When we started with this new system of sales taxation last year, we warned the Government that many of the items under the heading “Tariff heading and Description” starting on page 97 of this Bill which are now being amended by this schedule were, firstly, a taxation on essentials; secondly, were unnecessary and, thirdly, would bring in excessive revenue. Now, a year later, we are being faced with amending schedules for this tax. What is the situation which has arisen during the past year?—We have been proved right almost in everything we alleged a year ago. Firstly, the Government received revenue in excess of what they estimated, despite the fact that …

Order! The hon. member is now delivering a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the amendments contained in the schedule under discussion. Am I not entitled to deal with the background to it?

Certainly the hon. member may, but not by means of a Second Reading speech.

I am only sketching the background to these amendments. I am saying that we have been justified in our criticism by the very fact that we have these amendments before us now. Despite the fact that an amount more than the estimate was received last year, we are now being asked to approve increases on a whole range of items, increases which are going to bring in even more revenue than the revenue estimated last year. The fact is that the Government received more money than it expected after actually withdrawing a number of items and yet it is now asking us to approve further increases. In the circumstances I should like to move the amendments of which Mr. Emdin, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. has given notice and which are printed on page 399 of the Order Paper, as follows—

I move these amendments to express our protest not only at the extension of the list of items but also at the increased duty—from 20 per cent to 25 per cent—which is being imposed on a whole range of items. If you take a sales duty, or a purchase tax—as it really is, because the consumer pays—of 25 per cent, i.e. one-quarter at the point of sale at the factory, by the time that item reaches the consumer, that 25 per cent has increased to very much more than 25 per cent. Where we already believe it was too high at 20 per cent on many of these items, we are now being asked to increase it to 25 per cent, a quarter of the cost at the factory. If you add an average profit of 50 per cent, you are paying not only the 25 per cent, but 25 per cent plus the 50 per cent profit. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this. He was not responsible last year, but it is his department. We were given assurances last year that the department and the Price Controller would ensure that the consumer was not penalized by abuse of the sales tax and excessive increases being brought about under the pretext of sales tax. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many prosecutions have taken place over the last year, if any, and I suggest to him that there have been none. I want to ask him how many investigations have been made and I suggest to him that the answer is going to be “very few”, because the Government simply has not the staff to check. Whilst it cannot check existing taxes it is now asking us to increase even more the amounts on many items and to bring in a complete new range of items.

In regard to the new items proposed, the amendments which I have moved seek to limit these to luxury items. Here we are being asked to accept a new tax on watches, clocks, stop-watches, etc., on photographic equipment, cameras, etc. It is not restricted to luxury items, to the specialist items, but to any watch and any camera and any stopwatch, even the cheap watch which the farmer has to give to his boss boy to enable him to control operations. We are therefore moving to lay down, in the case of cameras and photographic equipment, R30 as the minimum value on which the tax is introduced, and in the case of watches, etc., to restrict these to items of over R20 in value.

At least then the tax will be on more or less semi-luxury items. But we can see no reason for a Government with a surplus as large as the one it has had this last year to tax “voor die voet” all these new items and certainly no reason to increase the tax on so many items from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Last year we criticized the Government on many of the items it was taxing. We said that this was unnecessary and would be a burden on the average South African and would increase his cost of living. I just want to look for a moment at some of the items concerned. These proposals before us now withdraw the tax entirely on some of the items we criticized, like floor polish, insecticides and disinfectants and bed-linen. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us on what basis he chose the items on which the duty was to be reduced or withdrawn, because we pointed out last year that if a person was not going to pay sales duty he would become a queer sort of South African, unwashed and unshaven. Now we see that we must have been right, because one item which the Government has now withdrawn from taxation is disinfectants and insecticides. In other words, our warning must have been correct. Or are these political disinfectants and insecticides which have been withdrawn? But the Government has not withdrawn it on the items affecting cleanliness. I want to ask the Minister why he has not withdrawn the duty on soap? What he has done is to reduce it to half of what it was. Does that mean that a person must only be a little bit dirty, or must he wash only one half of his body and not the other? What is the principle involved? The principle involved is that the Government is taxing cleanliness. What is the object; what is the purpose? Why not do the job properly?

I do not want to deal with all the items concerned, because other hon. members will deal with them. What I am trying to establish is what the thinking of the Government is in this regard. What is the policy, what is the principle behind the items which are chosen for taxation, because they appear to me to be chosen completely haphazardly. You can now disinfect yourself, but you can only half wash yourself. You can now have cheaper bed-linen, but you have to pay a sales duty on the furniture. You can now polish your floor, but you must pay duty on creams and cosmetics to polish your face. Where is the principle involved? What guides the Government? Cosmetics are taxed but you can keep your floors clean now. Disinfectants are free but you have to pay a tax in order to wash yourself. There is no system or logic in this, and so many items of daily necessary use are still being taxed. [Time expired.]

Against the background of a R10 million increase in the Revenue Account shown in the recent Second Estimates, I should like to move the amendments standing in my name on page 400 of the Order Paper, as follows—

I do not propose to go into these amendments in detail as they are set out for all to see. They deal briefly with cosmetics and cosmetic preparations, with soap and washing preparations, with matches and with toilet paper. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give these amendments his very serious consideration. In the case of cosmetics and perfumery, the Minister may take the view that these are not necessities of life, but I think that the women of South Africa would argue differently. I believe that they will claim that cosmetics and perfumes are as essential to their image as the very clothes they wear. Women have lesser privileges in our tax life than men. I think that even the hon. the Minister will realize that the women of South Africa do not enjoy the same privileges as men and they should therefore be treated less harshly in this matter of sales tax. Women not only have the additional burden of housekeeping, but to-day they are expected to go out to work and then return to face the daily chores which would have been done in the past by servants who are no longer available. In addition they are the morale-builders of the family. They must present a happy personality at all times and they are expected to ooze femininity and charm for the benefit of the males in the families. Not only are their financial rewards for the work they do lower than those of the males, but they also have to face the additional cost of transport to and from their work, of office lunches and office clothes. Sir, we in the male world are to-day indebted to the female of the species for the freshness and the charm which they bring into our daily lives. Our lives would indeed be dreary if women did not make the most of themselves. I believe that a woman feels undressed and psychologically incomplete until she emerges from her dressing room, fresh and lovely and with a new radiance of face and added confidence to her personality brought about through the use of perfumes and cosmetics. I believe that the women were unreasonably discriminated against last year when this sales duty of 20 per cent was imposed, and the extension of the duty from 20 per cent to 25 per cent is a further “slap in the face” to the fair sex. Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister has a reputation of being a man with considerable charm. I would ask him as a man conscious of the cause of women in South Africa to relent and to scrap this sales duty heading completely.

I now come to the item which has probably caused as much criticism of the concept of the sales duty as any other—an item which has done the Government considerable harm among the voters of South Africa. I refer to the heading “soap and washing preparations”. The Government has recognized its error in imposing these sales duties in the first instance, and they have been reduced now from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. In fact, Sir, in making this reduction, all that has been done is to concede too little to too many. Sir. we in South Africa are a people to whom cleanliness comes next to godliness. Unlike the practice in some of the older European countries, the bath in South Africa is a daily rather than a weekly routine.

Don’t you believe it.

Do you not wash every day?

The washing machines or even the washing tub ranks amongst the basic essentials in every home. From time immemorial the South African women have been at pains to ensure that soap has always been available for the family chores.

Is the hon. member reading his speech?

No, Sir. I would only ask the hon. the Minister to have regard to the requirements stated here and to consider eliminating this tax entirely. Finally, Sir, the same applies to matches. There is the adage “let there be light”. I would merely say that in the humbler homes in South Africa, in every Native home in the Bantu territories, indeed in every home, matches represent a considerable item in the cost of living. Without matches people are lost. Here too there has been a reduction, which is significant, but why not eliminate this duty entirely because, after all, the hon. the Minister has R10 million available to him. Here again we would be rendering a considerable service to our people in South Africa.

Finally, Sir. I come to the question of toilet rolls and specifically to the tariff heading which deals with toilet paper in rolls not exceeding 13 cm. in width or in rectangular sheets of which no side exceeds 18 cm. I am not sure, Sir, what the situation would be if the manufacturers of these important commodities merely altered the size and so enabled us to avoid the tax. But this would be an expensive process. If ever there was an essential necessity of life, then surely it falls under this heading. Again the Minister has seen fit to reduce the tax from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. No item has brought the whole principle of the sales tax under greater ridicule or condemnation than this item. From debates in this House, right through to public platforms, in the Press and women’s organizations the application of this sales tax on toilet paper has been condemned in no uncertain terms. The Minister has retreated from his original stand and reduced the tax from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. My appeal to him to-day is to keep politics out of the lavatory, to keep toilet paper out of politics, and to eliminate this tax entirely.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Gardens. I want to deal particularly with one aspect of the amendment and that is item 33.05 on page 99, namely—

Sir, when I first read this, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me because I thought that it would surely be excluding such products suitable for medicinal uses. But, Sir, here it stands in the Bill and as it stands, it means that this is a tax on the sick. I realize that it is only one aspect of a compounded medicine but if you increase the duty or the tax on a basic material in the preparation of medicine, ultimately it must have some effect on the cost to the consumer. Here I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is discriminating, and he is discriminating in principle against the sick. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that the Snyman Commission’s report on the high cost of medicines and treatment has been published and available for almost ten years. As I recollect the recommendation by that commission it was that the duty on medicines should be done away with. I realize that nothing positive has transpired from that particular recommendation. It would almost seem to me that it has been put into deep-freeze. But, Sir, the costs of medicines are rising and I believe that it is the duty of this side of the House to make whatever attempts we can to encourage the Deputy Minister to accept the fact and to do something sympathetic to reduce costs.

Sir, the duty on certain luxury items has also been referred to. If people do not wish to purchase an item because the price has been increased, then they need not do so, but how can a person who is sick and who has to take medicine decide not to take that medicine if it is in his own interests to do so? I realize again that this is a relatively small amount. We are proposing a small reduction, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to be sympathetic, because basically the amount that he will collect from this will not help him to balance any budget, and I believe that in principle it is unsound that medicines used by sick people should be taxed in any way.

I wish to move the amendment to Schedule I as printed in my name, as follows—

The items concerned cover office printing, calculating and statistical machines, including cash registers. Sir, I find the rather cryptic references which have been made to this proposal to impose a sales duty on these items to be very misleading. The hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech referred in the most brief terms to the imposition of tax on these items. They have been referred to in somewhat more detail in the Schedule to this Bill. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill merely uses the words—

The hon. the Deputy Minister made no reference in his Second Reading speech to this item at all. Sir, in fact, these new impositions on office machines make this tax virtually all-embracing. Not only are conventional accounting and statistical machines of the keyboard type included but we now have a tax which includes the whole gamut of computer equipment. The computer industry is an important industry, judged not so much by its present size—last year the imports of computer equipment totalled some R10¼ million for duty purposes—but judged by its growth potential. Computers are continually finding new applications to which they can be put; they are an important element in helping to solve our manpower shortage and to improve efficiency in administration in general. I would have thought that the imposition of a sales tax on computers was of sufficient importance to have been mentioned specifically on some occasion on which reference has been made to this tax and that this Committee should have been given some explanation as to why such a tax imposition is necessary.

Last year, when the sales tax was originally imposed, certain items of office equipment were included, but the imposition on this occasion is so widespread that I think we have to deal with the principle of taxing office equipment anew. I find no merit whatsoever in a tax of this nature. In fact, on the contrary, I find it thoroughly bad in principle for two main reasons. The first is that it is essentially a tax on office efficiency. All types of office machines are used in offices to increase the productivity of labour employed by these offices, in the same way that machines and equipment are used in factories to increase the productivity of industrial enterprises. In practically every Vote that this House has considered in the Budget, the item of “mechanical labour-saving devices” is found. That is exactly what an office machine is. I think that that is the main article included under this item of the Votes. This tax is so all-embracing that if an office wishes to avoid paying it, its workers will have to do their work with pen and ink and use human arithmetic. I believe that the Government should studiously avoid the principle of taxing the tools of production. In fact, they should go to the opposite extreme by encouraging the community to improve their efficiency by purchasing and using labour-saving equipment.

I also find this tax to be very contradictory because, on the one hand, the hon. the Minister of Finance has allowed investment allowances in respect of industrial equipment, but on the other hand he is imposing a tax on office equipment, which after all is only complementary to industrial equipment. I also find the actions of the Government contradictory and difficult to understand where, on the one hand, the hon. the Minister of Finance is imposing taxes on office equipment, which is a means of saving labour, and on the other hand the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is threatening to take away office labour in the form of Bantu in certain areas. Before I became a Parliamentarian, I was often puzzled by how ministerial decisions were arrived at. Now, having been a Parliamentarian for a short time, and having had a closer look at these decisions, quite frankly, they bewilder me.

The second reason why I find a tax on office equipment to be bad in principle is that it is directly inflationary. It affects the costs of virtually every enterprise. It affects the cost of industry, commerce, finance, insurance, the professions and so on. It adds fuel to the fire of cost inflation, an inflation which is already very sensitive to the shortage of labour. I find it difficult to understand why office equipment, which would help combat the shortage of labour, should be taxed.

Overall I must say that I find the way in which this sales tax is applied, to be very ill-conceived. On the one hand the principle is established that sales tax is applied at manufacturing source. The result is that it cascades by the time it reaches the consumer. At all the subsequent steps in the channel of distribution, additional amounts are added because of the cost and the risk of carrying the sales tax. By the time the consumer pays the tax, he is paying much more than the Government is actually receiving by way of sales tax. It is ill-conceived in that respect. It is also ill-conceived in that it is being applied in such a way that additional cost is going to permeate through to all commodities that are consumed, whether they be essential or non-essential items. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. members for Durban (Point), Gardens and Constantia. They have all referred to incidence of taxes. I thought I would take as an example an item which cost R10 to import into the country to illustrate the effect of the cascading of taxes referred to by the hon. member for Constantia. An item costing R10 would have added to it R2.5, being the sales tax of 25 per cent proposed by the Minister. The cost would therefore be raised to R12.5. The importer would then add a mark-up of 50 per cent, or R6.25, bringing the total to R18.75. The retailer would add his tax, and 25 per cent of that figure would give you a tax of R4.68, bringing the total cost of the item to R23.43. The tax added to that item, namely R5.86, would be passed on to the consumer. If the retailer had a mark-up of, for example, 33½ per cent, a further R9.76 would be added. The total paid by the purchaser would then amount to R40.05.

We see therefore that an item imported from overseas at a cost of R10 would in fact cost the taxpayer R40.05. The fiscus would take in taxes at each step. It would receive R2.5 at the first step, R4.68 at the second step, and R5.86 at the third, making a total of R14.04 as a result of the method by which the tax is added. If the tax were reduced to 20 per cent the tax would be R9.09 instead of R14.04. This cascading of taxes, this escalation, is having the effect of pushing costs up the inflationary spiral and for those reasons I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

The hon. member for Constantia has made another valid point, namely that we have had the Minister of Finance enjoining us to be more productive and calling upon industrialists and businessmen to provide for more efficient methods or organization. One of the best aids for a more efficient organization is the use of computers in this electronic age. On the one hand the hon. the Minister is telling us to be more efficient and on the other hand he is taxing that efficiency. It is completely contradictory and for those reasons we cannot support this item.

Mr, Chairman, I think it stands to reason that the hon. Opposition should be granted the right to differ with us and, for that reason, to move amendments and to plead their case. But I think hon. members of the Opposition will, just as I understand their position, also appreciate the position of this side of the House and understand that those amendments cannot be accepted in this way. This is a fiscal measure with which we are dealing here. If these funds, which hon. members of the Opposition are implicating here by their proposed amendment, are to be sacrificed, then those funds will have to be raised by other means. They will either have to be raised from other sources or by way of other levies on the sale of goods. If other levies are to be imposed, it becomes very clear that we shall have to tax other items, such as food and clothing. Hon. members on that side of the House be prepared to put up with that either. Hon. members will realize that we cannot get up here and sacrifice, without more ado, R10 million or R15 million, or whatever the amount may be, simply by accepting amendments at this stage.

Then I want to tell hon. members that it is possible to argue about each of these items which are subject to sales duty. One can argue about whether they should be subject to sales duty at all. Should the sales duty be 10 per cent or should it be 5 per cent? In this way it is possible to conduct an argument about each of these items. To illustrate what I am getting at, I want to tell the hon. Opposition that if the Minister of Finance were to say to them to-day: “Look, here is the list of commodities; here are all the necessary statistics. I want to collect R100 million from sales duty.” If he were then to ask hon. members of the Opposition to draw up that list individually so that he might collect his R100 million, there would be just as many different lists as there are members on that side of the House. I am not saying this disparagingly, because it does not only apply to that side of the House; it applies to this side of the House as well. It applies to experts. The hon. the Minister can appoint 10 or 15 or 20 or more experts, and then ask each of them to work out individually particulars as to how he can obtain his R100 million. They will all differ. This shows how debatable each of these items can be made if one wants to argue about them.

But this also proves something else. It proves —and this is one of the cardinal reasons why amendments cannot be accepted in this connection—that when such a list in respect of sales duty is compiled, that whole process of how decisions are taken on what the levy will be and what commodities will be subject to the levy, will have to go through the mill properly. Hon. members of the Opposition have proposed amendments and expressed ideas and made suggestions here. It goes without saying that cognisance is taken of those amendments which have been proposed, the ideas which have been expressed and the suggestions which have been made, just as cognisance is taken of representations coming from all quarters, representations by business entrepreneurs, manufacturers and by whoever they may have been made.

As was stated here by my hon. predecessor last year, the levies which have been imposed, will be reviewed in the light of experience, in the light of the merits which may become apparent through the implementation of this process, either through representations or through the experience gained by officials. That is why that wise decision has been taken, namely, as we were dealing with a new measure, to make that provision in the Act so that the Minister will be able to review it. That provision is being made again this year. The Opposition is putting a feather in its cap and saying that its representations have been proved to be correct. I have no objection to their putting it this way, but it proves that this decision which is taken here, should go through the mill properly. Then finality can eventually be reached. It is also being made with retrospective effect, where necessary.

Then I want to say something about a few general points. Hon. members on that side of the House raised the point here that they wanted to allow exemptions on a value basis in certain cases, such as watches and cameras. Unfortunately this is in point of fact impossible to administer in practice. I concede that, in the case of motor cars for example, that levy is calculated on a value basis. But motor cars are a completely different matter: motor cars are subject to excise duty. There is, consequently, proper control in this connection, and it is possible to work on a value basis there through the consideration of various models and the price that goes hand in hand with them. But in the case of these other commodities the administration cannot be applied effectively. This is simply impossible, and it must consequently lead to all sorts of malpractices and tax evasion. In connection with those items for which hon. members made strong pleas, I want to point out to them that these cameras, watches and office machinery, about which, for example, the hon. member for Constantia spoke strongly, are durable commodities. They are not commodities which are bought every month or every year. These are durable commodities which can be kept in service for years. When hon. members consider that years of service result from the purchase of those articles and, consequently, from the payment of the levy on them, they will realize that the burden which is placed on that person who has to acquire them, is in fact a very light one, considering their period of duration.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked certain questions in respect of which I can supply more information. In respect of the investigations, I must tell him that the investigations carried out by the Price Controller in connection with prices, are not a matter on which the Department of Customs and Excise can comment. The Department is at present mechanizing the accounts in regard to the sales duty, and this will release officials so that they may to a greater extent carry out inspections at the premises of manufacturers. Moreover. I want to tell the hon. member that the real income for the financial year 1969-’70 is approximately R94,500,000. This includes collections on locally manufactured goods over a period of nine months. Collections on locally manufactured goods for the last quarter amount to R19 million. This means that the total collections during the financial year are approximately R113.5 million, as against the initial estimate of R100 million.

I think I have already covered, in the general survey which I have given, the other aspects raised by the hon. member.

As far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, I am told that water distillates and aqueous solutions of volatile oils are used mainly as raw material in the manufacture of goods other than medicine. It will therefore not be possible to exclude this specially and to grant special relief in that regard. It would bring about administrative problems which will be insurmountable.

As far as office machines are concerned, to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, I think I have already explained the standpoint of the Department. In connection with the cadre to which he referred, I may tell him that the Franzsen Commission thoroughly investigated the matter of the point where sales duty is to be collected, and found that the obvious point was at the point of manufacture. Unfortunately I cannot give more information.

The Deputy Minister says, quite rightly, that when it is suggested that taxes be reduced, other sources of taxation should be suggested at the same time. Well, it will of course be out of order for us at this stage to suggest other sources. However, we have not suggested that the entire schedule be eliminated. We have only picked out certain important items. This debate serves this purpose, that even though the Minister may not accept our amendments he may take them into account when considering the schedules for next year. It has been our experience that where we had given advice some of that advice had been accepted. Similarly, we have no doubt that if the Minister heeds the advice we give him to-day when he draws up the schedules for next year he will once more demonstrate that our advice is usually based on sound reasoning and not just a waste of the time of this House. It has been our experience in the past that revenue is always underestimated and expenditure overestimated. Consequently, to talk about looking for new sources of revenue does not convince us altogether, because I am sure the Minister is going to receive more revenue than he anticipates receiving, also more from the schedules he has put before us to-day.

I support the views of the hon. member for Pinetown and also want to go further. We want the Minister to tell us the principles on which items are selected for sales duty and the principles on which items are removed from sales duty. What is the policy of the Government behind this? There seems to be no logic in it—this seems to be just a haphazard list. When we try to criticize particular items the Minister says that is the list, whether or not we may disagree on it. I gave the Minister specific examples of what we regard as anomalies. Where is the logic in Government thinking? But the Deputy Minister in his reply ignored this and instead dealt with computer machines. He refuses to tell the House and the public why he has to tax cleanliness and female beauty—two items we have fought against last year and again this year: the cleanliness of the body and the attraction of the female face. These are two simple items we have emphasized over and over again.

I want to know what the Government members are doing. They have been silent throughout this debate—not a single Government member has made one constructive suggestion in connection with this taxation, no criticism, not even a gentle suggestion “asseblief, mnr. die Minister”, not even a polite suggestion. Instead they just sit there—silent; they are not interested in the public and in the burden they have to carry; they have not even read this Bill. Let them look at it from page 99 onwards. On page after page they will come across items in everyday use, things that are being used all the time. But hon. members opposite have not even noticed then, let alone making a constructive contribution to this debate. In the circumstances, how can they go back to their constitutencies and tell their voters that they sat in Parliament and debated the wisdom of taxing soap, toilet paper, face powder, baby powder, babies bottles and other daily necessities? I speak with feeling on this point because I have to start paying for babies bottles, babies powder and all types of other things myself.

Congratulations!

Thank you. I am looking after the white population! These are practical items. We, the fathers who have to pay, we are sensitive about these things. But when in Parliament we ask the Minister to deal with essential items, we do not get the support of hon. members opposite—not even from the Minister of Defence who, like myself, has just become a grandfather. He too ought to think about the necessities for bringing up a child, of keeping the child clean, of keeping it powdered and in a decent cot. He and I ought to feel the same about it—so why does he not support us on this? I know he is a director of Die Burger and Die Beeld. For some items he may need newsprint but on other items I am sure…

I am a responsible grandfather.

But you are not doing much to lighten the burden on your grandchild’s supporters, on the people who have to pay. I think it is wrong that Government members sit here and not lift a finger in the interest of their own voters who have to pay this tax. The Deputy Minister shrugs his shoulders and says we must find the money somewhere. Here are the Estimates of Revenue, estimating for R126,685,000—an increase of nearly R30 million on the estimate for last year. All this is additional money. But when we ask them to tell us on what principle they select items, by what right they tax baby powder, toilet paper and soap, they are silent. They are silent because there is no policy, no principle behind it. These are essential everyday items. We are not pleading with them to remove the duty on furs, jewels or Cadillacs but are talking about the day to day things. The hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation has forgotten what it is to buy baby powder.

I have more grandchildren than you have.

Cannot the Minister be a little more compassionate? Can he not make some contribution towards the compassionate society for which my Leader has pleaded? Let him have some compassion for people, for the ordinary people, particularly the young people who have to buy these things to ensure that their homes are kept clean. Can we not at least remove these things which I mentioned which deal with cleanliness and the essentials for bringing up a family?

While I am speaking, we cannot allow this debate to go by without again pleading with the hon. the Minister to reconsider the iniquitous excise tax on beer, the most healthy drink. [Interjection.] Yes, babies do well on beer. I have had seven of them and look at me. This punitive system of taxing beer firstly on a very high level, one of the highest in the world, and then on a discriminatory scale, is, I believe, wrong for South Africa. It is a wrong system of excise. Firstly, we should encourage. as the Malan Commission pleaded for South Africa to do, the drinking of the lower alcohol content drinks like beer and natural wines. We should encourage the young people particularly to drink the drink with the least alcohol in it.

Order! I think the hon. member is going very far from the items under discussion.

But these are the excise schedules. Are we not entitled to discuss them?

The hon. member is discussing certain amendments now.

I am dealing with the basic excise tax which, if we vote for it now, will be part of the excise schedule.

But not on wine, etc. The hon. member may proceed.

I will obey your ruling, Sir. I have made my point to the hon. the Minister. I think this is a disgrace for South Africa. Coming back to two aspects of the sales tax, one is the question of the determination of value. I raised questions and the hon. the Minister gave a theoretical reply on this. In point of fact, this is done on an ad hoc basis, without any real fundamental basis, and I suggest the time has come when the determination of value for sales duty should be put on a proper footing and not be arrived at by ad hoc decisions by an individual official, without any pattern or any rules or principles laid down for it. [Time expired.]

I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinetown misunderstood what I said. I was not dissatisfied with their attempt to express criticism here, and move amendments. I accept it, and I intimated that, like all other representations, they are receiving attention. The wisdom of that is put to the test by experience, and it is tested by the merits of each case. This links up to what I said in connection with decisions in this regard that have to go through the machine. This must be calculated. However, I now want to say, in pursuance of what both the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, that there will, in any case, be sufficient money; we can expect a surplus. But there I want to differ. The Exchequer cannot argue in that way.

What was your surplus last year? More than R100 million.

Yes, but the Exchequer cannot act in that way, and I cannot accept all these proposals and think that there is, in any case, going to be a surplus. The calculations are made. [Interjections.] No, it is wrong to say that this is being done deliberately. The calculations are made, obviously with reasonable conservatism, and our expectations for the coming year. One must be conservative about this, otherwise one could encounter great difficulties somewhere in the future. Those calculations are made on a conservative basis, and one cannot then simply deviate from that in the supposition that there is going to be a surplus in any case.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) again had quite a lot to say about anomalies that allegedly exist here. I want to tell the hon. member that from this list of commodities he cannot extract a single one that will not affect some or other person or group of persons disagreeably. He accepts the principle of a sales levy. His party accepts it, and they say so repeatedly, but then they must also accept that there is no such thing as being able to tax commodities by placing a sales levy on them that will not inconvenience some or other person, or affect them less favourably. The hon. member is, for example, quite satisfied that furs should be taxed. He has no objection to that, as he has just intimated, but I just want to tell him that both in South-West Africa and South Africa there is considerable consternation about the taxation of furs.

Yes, among the rich people.

No, not among the rich people; among the producers of the untreated furs, because the karakul fur is involved here. They want to encourage the sales of the fur on the local market, and they do have a case. But the hon. member is quite satisfied with that. It just shows you, Sir, how there can be differences and arguments about every commodity. As I have said, a debating point can be made of every commodity.

The hon. member wanted to know how we set to work. The normal procedure would be for the Minister to consult his expert officials. He gives them the general principles according to which he wants to introduce this taxation. They set to work, with all the experience and knowledge at their command, and draw up lists. They suggest scales. But somewhere there must be a person, as I said previously, who must decide, because you will find that everyone will draw up a different list. Somewhere there must be someone at the end who can again decide what the final proposals to this House must be, and that is the Minister. Then he comes along with his final proposals. If he wants to revise them, and he does not want to create administrative impracticabilities —and here I indicated that hon. members are advocating steps that cannot be implemented administratively—he goes back and the whole process is churned through the mill again. Then one has the position that at the end of the year the Minister comes along, and he has introduced amendments and given relief, something the Opposition is now appropriating for itself. But if the Opposition is sure that they have such a good case to-day, they surely have the satisfaction that, since on past occasions the Minister granted relief when they had a good case, this will also apply again in the future, and they do not have any reason for concern and for making such cutting remarks as the hon. member for Durban (Point) made here, disparaging remarks about an entire process and a great deal of labour expended in drawing up this list.

I am afraid we cannot accept the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He says that we accept the principle of the imposition of a sales tax. Yes, we do, but we made our standpoint quite clear that we accept the imposition of a sales tax on luxuries and durables only and not on items such as we have here, like matches, perfumeries, soap, toilet paper and so on.

Order! That argument has been advanced before.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. I am merely replying to the argument now advanced by the Deputy Minister. But we go further. The hon. the Deputy Minister also comes with the argument that certain of the suggestions made by this side of the House cannot be accepted because they cannot be carried out administratively. His easiest way out is to scrap that item altogether, as we have suggested. I cannot see that his argument with regard to cameras, where we suggested a figure of R30, holds any water at all. Ninety per cent of the cameras sold in this country are imported, so he has a value on which he can work. He must not say that he has not got a value on which to work and that it is only on motor cars that he has an excise value on which he can impose this tax.

It is not a matter of value; it is a matter of control.

But we have control when they come in through Excise. If he cannot control cameras under R30, how does he control all the other matters? Does he not depend on the integrity of the manufacturer or the supplier? Is he not prepared to depend on the integrity of the manufacturer or supplier when it comes to cameras? What is the difference, Sir? I am afraid we cannot accept this sort of argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, let us go further. He criticizes the fact that we are trying to reduce the taxation he is going to get and he points out that the fiscus has estimated the income that it will receive, that this is part of the estimated income and that therefore it is impossible at this stage to reduce the amount of tax which is to be recovered. But, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that the Minister of Finance has budgeted for a surplus of R95 million anyway, R95 million which he does not need; from this sales tax he anticipates collecting R100 million. If he were to scrap the whole lot he would only have to find another R5 million. Sir, what sort of argument is this to advance? I want to say that the arguments which have been advanced by members on this side of the House have been fully justified, and we are going to tell the people during this provincial election campaign that hon. members on that side of the House are “vrouehaters” because they want to tax perfumes and other things. It has even been suggested that perhaps this tax which is being imposed here is a subterfuge to allow the farmers to sell their “mieliestronke”. Sir, this is the sort of thing that is going on here. We cannot understand the unreasonable attitude of this Minister. Surely be can see that these are necessities. They are no longer luxuries.

Order! In essence the same arguments have been raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point); I do not want any repetition.

Sir, these are strong points in favour of the arguments raised by this side of the House and I maintain that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not met these arguments.

Omission of all the words of Tariff Heading 33.05 in Sales Duty Item 136.00, up to and including “uses”, proposed by Mr. H. A. van Hoogstraten, put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

First amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question put: That Tariff Headings 33.06, 34.01, 34.02 and 36.06 in Sales Duty Item 136.00, and paragraph (1) of Tariff Heading 48.15 in Sales Duty Item 140.00, stand part of the Schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and remaining amendments proposed by Mr. FI. A. van Hoogstraten accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. D. D. Baxter put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 11.35 a.m. and resumed at 6.58 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to inform hon. members that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet again on Friday, 29th January, 1971.

I move—