight the Nationalist Party and the Nationalist Party, when they are able to forget about the Herstigte Party, want to fight us. Let us for heaven’s sake fight as South African against South African and let us fight according to a set of rules that will help all of us to resist the temptation to commit malpractices and to allow corruption and things that are wicked. I am not impressed by the fact that the hon. the Minister cannot staff these Offices, because he has not tried. He is not keen; he is not eager to do so. He seizes the first excuse offered to him to run away from his own Bill of last year.

We are going to vote against this Bill. I am going to move an amendment so that we can vote against it. We shall probably lose this division. We may lose one or two divisions until next week and then the picture will change. Let us substitute for the postal vote system an honest, impregnable system like the special vote system. People who cannot attend at the polls at the day of election should be entitled to vote. All joking apart, and all pre-election fever apart, I hope that the Minister in his sane moments will support me in this plea, which I make for the sake of an honest democracy in South Africa. In that spirit, I should like to move the following further amendment:

Mr. Speaker, I paid the hon, member for Yeoville a compliment last year when I said that I acknowledge and accepted that he had a great deal of experience of elections, and probably special knowledge of all the possible things that could be done with a postal vote. I just want to say that if the hon. member for Wonderboom had rather asked the hon. member for Yeoville to advise him on the Electoral Laws, he would probably have fared much better with his application to the court. I should like, from the beginning, to furnish brief replies to all the points which have been raised here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) began by saying that in respect of the special votes a longer period of time should be granted than in respect of the postal votes. I just want to point out to him that according to the nomination day which has now been announced, the special vote can be used from 20th March, while the postal vote can only be used as from 1st April.

But that is for this election.

Yes, for this election. In other words, there is a difference of 10 days. On this particular point I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville. I did not make these proposals on the basis of differences in principle. I introduced these proposals out of practical considerations because I did not want to make a farce of this special vote system and because I wanted to give these special votes a proper chance, as the hon. member for Yeoville also wants to give them a proper chance. If I were to create circumstances which would cause the special vote system to become reduced to chaos, then I would not be giving the special vote a proper chance, would I? That is precisely the reason for my having introduced these proposals. I want to say at this stage that I am not interested in any way in the respective merits of the postal vote and the special vote in this discussion. That is not revelant here. I have never once taken this into consideration. All that I want, is that a procedure should be written into the Electoral Laws in terms of which we can hold a proper election. One aspect of this relates to special votes. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply briefly to the points which have been raised, because my time is limited.

Why is your time limited?

I should like to finish this off to-night. I know my time is not limited, but I should like to finish off to-night. I want to come now to a point which was raised by both the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Green Point, namely the special vote of which voters of the Jewish community could make use if they perhaps had conscientious objections. I wonder whether the hon. members were really serious with the idea they expressed here.

The Prime Minister said so.

The Prime Minister did not promise this.

He did.

Mr. Speaker, where do hon. members get that complete nonsense from. Prove to me that he said this. Why did you not do so in your speeches? Let me inform the House of what happened. Apparently Rabbi Casper referred on a certain occasion to his discussion with the Prime Minister. The newspapers then printed a report of what he had allegedly said in regard to his discussion with the Prime Minister. According to the report he stated that the Prime Minister had said that those who had conscientious objections to going to the polls on that day could vote by means of a postal vote or a special vote.

Surely this is exactly what he said.

What must we deduce from this? What really happened is that the Rabbi told the Prime Minister that there were certain people who had to drive long distances to reach a specific place in a constituency. He referred to people who could perhaps be in Springs on that particular day and would have to go to another constituency to vote. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was for precisely that purpose that we had a postal and a special vote.

I must say that that is a good story.

The Third Reading of this Bill is still to come. Hon. members must not talk nonsense now. They must prove to me that the Prime Minister proposed something.

But you have now proved it yourself.

No, I have not. After all, there are postal votes and special votes of which the Prime Minister is aware. The hon. members must not make themselves ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he ever denied the statement in which it was said that a special vote could be used?

Sir, I did not deny it. I never saw it. I heard it for the first time the other day in the Other Place. But in any case, even if I had seen it in a newspaper, I would have thought of nothing else but the special vote for which provision is made in the Electoral Laws. But those hon. members now expect something to fall out of the sky which is not there at all. This irritates me. I want to tell them summarily now that there is no question of such a special vote. There never was any question of such a vote.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The Minister has now said that he knew nothing about it until he heard it in the Other Place the other day. How can he tell us what happened between the Rabbi and the Prime Minister?

Because I consulted the Prime Minister on this, and because it is the logical conclusion I would have arrived at in any case if I had seen that report in a newspaper. But let us leave this matter now.

The credibility gap!

No, Sir, we will keep our promises. There was never such a promise. Now I am asking hon. members on the opposite side, do they think it would be practicable to introduce such a system?

No!

Very well, we now return to the same point. It is, after all, very foolish to deduce that the Prime Minister would have suggested anything like that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also asked me what the small errors are to which I referred, and which could perhaps be rectified. I want to furnish a few of them. I am thinking for example of a date of birth which has apparently not been furnished correctly, or even a date of birth which has perhaps not been filled in. Personally I think that if a date of birth has not been filled in, it is such a basic blunder that that person cannot be registered. But even in that case I think we can still try to obtain the necessary information from the person. I am thinking, for example, of someone omitting to furnish the place of birth. I am also thinking of immigrants, who have to furnish special information on the application form, and who do not do so. These are the kind of errors which I had in mind and in regard to which I gave instructions that these people were to be contacted by telephone or that investigations had to be instituted.

And his previous address?

Yes. If something similar has been left out, we can ascertain where the person was before since that person’s name has to be scratched out there.

Hon. members kicked up a terrific row here because we had supposedly acted in conflict with the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year. Now I am asking those hon. members, if the recommendations of the Select Committee is the law of the Medes and the Persians, why then did they agree with me to deviate from another principle approved by the Select Committee? That is, namely, to return from the 42-day period to the two-month period when a supplementary registration comes into operation.

I should like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Innesdal said here. He said that we had, during the first nine months of the year, done nothing in regard to the general registration. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during 1968 we had a general registration of Coloureds in which more than 600,000 Coloureds were registered. In the beginning of last year we had to do work in preparation for that. It is simply a logical and correct thing to do to choose this time of the year, October, as the time when a general registration such as this should take place. But now the hon. member for Innesdal stated that his party was established on 26th November. They envisaged a general registration taking place. But when his party was established the general election had already been announced. It was already then clear to the entire South Africa that a general registration could not be used for this coming election. In what respect has he then been prejudiced?

The hon. member for Wonderboom still said it was coming.

I shall deal in a moment with the hon. member for Wonderboom.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to this report. I should also like to point out to him that there were certain sections of this report here which were not unanimous. I deduced, perhaps incorrectly—I want to concede, therefore, that he was right—that he gave us the assurance that the entire report was unanimous. There were certain aspects in regard to which there was no unanimity, particularly in regard to the abolition of the postal vote.

Quote, please.

I am referring hon. members to paragraph 235 on page 48 of the commission’s report. The paragraph reads as follows—

I should like to emphasize that we are taking this step because we believe that we will in this way best ensure the smooth functioning of the election. The hon. member for Wonderboom asked the reason for this chopping and changing. The hon. member first said that there was a need for registration and that the enthusiastic response to the supplementary registration was proof of that need. After this extensive supplementary registration the need no longer existed. If there was a need before, it has now been eliminated as a result of this extensive supplementary registration. Why is the hon. member complaining? The hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Wonderboom are still complaining now, although the great need has been eliminated by the supplementary registration. After all, hon. members are getting what they wanted, why are they complaining? The hon. member for Wonderboom asked the reason for the chopping and changing in regard to the alteration of the period from 42 days to two months. Hon. members will recall that on 31st October 1969 I made an announcement in regard to the general registration which was not to take place. I then said the following—

The hon. member for Wonderboom then applied to the court. Do you know what the hon. member asked for in court, Sir. He asked for precisely what I told him I would do. In his application the hon. member asked for the following—

That is what the hon. member asked the court.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what he envisages with this general statement?

On 31st October I promised the hon. member that I would give this to him. But then he went to court. It is not surprising what happens when the hon. member does such nonsensical things. Both things the hon. member asked for in the court, I did. In the first instance I shall ask Parliament to approve these proclamations and declare them valid. I said, as long ago as 31st October, that I would accede to the second request of the hon. member. I am therefore not surprised that I received a message from the State Attorney’s Office last week to the effect that if the Bill in its present form passes, the applicant and his legal advisers agree that the entire application has in fact become academic and consequently that the amending Bill will govern the entire situation. It seems to me the hon. member is now thanking me because I gave him what he went to court for, but which I had already promised him on 31st October of last year. The hon. member for Yeoville asked why I had not drafted a separate act. He kicked up quite a row about this. He spoke about an undertaking on our part that we would not come forward with anything else. But there was never any such undertaking between us. This will not be the first time that that hon. member agreed to certain provisions in a Bill and not to other provisions. The hon. member will agree with me that to pilot two Bills through Parliament is a far more difficult and tedious procedure than it is to pilot one Bill through Parliament. But listen to what the hon. member said. He said that if I had proposed a separate Bill it would have been passed in Parliament in no time at all. I then asked the hon. member, what about his friends next to him? It was they who were objecting to those two points on which we agreed. Consequently there would still have been a discussion in Parliament. He then kicked up another row and asked whether I was sensitive about his friends sitting in those benches. But what I have said is true. We would still have had the discussion. It would had brought us no further. It would merely have made the position twice as difficult, and twice as tedious as is the case at present. I just want to inform the hon. member for Yeoville that I know that the voters’ lists are not 100 per cent correct and that they never will be 100 per cent correct. We can never get them 100 per cent correct. But with the registration we have now had, that list is as complete as we can expect under the circumstances.

The other points which were raised and discussed by hon. members on that side of the House have been effectively replied to by hon. members on this side of the House. There is perhaps a difference in regard to this matter, but I do not think it is a very serious one. I just want to ask them to give us a chance. I do not want to create problems with the promotion of the special vote; all I want to do is to ensure that the election takes place smoothly. The hon. member kicked up a great row about the presiding Officers and stated that I would not even appoint one presiding Officer in each constituency. Even if the provision is not there I will nevertheless have to appoint 10 or 12 presiding Officers in many constituencies. What about the large constituencies where there are so many towns and small concentrations where there will have to be presiding Officers at each place? It is not merely a question of one presiding Officer in each constituency. We shall try to make if as convenient as possible for all the hon. members and for their voters to record their votes.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—80: Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, S. L.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hertzog, A.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Stofberg, L. F.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. S. J. M. Steyn dropped.

Mr. Speaker then put the Question: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—80: Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, S. L.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, T. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. EL; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, El. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Hertzog, A.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and L. F. Stofberg.