Mr. Speaker, on Monday, while the Transport Vote was being discussed, I referred in the course of the debate to “Kaffir states”. I meant “Bantu states”, of course. I regret having committed the error. In the normal course of my daily life I am one who stands for the promotion of sound relationships among the peoples in our country. Accordingly I always use the word “Bantu”.

Sir, I thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me to put this matter right.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Members of Parliament always find themselves in a very delicate position in that any increase in their salaries has to be granted by themselves. This is, of course, not always a very pleasant situation. However, it is the only method that can be followed because there is no other body which can increase the salaries of Members of Parliament; therefore they are obliged to do it themselves. Since the announcement that the recommendations of the committee in this connection were accepted, there has been the usual unsavoury Press campaign. The same tactics that were used in the past, have again been employed. First there was a scurry to get negative comments from certain bodies and persons. Then bombastic and weighty editorials were written, claiming that the time was not ripe at present. Then their correspondence columns were thrown open to anonymous letter-writers who, in many cases, delivered themselves of the greatest rubbish I have ever read. Mr. Speaker, I have been in the Cabinet for 23 years and in the House of Assembly for 28. Never in all this time has the time, in the eyes of certain newspapers, been ripe for an increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament. It is always a question of “the timing is not right”, the time is not ripe for salaries of Members of Parliament to be increased at any particular juncture. Here we have seen the same thing once again. It is said that we are bent on combating inflation, and how, it is asked, can inflation be combated if Members of Parliament are going to get increased salaries? Mr. Speaker, these proposed increases will amount to only R630 000 out of a total Budget of more than R2 000 million a year. It is also maintained that we, as Members of Parliament, should set the example, because we are the ones who appeal to the workers not to make wage demands. But now, it is alleged, we are providing the workers with the necessary encouragement to make such demands.

Before the findings of the committee of inquiry were announced, certain trade unions had already demanded higher wages and the wage demands of certain workers, for example the miners, had already been acceded to. I have known the trade unions and the workers for many years. They pay no attention to appeals of this nature; all they are concerned about is the position of their own members. Therefore, if they feel that it is justified to demand higher wages from their employers for their members, they do so, whether we set an example or not. Therefore it is not because we have allegedly set the example that all the workers will now suddenly come forward with demands for higher wages. I want to point out that salary increases amounting to more then R200 million were granted to public servants, teachers and railway officials in the course of last year and this year. But now it is said that an additional R630 000 to Members of Parliament will promote inflation and, moreover, that we are thereby setting a poor example to the workers as regards demands for higher wages.

I gain the impression, having observed the nature of the Press campaign over the years, that there is an inherent antagonism towards Members of Parliament on the part of certain newspaper editors. I have never heard of any newspaper editor who refused an increase in his salary for the sake of the country’s economy; nor have I ever encountered any criticism of directors of companies when they vote themselves higher directors’ fees. And allow me to say that the work of a Member of the House of Assembly is much more tiring, much more demanding, more responsible and much more important than that of any newspaper editor, and I know what I am talking about. Yet in many cases the basic salary of a Member of the House of Assembly is only one-third of that of a newspaper editor.

The basic salary of a Member of Parliament is R333 a month. After his pension deductions have been made, he receives less than R300 per month. I have seen the financial statements of certain members and found that the whole of their allowance of R11 a day goes towards expenses incurred in their constituencies to enable them to do their work. The basic salary of a Member of Parliament is less than that of a relatively junior public servant. In addition, it must be borne in mind that many of our members have no other income. Consequently they are obliged to support their families, bring up their children and send them to university, maintain their status as M.P.s, and keep two households on a basic salary of less than R300 per month.

Now the question may be asked: Why does a person come to Parliament if this is the case? Why does he stand for election? The answer is a very simple one. It is most certainly not to make money or to grow rich. It is because many of us feel that it is our duty to do something for our country and its people to the best of our ability. Many of us are much worse off financially than we were before we came to Parliament. Of course a Member of this Parliament is prepared to make sacrifices, and does so too, but at least he expects the public he represents and serves to allow him a decent living. Sir, I ask the public, and especially the people who are voicing criticism today: Is Parliament to be nothing but a rich man’s club? Are only wealthy people to come to Parliament? I ask the workers outside: Do they want to be represented by their own people? I am putting this question specifically to those two trade union leaders who both d-aw much higher salaries than M.P.s and who had so much to say about the recommendations of the committee. If the worker, the man in the street, wants to be represented here, he must not begrudge his Member of Parliament a decent living.

I can add nothing to what was said by the committee in connection with the obligations and the work of an M.P. It is there for everyone to read, but all the same I want to draw a few comparisons in connection with salary increases since 1961. The House will find these particulars rather interesting. In 1961 a school principal received R3 840; in 1971 he receives R7 200 —an increase of 87 per cent. These comparisons were drawn and supplied to me by the Bamford committee. A professor at Stellenbosch received R3 900 in 1961; in 1971 he receives R6 600—an increase of 69 per cent; secretaries of departments received R6 800 in 1961; in 1971 they receive R12 000—an increase of 76 per cent. Then I take attorneys’ fees. In the Supreme Court the basic fees have been increased by 50 per cent. The basic fees of general practitioners have been increased by 75 per cent, if they are visited at their consulting rooms, and by 140 per cent if they have to do house calls. The salary of the Chief Justice has been increased by 38 per cent; the salary of a judge of the Appeal Court by 42 per cent; the salary of a Judge President by 47 per cent; the salary of a Judge by 49 per cent; that of a magistrate by 52 per cent; that of a senior magistrate by 58 per cent; and that of a chief magistrate by 71 per cent. I mention these figures to show how the salaries of certain officials have been increased since 1961. Therefore it is by no means extraordinary—in fact, it is quite justified—that Members of Parliament should also receive a salary increase now.

Sir, let me just take the position of Ministers. Do hon. members know that the Prime Minister of South Africa receives the same basic salary as the town clerk of one of our large cities, and can the responsibilities and duties of the Prime Minister of South Africa be compared with those of the town clerk of one of our large cities? Surely it is absurd to compare the responsibilities and duties of the two, and yet the basic salary of the Prime Minister is the same as that of a town clerk of one of our large cities. Is it any wonder, Sir, that all our previous Prime Ministers died poor men? Look at their estates: Gen. Botha, Gen. Smuts, Gen. Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd; they died poor men because they had received inadequate salaries, and they are the people who carried the responsibility of the entire country upon their shoulders. I think some newspapers have lost their perspective completely.

Take the position of a Minister. The basic salary of a Minister is less than that of a head of department. Ministers have no fixed working hours and about three-quarters of the increase they are now going to receive will be swallowed up by taxation. Ministers are prohibited from serving on boards of directors of companies, except Press companies. They have to relinquish their business undertakings, they have to neglect their private affairs, they have to neglect their farming operations, and no person becomes a member of the Cabinet to grow rich. He is prepared to make sacrifices—that is why he is here— but at the same time he does expect the public not to begrudge him a decent living.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot do better than to read to you from a speech made by Mr. Douglas Houghton in the House of Commons on 4th December, 1970, when he introduced the Members of the House of Commons (Conditions of Service) Bill. In his speech he said the following:

Sir, I should like the newspapers and the public outside to take note of this.

Finally, let me just say this: I make no apologies for introducing this Bill. I think it is entirely justified. In fact, I personally think that the increases recommended are still quite inadequate for Members of Parliament. But they represent the recommendations of the committee, which we accept.

Both sides of the House in dealing with this matter agreed that it should be referred to an independent committee. It was felt that an independent committee would take an objective view of the matter. The committee which dealt with the matter heard evidence, and I would like to know whether the committee received any evidence from the outside public; it could have done so. As far as I am aware, no evidence was received from the outside public. I would like to know whether those persons who wrote to the newspapers criticizing the proposed increases availed themselves of the opportunity of writing to the Secretary of the House and offering to give evidence. I would like to know whether any of the editors of our leading newspapers who were critical of these increases approached the committee or asked the Secretary whether they could give evidence. As far as I am aware they did not.

Sir, those critics who think that they are wise in this matter, should consider whether they know all the facts and whether their opinions are not based upon prejudice. The terms of reference of this committee were, amongst others, to estimate whether it was necessary or desirable to alter the emoluments or allowances and to recommend whether such alterations or increases were necessary. The point is that this committee could have recommended a decrease or an increase. So far as the allowances are concerned, the committee recommended no alteration. What are the reimbursive allowances? Some organs of the Press suggest that reimbursive allowances have a sinister tone but, Sir, this is commonplace. The factory worker who gets a clothing allowance would be horrified if that allowance was added to his taxable income, if he was told that he had to pay tax on his uniform allowance. The building artisan who has to go out of the city in order to do a job away from the city gets a local allowance while he is away. That is regarded as a reimbursive allowance. The commercial traveller carrying out his normal duties gets a reimbursive allowance for travelling, for hotel expenses and so forth, but that is regarded as normal; nobody has raised any queries in that regard. The business executive who goes by plane on his company’s business and attends a business conference for several days, receives a reimbursive allowance which he does not regard as part of his salary. We would very soon hear from him in this House if the suggestion was made that that allowance should be added to his taxable salary. I imagine, Sir, that some of the journalists who come to Cape Town for the session receive a reimbursive allowance and I am quite sure that they would protest if their allowance were added to their taxable salaries. Even the editors who came to the Prime Minister’s conference, I am quite sure, received a reimbursive allowance. But, Sir, all those allowances are regarded as normal, but any allowance given to a Member of Parliament is suspect.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has dealt with this matter very effectively, but I would remind hon. members that a Member of Parliament has two homes to maintain, he has travelling expenses, hotel expenses and many expenses which are personal to his position as M.P. Many members come here with young families and they have to choose whether or not to so to Acacia Park. Despite the comforts of Acacia Park it is an old military camp, with prefabricated homes, and it does not offer the best of conditions under which to bring un children. The accommodation is regarded as temporary, for five months. One wonders how many businessmen would go to Johannesburg on a conference and stay in a place such as Acacia Park for five months. That is only limited to a certain number of members with young families. The rest have to go to hotels, to boarding-houses and to flats, if they can get a flat. Then the country members have additional expenses as well. So, despite the evidence given to the committee of inquiry, and the commission having heard all the evidence, it decided that it was only fair that at the present stage there should be no increase in the allowances, but they were also satisfied that there should be no decrease.

We come now to the next question, namely salaries. The salary of a Member of Parliament is R333 a month, or R4 000 per annum, and many of us have members of our staff who are earning more than that. One sees the effect over the years it has on members. One finds members getting into debt and members finding that the pace is too hard for them. They cannot come out. One is told that one cannot grant an increase because of the conditions of the time. But look at the position over the years, since 1961. Since then we have had six rises in salary for the Civil Service and four on the Railways. Teachers, Judges, attorneys and trade unionists under industrial agreements have had their salaries increased, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. We hear the argument that the timing is not right. There was an appeal by the Press to defer it until the right time. What do they want? Do they want wages frozen, profits frozen, interest rates frozen and rents frozen, or do they only want the M.P.s’ salaries frozen? Surely the right time is when all the others have been given increases, and then Members of Parliament should get an increase too.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for 23 years and a Whip for 18 years. In my capacity as a Whip it has been my privilege to know many men in this House and to know their personal circumstances on both sides of the House. The majority of the men come here to render a service, but after a time they find that they cannot stand the pace and they give you a warning that perhaps next time they will not be available. Are we going to keep this a place for old men, as an old men’s home for pensioners, or are we going to get younger men? I would remind hon. members of these words which were uttered in 1961—

Those were the words of Townley Williams, a member of the Progressive Party, when he was their Whip in 1961 and speaking on their behalf. Similar words were used by Mr. Higgerty, the Chief Whip of the United Party, and by the hon. the Leader of the House at that time. Sir, members know that when times are difficult they must be the last in the queue, and I am satisfied that these increases are justified from the evidence that has come to me, from all I have heard from members, and from the recommendations given by this committee of responsible businessmen who are in a position to judge whether now is the right time or not, and whether the increases they recommended were justified. I am accordingly prepared to accept the recommendations of this committee as expressed in this Bill before us today.

I am sorry to introduce a note of discord in view of the cosy agreement which has been entered into between the Government and the Official Opposition on the question of the increase in members’ salaries. I think it is no secret that I intend to oppose this measure, and I am going to do so today. Listening to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport, his speech was of course a defiant speech. He gave everybody what for, as is his wont, I might add. He laid about him at the Press, and the people who wrote to the newspapers, and trade union leaders and everybody else—they all got it in the neck for daring to criticize M.P.s for coming to this House with the suggestion of an increase in salaries. We had a different speech from the Chief Whip on the Official Opposition side. He gave us a “tear-jerker” and painted a very sad picture of people being kept out of this House, etc. All I can say is that I have been in this House for 18 years, and every time there are nomination contests the supply exceeds the demand. There are many people who come forward to be nominated and they do not appear to be deterred by the fact that the salaries are too low. I want to point out that it is only a year since we had nomination contests for the general election, and everybody who came to this House at that time, came knowing exactly what the conditions of service were and what the salaries would be that would be paid to them.

Now the hon. the Minister of Transport has mentioned the large percentage increases in salaries that have been given to various professional people and public servants. I must say that we are doing our best to catch up with that in the Bill that is before the House today, because if one runs down clause I from (a) to (i), one sees what the percentage increases are. In each case, starting at (a) and ending at (i), it is 55 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 57 per cent, 50 per cent, 66 per cent and 62 per cent. Those are the percentage increases. Those of course exclude Cabinet Ministers, who get about a 60 per cent increase, and Deputy Ministers, who get about a 50 per cent increase, upping their salaries from R8 000 to R12 000, plus the additional allowances they get which are not taxable, and the Prime Minister’s salary, which is going up from R13 000 to R24 000, which, if my figures are correct, is about an 84 per cent increase. I will admit right away that I think the Prime Minister’s salary was too low, but I think an 84 per cent increase is very high. One has heard mention about the R4 000 reimbursive allowance as being something which should be brushed to one side; that is non-taxable, and I might add that on an R8 000 income, that makes it worth an extra R650. I would also mention that there are other perks that nobody has mentioned, such as free travel during the session.

By train.

Not only by train, but also by aeroplane during the session, and during the recess the travel charges are very much reduced, because travel is one of the big expenses that an M.P. has to bear.

I am sure the Airways would not mind your paying the full fare.

I have no doubt they would not mind. But the hon. the Minister of Sport must not come here with his silly, irrelevant and rather spiteful remarks. They are completely unimportant. There is also, of course, the fact that postage and various other expenses concerned with parliamentary duties are paid. Well, that is fine; I think all that is perfectly permissible. I think the committee took that into consideration when it did not recommend that there should be an increase in the R4 000, although I understand that it was even suggested, according to a newspaper report, that the R4 000 should be written off altogether as election expenses. All I can say to that is that I am glad the committee took no notice of that, because after all, what about the chap who loses? He also has election expenses, and presumably it is not suggested that the taxpayers of South Africa should be responsible for that amount.

Now, the hon. the Minister of Transport compared the existing salaries with the salaries which other professions are earning. I want to mention full-time professors, who today earn R9 000 per annum, the headmaster, who earns R7 800, and a senior magistrate, who earns R5 700. I might say that these people also have to keep up certain standards of living. They also have to entertain and they have many calls on their pockets for charity, like M.P.s. So really in that respect they are not very different from M.P.s, who do get an allowance to cover their expenses and entertainment, etc. They are not much different, but they do have to have much higher qualifications. It seems to have escaped notice that M.P.s do not require any qualifications, and the second difference is that these people are full-time. Now the argument has been used that being a Parliamentarian should be a full-time job. I think during the session it certainly is a full-time job. I do not think there is any doubt about it. However, we only sit for five months in a year and we are allowed 25 days’ leave. I doubt if there is any M.P. who, during the recess, devotes himself entirely to his parliamentary duties. I exclude Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers, who undoubtedly work full-time. I must say that one often wishes that they were not full-time, since in that case they would not be devoting quite so much time to framing legislation for the next session. The fact that parliamentarians do not in fact treat their parliamentary duties as full time is borne out by the fact that, although there are some members in this House— I do not know how many—who do not have outside means, there are many members in this House who do have outside means. Let me add at once that I am not the only member who has outside means. Let me also add that there are many members who have considerably greater outside means than I have. I am anticipating the usual screech that goes up when I oppose this. I am always told that I do not need the money. Let us leave that to one side and try to argue as objectively as possible. There are many parliamentarians in this House who have farms. There are parliamentarians who have businesses and there are professional men who have partners. All of them continue to practise those professions to some extent or another. They are not entirely dependent on their parliamentary salaries. Even if the committee had in fact recommended what I understand many members were hoping they would recommend, namely a 100 per cent increase in salary, which would mean that salaries would go up to R8 000, while the allowance stayed at R4 000, I wonder how many of these people would then decide to make politics their full-time occupation and give up their farms, partnerships and businesses and also cease being party political organizers.

Order! Is that relevant?

I am trying to prove …

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

May I point out that, if I do not think that being an M.P. is necessarily a full-time job outside of the session, this applies even more to members of the Other Place. As far as senators are concerned, they certainly do not sit the full five months. Indeed, they seem to be in recess more than they are in attendance. When they are here, they do not of course sit for the hours that M.P.s sit. I must point out that it is not just the R630 000 that the hon. the Minister mentioned, which is going to be the increased amount the country will be responsible for, but vitally affected by this Bill is the whole question of parliamentary salaries and the pension scheme, which is not a fund because, if it were a fund, it would be actuarially feasible, which it is not. The fact is that, once we increase the basic salary, it means that the pension scheme is also going to be responsible for a considerably higher amount.

I wonder very much indeed what the recommendations of the committee would have been, had it been broader based and had it consisted not only of two of the most prominent businessmen in the country, but had there also been on the committee one or two trade union leaders and professional men. We might have had some rather different recommendations in that case.

As regards timing, this is of course the major argument, although, as I have said, I do not think M.P.s are quite as poor as they like to make out. As far as timing is concerned, whatever the hon. the Minister had to say when he introduced this measure today, there is no doubt that there could not have been a more unfortunate time chosen to increase parliamentary salaries. I have a sheaf of newspaper cuttings here with regard to comments made by members from the Prime Minister downwards, calling on members of the public and wage-earners generally to fight inflation by reducing spending and curbing wage demands. The hon. the Prime Minister, when he was speaking at the opening of Iscor’s new R60 million plant, said that it was everybody’s responsibility “to fight inflation by exerting self-discipline”. The Minister of Finance said in a recent speech that “one of the biggest causes of inflation is the current high level of consumer spending and the wage inflation which has flowed from increased wages and salaries, without a corresponding increase in productivity”. I put it that the increased wages granted to civil servants and others last year are likely to result in more increased productivity than an increase in the salaries of M.P.s. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also stated that “high salaries and wasteful spending were softening the nation’s underbelly”. Then we had the appeal of the hon. the Minister of Labour that was perhaps the most telling of all. He made “an urgent appeal to the reason and sense of responsibility of the workers of South Africa to avoid wage demands. Mr. Viljoen said that what was needed was to get the co-operation of the trade unions by asking them not to submit more wage claims.” All I can say is that once this Bill has been passed it is going to be very difficult indeed for any hon. Minister to make a plea to trade unionists not to increase their demands for higher wages. They are entitled to say that it seems that everybody has to make sacrifices and show a sense of responsibility except Members of Parliament, Senators and Cabinet Ministers. I am sure that when this Bill goes through there is going to be a spate of wage demands which the Government is going to find very difficult indeed to resist. There is going to be a concerted demand for higher pay all round. Already we have had the General Secretary of TUCSA saying that “if Cabinet Ministers and M.P.s are preparing to vote themselves substantial increases they must expect their hollow appeals to workers to resist making further wage claims and to raise productivity to be ignored”. The Public Service Association has said in its official journal that “the Government has now committed itself to a system of comparability of salaries with the private sector by appointing two businessmen to inquire into the salaries of M.P.s. They will press for a salary structure which will bring the pay in the Government Service up to the level of the private sector”. I say this Bill is going to set in motion an inflationary spiral in which the Government and the Official Opposition share equal responsibility. Indeed, perhaps the Official Opposition has a greater responsibility in this regard, because this is one measure which they could have blocked completely. It is one measure which, had they said “No” firmly, would never have seen the light of day, because this has to be an agreed matter before it can come before Parliament.

I want to say that hon. members are very out of touch with the feelings of the public. The hon. the Minister can rant and defy as much as he likes, but there is no doubt about it that this is a highly unpopular move. It is all very well for hon. members who think that they have four years ahead of them to say that they do not really care two hoots about the feelings of the public. We in politics can never hope to compete with private enterprise, because politics are too uncertain. If you have a safe seat you do not have a safe nomination. If you have an unsafe seat you are likely to lose your seat at the next election. You have to rely on dedicated service and the pull of politics, for all of us here are political animals or we would not be here at all. One cannot simply compare politics with the ordinary everyday run of occupations in free enterprise. It is quite impossible. I am glad to say that there is one member of the Official Opposition, not a Member of Parliament, but a very important member, who certainly agrees with me. He is the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Swartz. He said: “Even if the Government voted itself the steep rises recommended for all parliamentarians, the United Party in the Provincial Council would resolutely oppose any move to raise the pay and allowances of provincial councillors.” I will wait and see what is going to happen in the Transvaal when the pressure comes for the rise in salaries of provincial councillors. I believe what Mr. Harry Swartz said and I agree wholeheartedly with him. He said: “Surely we can expect that the country’s legislators will set an example. How can the Government expect its appeals to other sectors of the economy for wage restraint to be taken seriously when at the height of a crisis which Cabinet Ministers have stated will call for sacrifices from all South Africans they vote themselves increases of more than 50 per cent in total earnings”. I cannot put it better myself and I am going to object to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be right for me, as a memager of this House who receives the basic Parliamentary salary and nothing besides, to express my appreciation, on behalf of all the members of the House who are in the same position, that Parliament has the courage today to take this very necessary step in the interests of its members and in the interests of its status as a very important national institution. I also want to say that we understand the position of the hon. member for Houghton. We understand it very well. I think she has been a member of this Parliament for 18 years now. During this entire period she has consistently opposed any increase in the salaries of members of Parliament. In 1961, when members of Parliament received the largest increase in the history of Parliament, she even objected to it most strongly in the caucus of the 11 members of the Progressive Party. Members of that party even came to us to complain about her attitude. But eventually, as one expects of her, as a faithful member of her political party, she voted with the caucus in favour of our increase.

One cannot only look at the position of members. One also has to look at the quality of the representation which members can give to their constituencies. I want to say at once that I think Houghton —and I say this with sincerity—is particularly fortunate in the representation it enjoys in this Parliament. It is represented by an intelligent member, a courageous member and a wealthy member. Houghton is represented by a member who has the privilege of travelling the world—at her own expense—and of paying visits to important government institutions in Africa, America and Europe. This makes her a more valuable member of this House than she would have been if she had not had these privileges. We realize how essential it is for members to travel. Under the direction of Mr. Speaker, Parliament recently took the step of making it possible for members to travel now and then. This will probably mean that one-third of the members will, in their terms of office as members of Parliament, have an opportunity to go abroad once. I should like to see it happen more often. I think the hon. member for Houghton will agree with me when I say that she is mortal and that the day will come when Houghton will be represented by some other member. Then I and, I think, all the other hon. members of this House would like that member for Houghton, who might perhaps not be a wealthy man or woman, also to have the privilege of travelling the world and making contact with people outside, of broadening his or her knowledge and understanding and then returning, as the hon. member for Houghton does, to give Parliament the benefit of it.

I can enlarge upon these considerations. But I think we all realize that we should not only look at what a member of Parliament earns, but that we should also see to it that a member of Parliament is enabled to represent his constituency properly and that he does not find it necessary to count cents when it comes to looking after the interests of his voters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton disputed the fact that the work of a member of Parliament is a full-time one. In this connection everyone will just have to speak from his own experience. I can only testify that, on the strength of my own experience and that of the members with whom I work and whose circumstances I know, I must agree with the finding of the impartial committee which has just sat on this matter. In paragraph (2) (b) of its report, this committee said the following—

I wonder if I may repeat that?—

And this is a very important argument, because we all experience this—

I believe it is unsound in principle that members should have to lean heavily on the indulgence of others. However, I do not want to enlarge upon that.

Then, as regards the argument that the timing is wrong, I have now seen the salaries or the allowances of members increased four times, and every time it is said that the timing is wrong. It does not matter what the timing is. There has been a time when it had to be done at a stage when South Africa was not flourishing economically. Then we were reproached with improving our position while other people were struggling. Once we did it when South Africa was experiencing a boom. That was in a period when South Africa’s position was more or less as it is at present. I mean that South Africa is prospering in spite of the inflation. Now we are told that we are not setting an example to the people. As far as the Opposition is concerned—and I think the hon. the Leader of the House expressed the same sentiment—if a good case can be made out for any group of society and if it can be proved that better wages are justified for any group of society, they have the right to bargain for them and they have the right to receive them. I believe nobody can deny people this right, except if we have to admit that South Africa finds itself in an absolutely chaotic condition as regards the value of its money. I think we had such an increase in 1961 or in 1966 as well, when times were fairly normal.

In 1961.

Then it was said: How can Parliament increase members’ salaries now that things are so normal; they should let sleeping dogs lie, because nobody else is thinking of wanting higher salaries. Now I ask what we are to do.

We have an obligation to ourselves as Members of Parliament. We have that obligation irrespective of our differences. Irrespective of our differences as political parties we have an obligation, not only to the members of the House, but to Parliament as a highly respected institution. It is a highly respected institution and its members must be worthy members. Now it is asked why the Nationalist Party and the United Party only agree when discussing their own salaries. To me, this is the most superficial and falsest argument I can think of. I remember that we increased the salaries of our judges. Although in my opinion, the increase was not enough, we did not differ on it. I recall that since 1963, we have reviewed the salaries of public servants four times in their favour. On that, too, we were agreed. There was no dispute about it. I know that from time to time the hon. the Minister of Labour lays on the Table industrial agreements whereby wages are increased. However, I have never seen us disagree on such matters. We are now doing what is right and necessary for Members of Parliament and for the institution of Parliament.

I believe that Members of Parliament must make sacrifices. I have made sacrifices and some of my friends have made sacrifices in order to be Members of Parliament. I believe it is right that one should make sacrifices, but I also believe that there is a limit to what Parliament or the people can expect of members in regard to the sacrifices they make at the expense of their families and their children. With all due respect, these are things which the hon. member for Houghton, because of personal circumstances, cannot experience personally. Therefore I feel it is necessary for me as an individual, who welcomes, appreciates and needs this increase, to express my appreciation to Parliament for having the courage, in spite of the uninformed criticism, to take this essential step.

I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville. Mr. Speaker, it does not happen often, but now and then there comes a time when one can be in complete agreement with and can endorse every word, as I do today, spoken by that hon. member. I think he put the matter very well. I do pay him a compliment now and then—he knows it.

†The hon. lady from Houghton opposes. Of course, she always opposes. Opposing has become an obsession with her. She knows that by opposing she will hit the headlines again tomorrow. We will read in the morning papers “Suzman opposes”. You see, Sir, this hon. lady has a desperate craving for publicity, and she will do anything to get that publicity. The hon. lady of course is a wealthy woman. This parliamentary allowance to her is merely pin-money. She has never experienced having to bring up and support a family and send children to university on the salary of a member of Parliament of R300 per month —so she can talk very easily. As I said, she wants the publicity and she knows that by opposing, of course, she will get it.

She gets the publicity and the money. [Laughter.]

Yes, it is quite true. I do not think that she will refuse the increase. In 1961 she accepted it. Three years ago when the allowances were increased, she opposed that, but she accepted the allowance. I am quite sure that she is not going to refuse the increase in salary she is going to get as from the 1st April either. As a matter of fact, if she is true to her principles and wants to set the example to Parliament and to the country, she would refuse. Let her stand up and say “I do not want the money”. I can assure you that nobody will object at all if she refuses to accept the increased salary. There is only one consolation, namely that the hon. member for Houghton really represents nobody except herself and some of the newspaper editors. After all, she is only here by the grace of Harry Oppenheimer and certain misguided United Party voters in Houghton. So I do not think we have to take very much notice of her opposition.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clauses I and 2 of the Bill put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Mr. Chairman, it is a strange spirit which has been noticeable here these past few days—a spirit of peace, and one is of course grateful for that. There is of course always a discordant note when the little barrel organ from Houghton is playing, but we have grown accustomed to that, too. What makes one wary, however, is when you think of the saying the Romans had: “Beware of the Greeks bearing gifts”. The same applies here; we had better be a little careful.

With reference to the plea made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-District here yesterday, I want to tell him that he was making a very commendable plea when he advocated a home for unmarried mothers. This is undoubtedly a problem which we should like to do something about. Unfortunately the hon. member did not motivate his precise reason for wanting such a home in Pietermaritzburg. Is it perhaps because the problem is a more real one there, or is it because Pietermaritzburg is the capital of Natal and is therefore more central? In any case, his plea remains a commendable one. However, I wonder whether the hon. member should not rather apply to charitable organizations, because they usually deal with this kind of matter and see to it that institutions are established. After that they usually ask for a subsidy from local authorities, the provincial councils, etc.

When we consider the Social Welfare and Pensions Revenue Vote it gives us great satisfaction to see the amount of R158 million there. This is the third largest Revenue Vote of this Budget and it redounds to the honour of the Government which has expanded this Department to such an extent over the past twenty-five years that it has not only acquired a Deputy Minister, but also handles this enormous amount. I am in frequent contact with the Department in Pretoria and I can testify to the fact that one receives there the best and most friendly treatment one could expect, in spite of the fact that the staff are working under difficult circumstances. I want to congratulate the Minister and his Department on this high calibre service it is rendering to our people. I firmly believe that the role the Minister and his Department plays, also played a very great part recently in Witbank. Witbank is probably the finest feather in the cap of the Government after twenty-three years. To parody the slogan of a property undertaking, the people of Witbank can confidently state: “Bank with Vorster or with Mulder”. On the other hand, nobody will say: “Bank at North Rand or Graaff-Rand”. The fact remains that the hon. Opposition had every opportunity to do something in this regard, and did not succeed.

I want to indicate how this Department has grown recently. In 1946, almost twenty-five years ago, the amount appropriated for Social Welfare—pensions were not yet included—was only R4 400 000. The hon. member for Turffontein quoted many figures here yesterday. It is said that figures do not lie. I should therefore like to bring the following figures to the attention of the hon. member, since he is so very fond of figures. Today the amount which is being appropriated for this Department is thirty-six times greater.

How much greater is the total Budget?

The hon. member is so good with figures that he can go ahead and work it out, and tell me as well. Expressed as a percentage, the amount of money the Department is handling today is 3 600 per cent more. This is proof of how the Department has grown. This is almost the same as the total number of votes the Opposition received in the recent election. In 1947 the amount was R4 780 000. Today it is thirty-three times greater. If we go into the details the growth becomes even more spectacular. In the 1946 Budget only R40 000 was appropriated for elderly persons and invalids. The allocation to the National Council for the Care of Cripples was only R400: rations for the indigent and cash allocations, R40 000: and special poor-relief—what is so special about that I do not know— R6 000. That is almost the equivalent of the salary hon. members must now receive and to which the hon. member for Houghton objected. Welfare services to soldiers and sailors amounted to R1 100. Now you can see to what a tremendous extent the Department has grown since then.

I also want to mention another minor matter here. The hon. the Minister has often spoken about the attention which should be given to our elderly people and I am quite certain that hon. members on both sides of the House have taken this to heart and feel deeply about the matter, the more so because we ourselves will one day be in that position. The hon. the Minister made a special appeal to towns and cities, to town and city councils, to help the old people and make things easier for them. The appeal has fallen on very good ears, as in the parable in the New Testament. In the Vaderland of 16th February, the following is reported (translation)—

In this way Benoni, for example, adopted a resolution to transport elderly persons at the minimum fare. Reports have been received from all city councils, and in regard to this the report reads (translation)—

Sir, I just want to quote to you again from Hoofstad of 16th February, also in pursuance of this matter (translation)—

The City Council of Pretoria apparently states that it is not its task to help care for the aged. Apart from the fact that the City Council thinks that it is not its function to care for the aged, it also thinks that it would be unreasonable if only a small group of pensioners were to benefit from that and the entire scheme were to be abused. However, the urban liaison office said this morning that it was not true that the City Council did not want to help the city’s elderly persons; on the contrary the Council had tremendous sympathy for them. Those people had helped to make Pretoria what it was, and they would not be neglected by the Council.

[Time expired.]

Sir, last night during the debate the Minister was thanked by members on both sides of the House for his help to the pensioners; the Minister thanked the members; the members and the Minister thanked the officials. There were thanks going from one side of the House to the other. I also want to thank those people who belong to voluntary organizations, who deal with social welfare work and spend so much time and give so much love, devotion and financial help to the various organizations throughout our country. Sir, without these voluntary workers I feel that the whole of the social welfare services might well collapse. Alternatively, it would mean that our budgeting for social welfare work would probably have to be doubled. In no other field is as much love and devotion shown to people as in the field, dealing with the retarded child, the cerebral palsied child, the backward child. I want to spend a few minutes dealing with this matter and I want to say to the Minister right at the outset that we must establish through our research workers why children come into this world abnormal, why is a child born with some abnormality which leads immediately after birth to difficulties. And, to my knowledge, none of these children is ever brought back to a normal state. They always remain, throughout their lives, with some abnormality or other. It may be an abnormality in their mental or physical processes, or an abnormality in their physical make-up.

Sir, one of the things that we do know is that German measles may very well be a root cause of many of these abnormalities. We know that mothers who contract German measles during their pregnancies very often give birth to children who are blind or deaf or who suffer from some other abnormality. We also know that as a result of the thalidomide disaster children were born with physical defects as well. I want to recommend to the Minister this afternoon that he, together with the Minister of Health, should persuade every teenage girl, whether she be at school or college, to receive vaccine against German measles. If this is done throughout our country, then I am sure that the birth rate of abnormal children is going to fall drastically and that we will save millions of rands and millions of work hours which we could devote in other spheres because these children will then not be born with these abnormalities. I ask the Minister to consider this seriously and I hope that he will persuade the research workers and the Department of Health to go into the suggestion I make here this afternoon and to see whether it is not a feasible idea.

In the case of a retarded child, I find that there are difficulties not only in trying to give him some form of education, but when he is able to do certain things, when he is taught to work with his hands, it is difficult to place him in some occupation. Business and industrial people will not employ these people readily. One cannot very well ask them to do it because there is difficulty in transporting these people; it is difficult to find special accommodation for them. It is difficult to find some type of work that they can do. I find that today the retarded child or the backward child at school is also meeting with difficulties because the work that would normally be done by a backward child in our society is at best semiskilled or unskilled work and that work is already being done by our non-Whites. This unskilled child, this semi-trained child, who is backward then has to compete in a field which is already fully occupied by the non-White. Sir, what are we going to do with these children? It is for that reason that I suggested last year and the year before that we should seriously consider establishing a village near industry, a village situated where other institutions are already present. I told the Minister last year about the area that we have in the Southern Suburbs of Johannesburg. It is near an industrial area. There is land available; there are surrounding institutions which could house these people. Sir, my time is limited. I will have to speak to the Minister outside the House about this matter. There is another place which has now been brought to my notice. It is on the banks of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam at Oranjekrag. I understand that a village has already been established there with roads, houses, and all other necessities. I was wondering whether we could not build it into a village for the less fortunate people who could be employed in the vicinity; whether we could not stimulate organizations to divert their attention to these areas to see whether they cannot be used to house, teach and employ the less fortunate. In the south of Johannesburg it could be done easily because we have the facilities there. It would mean, of course that we would have to get teachers to go to these areas; that we would have to spend a fair amount of money in these areas where other facilities are not present. For instance, we would have to have land for a nursery; we would have to have land for a vegetable garden. I think these people could well be employed gainfully in these directions and would be able to earn a living there, and they also would be able to spend their leisure hours amongst people of their own kind. They would not feel then that they are strangers in a society which they feel rejects them. We would be able to take the less fortunate people out of unsatisfactory family environment. The Minister knows as well as I do that in certain families there are not only palsied children but retarded children who are hidden away from visitors, who are left unknown in a home. I think it was the hon. member for Kimberley South who spoke about this one year and told us of the difficulties in a family in which there are backward children. The Minister knows himself how difficult it is for parents to look after these children. I say that we have the opportunity here. We have the time and we have the ability to do these things for these backward and less fortunate children. [Time expired.]

I should like to reply to the last few speakers in this debate, and I am not therefore going to repeat the main theme. Perhaps I should first furnish the replies and then say one or two things. In the first place I should like to turn my attention to the hon. member for Pretoria West and thank him for his thanks not only on behalf of Parliament, but also on behalf of the public and our elderly people. I want to say at once that there is no more grateful group of people in South Africa than our elderly people. If I were to tell you of the tokens of appreciation I have received from all over, as a result of the fact that one is in a position to do something for them, and the little letters one receives from them quite innocently, which are written in all honesty merely to convey their gratitude, then it does one’s heart good and gives one renewed strength to continue with what you are trying to do for them. I am grateful that I am able to do this and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall continue in this way because I realize that those people, as I have already said, gave of their best to South Africa in the days when they were in their prime. That is why we must do for them whatever is practicably possible. I want to thank the hon. member for his approach and for his very interesting speech.

†Then I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City in connection with the matter he raised last night. First of all, I think he has put a very strong case and I want to congratulate him on that. I want to tell the hon. member that loans can be obtained from the Department of Community Development for the erection of a home of the kind which the hon. member has in mind. At the same time we do subsidize social workers working at such institutions, and in that respect he could get assistance from our department. In the third place some of these homes are registered as children’s homes. That can be applied for, and in those cases they receive the normal subsidy payable as long as the children remain in those homes. This means that he has three different sources of income available if the private welfare organizations will take the initiative to start working on this project. As far as I am concerned, he gave me the address of this organization in Great Britain. I do not know whether I will have the time, but I will try to get in touch with these people, and if I can spare half a day I will have a look at what they are doing exactly. I want to assure the hon. member that I am very sympathetic towards his cause and I can give him the assurance that if he approaches the Department it will be dealt with with the greatest sympathy possible.

*Then I want to say a last word to the hon. member for Rosettenville, who, as a labour of love, raised the matter of handicapped children here. I want to speak of that with great appreciation. Some time ago we had the problem that many of these handicapped children were actually, as I put it the other day, stranded in midstream. I had cases and I received letters from parents who told me; I am now caring for this handicapped child of mine at the moment; I will bestow on him all the love I have, and there is no problem, but what must become of this child of mine when I am no longer there; what is going to become of him then, and who is going to care for him? [Interjection.] These are mentally and also physically retarded children. I am talking about both groups, mentally retarded and physically retarded children, and sometimes there are cases who are partially mentally and partially physically handicapped. As a result of that, and as a result in particular of the visits I paid to a few of these homes where these children are at the moment being accommodated on a voluntary basis, I took this matter to the Cabinet. I want to mention in particular the Lettie Fouché Institution at Bloemfontein, to which I paid a personal visit. It made a tremendous impression on me to see the love and dedication displayed by these people in the way they were handling this matter. We called for and received the Van Wyk Report on the matter, and the recommendations of the Van Wyk Report have been accepted by the Cabinet. Now I just want to make this very clear to hon. members. I said it last year in public, but I do not think that I have said it yet in this House. The provisions of the Van Wyk Report amount briefly to the following, in dealing with handicapped persons. In the first place there are persons who are certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act of 1916. Children who are certifiable under that Act, with adjustments in that Act, become the responsibility of the Department of Health and of Mental Health, but specifically of Health. They must meet those needs. Children who do not fall under that Act, become the responsibility of the Department of National Education and that Department will take special steps to put the process into operation of making provision for those children. Not only their education and upliftment and instruction in the use of certain parts of their body, etc., but also the accommodation of those children is the responsibility of the Department of National Education, according to the Van Wyk Report and as determined by the Cabinet. As far as age is concerned, it is difficult to specify a chronological age, because the chronological age and the mental age sometimes differ substantially. Since we cannot draw a precise line, persons who are more or less 18 years of age, with adjustments, become the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for accommodation and care. The Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has specific instructions to deal with these matters. We are already working on this. I have a whole pile of notes, but I am not going to elaborate on this today. The fact remains that the Deputy Minister is specifically dealing with that. At present we are busy establishing institutions in the various provinces to meet the immediate existing needs. I say, with all the devotion at my disposal, that we have a duty towards these people. Let me add to that that there are numerous voluntary organizations that are already doing fantastic work in that connection. When I visited an old age home in Port Elizabeth they asked me to take a look at one of these institutions. There they have occupational therapy for these people. It is voluntary organization that rented a large building there, and these people are being taken to it by station wagon. Those who can. make their own way to that centre. They have asked industries in the vicinity to make routine jobs which those people can do available. If I remember correctly, there is a textile factory in the vicinity. Textile factories must give out samples. It is a small card containing all the varieties of wool, each one with a number, which is sent out for advertising purposes. It does not require much intelligence to do such work. It does not require much ability. It is merely a piece of cardboard with numbered holes punched into it. All that has to be done is to thread the right colour wool through the right hole. This is done in bulk, and then sent out to advertise the wool. Work of that kind is at present being done by these people. If one sees with what effort and dedication people who are so physically handicapped that they are almost unable to move accomplish this task, with the same conviction as you and I accomplish our life task every day, and if one sees, when they are congratulated on their work, with what pride they receive such a compliment, one’s eyes literally brim with tears at what is being accomplished there. That is why I want to tell the hon. member at once that he is talking to a convinced man, when he talks about the help which must be given to these handicapped people. Seen from my standpoint, we will as far as it is practicable meet the needs in that respect immediately. As far as the financial aspects are concerned, these are of course always restricting factors in such circumstances.

I am not a doctor, but I want to agree with the hon. member in regard to the idea of the necessary precautions for young women, and particularly for young girls in respect of German measles. This is a very recommendable argument. In the good old days when our old people, knowing about this problem, heard of someone who had German measles they took their young daughters there on purpose to try to make sure they contracted the disease at the age of 5 or 6 years, so that they would be immunized. At a later stage this disease could have caused tremendous problems and eventually endless suffering. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I understand his standpoint thoroughly, and that we will investigate the matter. He mentioned the town at the H. F. Verwoerd Dam. This is a vast undertaking. I think that there is already an institution near Swellendam, which is at the moment already employing, on a voluntary basis, people who are handicapped in this way. I know that these people also intend doing the same thing at the H. F. Verwoerd Dam. I shall give attention to the matter, when it comes before me. I want to give him the assurance that he will be given a sympathetic hearing in this connection.

In conclusion to finalize this Vote, I just want to mention two minor points. I think it is necessary for these points to be placed on record. I just want to say by way of summary that as far as this Budget we have just dealt with is concerned, we have received in the form of concessions to social pensions in general a total amount of R8 444 300. As far as concessions to civil pensioners in various forms are concerned, we have received from pension funds an amount of R7 496 000, and from revenue funds an amount of R1 600 000. In respect of pneumoconiosis pensions for the widows of pneumoconiosis sufferers which, as the hon. the Minister of Finance announced, has been increased to R60 per month, we have a total amount of R576 600. The total benefit in respect of these three groups of people amounts to R18 million for this one year. I really think that this is an achievement which we can accept with great acclamation and can proudly announce in respect of this specific matter.

Then I want to refer to one last matter. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is often, or at least this is how I regard it, the parents of numerous children and I am talking now about children who have been placed in foster care or of children who are growing up in families which receive subsidies or allowances. These are children therefore who to a certain extent look to the State not only for financial aid but also for their future education. It has always been a source of concern to me that these children whose parents or foster parents are not financially able to pay for their studies, and among which there are often promising children, sometimes cannot study further than matric and then have to leave school and carry on under their own steam. I went to the Cabinet with this matter, and as usual we received a sympathetic hearing. We were therefore able to make 25 bursaries available per annum at R800 per pupil for these specific children. The bursaries for this year have already been allocated to 21 children and will still be allocated to four others. Twenty-five of those children for whom there was no possibility of further training at university, will now be able to further their studies as a result of this bursary scheme at R800 per year. This is also a task which deserves much praise, and is something we have done with the greatest of pleasure.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their fine participation in this debate and I want to give them the assurance that my Department and I will continue with this work and the ideals we have set for ourselves. In conclusion I must add something to this. To my mind our welfare services are still based on three foundation stones. Of these three the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is one. In the second place there are the churches and all the various church societies in our country where we still practise charity and where every church still regards it as its task to do charitable services, each in its own way among its own people and others as well. They do this among the adherents to their faith and after that among their nearest neighbours. As I see it, the third foundation stone is our voluntary welfare organizations which consist of women’s associations in all kinds of other organizations who are doing this task with great love and dedication.

On these three foundation stones we are constructing our welfare services in South Africa and have been doing so up to now. I see this pattern being elaborated on in future as well. We must not be a welfare state, but the State must always be there to intervene when the necessary provision cannot be made by the church or by other welfare organizations to see to it that its people do not fall into a state of general decline. The State will supplement funds where there are deficiencies, but the State must never take over completely and oust the other two groups, because then a welfare state will immediately have been created, which we are not prepared to accept in South Africa. These are the foundation stones and the policy as I see it, and this is the course of development I shall adopt in future. I want to express my gratitude to all these three organizations, the churches, private initiative and my Department and its officials for the excellent work which is being done in regard to this specific task in South Africa.

Revenue Vote No. 40.—“Immigration,” R6 576 000:

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be able to say that one can welcome once again a report from the Department of Immigration, in contrast with the reports of some other departments that one could mention, which is not only informative, but which is set out in a manner which makes it interesting reading. The report we had last year dealt with the period up to the end of June, 1968. We have this year a report dealing with the period from 1st July, 1968, to 30th June, 1970, that is to say a two year report and a report which is as near up to date as one could expect.

I should like to deal initially with paragraph 2 of Chapter II of this report which deals with the manner in which the hon. the Minister approaches the question of immigration. It reads as follows:

Last year, when this Vote was being debated, the hon. the Minister dealt with much the same sort of matter. It appears in Hansard of 24th September, 1970, beginning at column 5007 where the hon. the Minister was replying to a request from the hon. member for Geduld, namely that immigration should be stepped up. The hon. the Minister said that the question of the Government’s policy in this regard was based on a clear principle. He related it to the question of the growth rate of 5½ per cent. He stated that this point of view was really the departure point from which the whole policy of the Government went out. The hon. the Minister said:

The hon. the Minister then went on to say that this meant 35 000 to 41 000 immigrants per year and that that target had been achieved. He went on to say that this was the manner in which the problem should be approached and that he would continue to approach it on that basis. He further said:

The question is whether this is the right approach and whether, in fact, the goal which the hon. the Minister sets himself, is being attained. I believe that events over the last two years have shown that whilst it may be a desirable goal to attempt to attune the intake of immigrants to the growth rate of the country and, consequently, the employment availability in the country to new personnel, everything suggests that something has slipped some-where along the line because we have had a desperate shortage of skilled and semiskilled labour, increasingly so, over the period during which the policy which I have enunciated, has been applied.

There is an increasing shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. We are not meeting the growth rate of per cent. The growth rate is in fact lower than that; yet despite that there is the ever-increasing shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. The shortage is to such an extent that quite recently the building industry in the Transvaal has had to be opened up to various categories of non-European workers. There is a shortage of manpower in almost every grade; it is increasingly so of skilled and semi-skilled categories. Largely as the result of that we have inflation. It seems to me quite clearly that whatever the goal of the policy may be, it is not in fact working out in practice and that we ought to be bringing in far more immigrants, at least of those categories, than we are at the present time. It seems to me that the present goal of the order of 40 000 immigrants per year, of which some 13 000 or 14 000 are economically active, is not sufficient. However much that policy may in theory have seemed to fill the shortage of skilled and semi-skilled categories in South Africa, it seems to me that in fact we can easily accommodate, merely by filling the existing shortages in our manpower set-up, a far greater intake of immigrants than the 40 000 we are going for at the present time.

I suggest that it is not only in the skilled and semi-skilled categories that we have shortages. After all we have a shortage in almost every category. Let us think in terms of waiters. Not a hundred miles from where I am standing at present we have had to employ women to do the work of men in the category of waiters. This had to be done because the men are simply not available for that service. I regard waiting in any sort of restaurant of standing as a semi-skilled occupation. Even at the level of waiters and I use this merely as an example, there is a shortage in South Africa at the present time.

Consequently I believe one can take a more relaxed attitude towards the intake of immigrants. Not only would they improve the ratio between White and non-White in population statistics, and as I see it, decrease the gap and bring about a more desirable ratio between non-White and White, but also it would bring about a fulfilment of one of the goals of the immigration policy which the hon. the Minister has himself announced. The improvement of the ratio between White and non-White seems to me to be desirable because it reduces the tensions as opposed one against the other. I agree that there is a lot to be said for trying to equate the intake of immigrants to the economic circumstances in the country. There is a lot to be said for that point of view. The facts which we have to hand at the present time suggest that there is a very large gap between what the hon. the Minister set out to do in this regard and what is in fact taking place.

I think that we could take some advice from other countries in the world. I believe Australia is one. There, if an overseas entrepreneur wishes to establish a new enterprise it is incumbent on him to bring in a given percentage of his skilled or semi-skilled workers from the country from which he stems. Where that principle is followed, it would mean that new enterprises which are being set up in your country do not aggravate the already very sharp shortage of skilled labour or semiskilled labour. It would mean that you would not only get the capital development and the enterprise of that kind taking place in South Africa, but you would bring in as well a percentage of the categories of skilled and semi-skilled labour which will be required to keep such a factory going. I think that is something which we could investigate and from which we could derive advantage.

Earlier this year the hon. member for Albany asked the hon. the Minister some questions as to the names and qualifications of the members of the Immigrant Selection Board. That board, as the report of the hon. the Minister’s Department sets out, performs the function of an impartial autonomous body which deals with the approval of immigrants who want to come to South Africa as permanent residents. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, permit me in the first place to extend personal congratulations, as well as that of this side of the House, to Mr. Ellis on his appointment as Secretary of the Department of Immigration. We want to wish him the best of luck, because we also know that his task will not be an easy one, but we are convinced that with his competence he will, in fact, carry it out properly. Permit me also, Sir, to convey our best wishes to Mr. Du Rand, the retiring Secretary, for the years of faithful service he has given to the State.

However, I want to come back to this Vote. In the course of my speech I shall also deal with the aspects the hon. member for Zululand raised here. From time to time the Government is attacked by members of the Opposition and accused of not doing enough to bring more immigrants into the country. We have also had another instance of this from the hon. member for Zululand. But now one finds that some members of the Opposition accuse us of doing too little for immigration, while some members of their own party present such a distorted and twisted image of South Africa that instead of prospective irr migrants being encouraged, they are actually discouraged and put off from coming to South Africa.

I want to refer to one of those members and the image he created of conditions in our country when he recently took part in the Budget debate here, i.e. the hon. member for Yeoville. He accused the Government, inter alia, of not doing anything to increase production and productivity. He went further and created a distorted image, because that is the barb in his speech. He referred to the Budget proposals and said—

That is surely a twisted image of conditions, if we were to make a comparison between the prevailing conditions in our country and those in the countries from which our immigrants come. But then he goes further. He says—

Sir, I now ask in all humility: What prospective immigrant will be interested in coming to any country if that is the image that is presentend to him? The allegations and statements the hon. member made about the increasing cost of living and the tax structure surely do not hold water. I shall prove this. These ill-considered statements the hon. member for Yeoville made were apparently made deliberately to discourage prospective immigrants from coming to his own fatherland. Is that the so-called patriotism displayed from day to day by those members?

During the three calendar years, 1967-’69, 45,2 per cent of our immigrants came from the United Kingdom, 8,8 per cent from Germany, 4,2 per cent from the Netherlands and 7,1 per cent from Portugal, i.e. 65,4 per cent of all our immigrants came from the aforementioned countries.

Let us test the statements and allegations the hon. member made, and see how conditions in the abovementioned countries compare with those or the Republic of South Africa. Salaries and wages compare reasonably well; in fact, they are greater in South Africa. House rent in South Africa compares favourably with that in any European country; in fact, in some cases it is even up to 50 per cent per square foot less than in some European countries. Let us look at the position of foodstuffs. Beef costs 52,9 cents in South Africa, in the United Kingdom 102 cents; in Western Germany 54,6 cents; in France 61,7 cents; the position of bread is as follows (on the basis of I cent per pound): South Africa 5,5; United Kingdom 7.5; Western Germany 11; France 7: etc. With milk the position is the same. If we look at petrol, we see that South Africa is by far the cheapest country. Under the circumstances, what right has the hon. member to create such a distorted image of his own country? If we look at the payment and social security rate in overseas countries, we find that in the majority of cases these amount to 30 per cent of the peoples’ income, a percentage that increases sharply with their incomes. In South Africa this is much less. The hon. member for Yeoville pointed to the rising costs of foodstuffs and services in the Republic. But let us look at the state of affairs in Europe. In 1966 one could still obtain a hotel room in Europe for R6 per night; today one must pay up to R16 for that same hotel room. In 1966 one could obtain a meal for R1 to R1-50; today one pays between R4 and R5 for a similar meal. This shows how costs in overseas countries have increased. The hon. member for Yeoville was surely being insincere, or was he being ignorant, in painting this image of his own fatherland? Financial and material considerations, although important for a prospective immigrant, are not all-prevailing. There are additional factors such as safety, prosperity, freedom of movement, security, climatic conditions and other factors. These factors can be just as important as material considerations, and even more important. And all these things one finds in this wonderful country, South Africa. Our climatic conditions are among the best in the world. In Europe one can count oneself lucky if one can spend one day a year on a beach, and then one still has to pay for one’s seat. In addition one finds that conditions are not always of the cleanest and that the beaches are frequently polluted with oil. The winters there extend for eight months out of the 12 and central heating costs one up to R60 per month for a house with three or four rooms. There families with children live in concrete jungles and polluted air; they are cooped up together, like doves, in concrete jungles. Even as far as sport and recreation are concerned, conditions there cannot nearly be compared with conditions in South Africa. These are important factors that I want to mention over and above the material considerations, factors that make South Africa attractive to the immigrant. This is not the twisted, distorted and unpatriotic image the hon. member for Yeoville sketched of his own country. We have many immigrants at Vanderbijlpark, and I can testify that all of them regard themselves as new South Africans; they accept South Africa as their own and would not easily change their abode. Argue as we may, South Africa still remains the most attractive country for any prospective immigrant.

In conclusion I again want to lodge a plea with the Minister that, since the Opposition requests that we should bring more immigrants into the country, we shall at all times ensure that we do not disturb our language and religious balance. Only if we give this assurance will we have the co-operation and support of the general public in this extensive endeavour.

Now before I resume my seat I want to express my utmost esteem to the Minister and his Department for the work they did and for the success they achieved with immigration to South Africa.

Before commenting on what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said, I just want to finish off the point I was making when my time expired. There is room in South Africa for people who can be beneficially occupied, both for their own purposes and for the economy of the country, not only in the specifically skilled categories. I say this in view of what is stated in paragraph 9, page 2 of the report, which is—

Don’t you agree with that?

Let me just speak on it. Nobody asks for a flood of people all of whom cannot be given beneficial employment in South Africa. To say that is stating the one extreme, and I do not think anybody goes for extremes. Whilst one can agree with that, one can also agree with the point of view that if we are to maintain a growth rate, if we are to combat inflation and if we have to fill the jobs which are available in all categories, then we can afford to allow into South Africa a greater number of immigrants from the semiskilled category upwards. We can allow in more of all types of immigrants, judging by the figures we have been given and the events which have occurred over the last two years. This is the point I wish to make in this regard, i.e. that the goal of the hon. the Minister, a legitimate goal, is not being met at the present time.

Coming to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I want to say to the hon. member, with respect, that one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to look at an immigration policy through the eyes of the hon. member whose point of view is that the only place in the world where it is worth while living is South Africa, and that all other countries in the world are so bad that we just have to sit back and do nothing and yet get a constant stream of immigrants of the best type coming here; in fact, everything we could possibly wish to have. The theme of his speech was that whatever took place in South Africa must automatically be attractive to every person living in Europe; whatever we have in South Africa is better than anything they have in Europe; any immigrant coming to South Africa is bound to be better off, will be more comfortable, feeling more secure, will be happier and will have healthier children than in the country whence he came. This is the worst possible approach we can adopt.

Let us start at the stage where we give the immigrant information about South Africa. The worst we can possibly do is to overstate our case and to paint South Africa as a far better place than it is in reality. And when the immigrant arrives here, he finds, contrary to the exaggerations that were put to him before he came here, that his pay is lower than what he was led to believe he would receive, that the cost of living is not so low as what he was led to believe and that houses are not so readily available as he was led to believe. If we approach him in this way, we are going to have a large variety of dissatisfied immigrants here in South Africa. Just think of the pamphlets we distribute abroad. These pamphlets fall into two categories—one, an all-White category. Families—adults and children—in whichever circumstances you see them being presented in publicity brochures distributed by South Africa, they are in an entirely White environment. By contrast, Sir, the other brochures that you see distributed abroad show the Bantu in his tribal society outside a beehive straw hut, dressed up in beads, but what is never shown to the world abroad is the reality of South Africa, the circumstances in which almost every housewife and every working man has to live and work in South Africa, that is to say, Sir, a circumstance where there are both Europeans and non-Europeans, street scenes where both are to be seen …

Both are now shown in films.

I am speaking of brochures. These brochures do not show the non-Europeans employed in the majority on any job in which the White man is employed; they do not show housewives having to cope with a non-European indoor servant or a garden boy. Sir, this is never reflected in brochures distributed in the outside world and people are led to believe, looking at it through the eyes of an immigrant coming to South Africa, that the White person who comes here will move into an entirely White society. Sir, this is not the case. The hon. member for Hercules has suggested, for example, that our wage scales here are higher. In many cases they are. Our cost of living is both higher and lower, in my experience. If you want to live well at the level of a business executive, you can do it far more cheaply in South Africa than you can do it in Europe. But, Sir, the working man in Europe is able to live more cheaply than the working man in South Africa, because his basic foodstuffs, his clothes, his travel and his housing by and large are cheaper, not to mention all the benefits that go with a welfare state, and there is hardly a state in Europe which is not a welfare state. Sir, we must know this before we ask immigrants to come here. South Africa has many advantages. I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is the finest place in the world to live in if you are a South African, but foreigners coming here do not necessarily see it from that point of view. They believe, for example, that there is a disadvantage in the fact that one’s womenfolk are not able to go out alone at night, which is the case in many of our larger cities, but we accommodate ourselves to that. We believe that the ability to have a car in South Africa is an advantage, but many people coming from Europe are used to public transport and nobody can say that our public transport systems are the best in the world. There are a whole lot of categories of this kind where things in South Africa are different from what the immigrant from Europe is used to. We would be bluffing ourselves and doing ourselves a disservice, I believe, if we adopted the attitude that they would automatically like what we have here, and I believe that we are doing them a great disservice if we mislead them as to what conditions are here in South Africa.

The hon. member went on to deal at length with a speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville apparently in the Little Budget debate last year.

No, this year.

Sir, a great deal of what the hon. member referred to critically in reference to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville is in fact so and I have given a number of examples in the cases which I have already mentioned.

Then, Sir, we come to the question of the integration of immigrants which is dealt with in the report on page 6, in paragraphs 7 and 9. The hon. the Minister’s Department is concerned—rightly I believe —about this question of integration of immigrants into the South African society. Indeed the report bears out a lot of what I have just said, because the report reads as follows—

Sir, this is the very point that I have endeavoured to make. I believe that this is the very sphere in which the hon. gentleman who has just spoken overplayed his hand. Then paragraph 9 reads as follows—

As I have said, I believe in some respects we paint too rosy a picture to the immigrants before they come here. I have had actual cases where the wage which the immigrant has been offered privately has been higher than the one he in fact gets when he gets here.

There is one aspect of this report which I think could be omitted. That is paragraph (1) of Chapter VIII, under the heading “Acknowledgments”. It says that at ministerial level the Department has at all times received clear guidance and it wishes to express its appreciation to the former Minister, the present Minister and to the former Deputy for their guidance and encouragement, etc. [Time expired.]

I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department on the report we have before us, and there I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Zululand. But in his speech the hon. member for Zululand again indicated to us the difference which exists between this side of the House and that side of the House in respect of our immigration policy. The hon. member for Zulu-land wants to solve our shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour solely by means of immigration. The Minister has set himself a task, and that task was entrusted to him in the first report of the Economic Development Programme in 1964, to the effect that annually between 13 000 and 14 000 immigrants who are economically active must enter the country in order to maintain an average growth rate of 5½ per cent. That is the task the Economic Development Programme set the Minister. If we look at this report I am compelled to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he has handled the task that he was set with so much success. This just convinces us yet again, and will also convince the Opposition, that our immigration policy and its implementation are in the hands of a very competent Minister.

But there is also another aspect of our immigration policy and that is not, as the United Party and the hon. members opposite suggest, to solve all our manpower problems by means of immigration; immigrants are not that easy to obtain either. On this side of the House the requirement is made that in the implementation of our immigration policy the religious and language ratio in this country should not be disturbed. It is against these two background factors that we must test the implementation of the immigration policy of the Minister. I see in the report that over the past two years the Minister has succeeded in getting an average of 41 430 immigrants into the country. I think that this answers the requirements he was set under the Development Programme. We can therefore safely deduce that the target rate which the Economic Development Programme established was maintained by this Minister. But in order to get the other aspect of the language and religious ratio into the correct perspective, I also want to point out, with reference to this report, that it was successfully maintained to a large extent. I find the following figures in this report significant. The statistics compare the figures over the past ten years with the figures over the past two years. From that I see that immigrants from the countries of Africa totalled 33 per cent in the previous ten years, and in the past two years, 19,4 per cent. From the United Kingdom it was 32,7 per cent and in the past two years 44 per cent. For the Netherlands it was 3 per cent and in the past two years 3,3 per cent. For Germany it was 6,7 per cent, and in the past two years it was 8,1 per cent. For the rest of Europe the figure was 19,2 per cent, and for the past two years 19,8 per cent. For the rest of the world it was 5,4 per cent and in the past two years 5,4 per cent. These figures give us certain indications. In the first place they indicate that the countries of Africa are drying up as a source of immigrants. We can accept that. It ought not to upset one. It is a fact that since the African states obtained independence there has been a big exodus of White immigrants from those countries, the Republic of South Africa having drawn a large proportion of them. This fact is reflected in the report. The record number of immigrants we drew in 1966 was 48 048. In the second place, the figures indicate to me that the United Kingdom is our strongest source of immigrants. We do not want to make any fundamental objection to that. On the contrary, it is generally accepted that some of our best immigrants come from the United Kingdom.

Further we see—we find it a very hopeful sign—that our immigration from our European countries of origin is slowly but surely always supplying more immigrants to the Republic of South Africa. I am referring to the Table contained in the report. There we see that in the past two years the Netherlands has increased from 3 to 3,3 per cent; Germany from 6,7 to 8,1 per cent; the rest of Europe from 19,2 to 19,8 per cent. This gives us an indication that the total number of immigrants from those countries is slowly but surely increasing.

This fact is strengthened further if we compare the nationalities of the numbers of immigrants. I am comparing, as it appears in the report, the years 1961-’70 with the years 1967-’69. We see that citizens from the United Kingdom during the first period totalled 38,9 per cent, and in the subsequent period 45,2 per cent. Belgians increased from 1,1 per cent to 1,4 per cent; Germans from 7,6 to 8,8 per cent; Frenchmen from 0,8 per cent to 1,2 per cent; and the Dutch from 3,9 per cent to 4,3 per cent. In addition these figures proved to us that the immigrants from Greece have decreased from 3,6 per cent to 2,8 per cent, the Portuguese from 9 per cent to 7,1 per cent and those from other countries from 15,3 to 10,1 per cent. From the figures I have thus far quoted, it is therefore apparent that considerable success has been achieved in the effort to draw immigrants from the countries of origin on the Continent of Europe. We want to thank the hon. the Minister for that because it will help to ensure that our immigration policy is not also going to affect our national character.

In addition I find it interesting to see what professions draw the majority of the immigrants in this country. We see that the professional and technical occupations, as evidenced at the time of the report, drew 19 705 people; there were 13 020 clerical workers and 45 363 factory and construction workers. These numbers are out of a total of 99 425 economically active persons. From this report we see that sufficient people are being recruited, by means of immigration, for the industries where there is possibly a shortage of manpower. But I should like to tell the hon. member for Zululand that we cannot and may not try to solve our manpower shortage and manpower problems by allowing more and more immigrants into the country. There is also something called the better utilization of labour and the increasing of production and productivity. Only when the maximum utilization has been achieved can the target, which the Economic Development Programme set this Minister, i.e. to obtain more or less between 13 000 and 14 000 economically active immigrants per year, be deviated from. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia started off by thanking the hon. the Minister. This is something we on this side of the House are accustomed to.

Why not?

Why or why not is quite beside the point. We are so brainwashed from hearing it said by the hon. members opposite that it no longer makes any impression on us. We do, however, find it strange that the hon. the Minister is now also thanked in the report of the department. I think this is a new innovation and one which we will watch with some interest in the future.

Before I go further, I would like to say that we on this side of the House would like to thank the retiring Secretary, Mr. Durand, and wish him a very happy retirement and hope that he will have many years to enjoy it. At the same time we wish his successor, Mr. Ellis, a very fruitful term of office and we on this side of the House want to assure him of our heartiest and heartfelt co-operation in the task he is undertaking.

One of the things that interest me about this department is that it seems that it does not quite know its own mind. It wants immigrants and has an immigration policy which certainly works, but it seems when one listens to hon. members opposite that the department is not quite sure what it really wants. It talks about a type of immigrant that can be “easily assimilated” into the South African society. I would like to remind hon. members in this particular respect as an immigrant myself, that one of the hardest things to do is to be assimilated into a society which is not quite the same as the society you left in your home country. One must remember that conditions in South Africa almost in no way represent conditions in other parts of the world. We in South Africa like to believe, and sincerely believe, that conditions here are in many respects unbeatable; that is why we are here. I think that when we deal with immigrants it is very important to realize that when they decide to emigrate from whichever country they come from to this country or any other country for that matter, they are leaving behind friends and relations and a way of life which they have known all their lives. This is a very big upheaval for them indeed. They arrive here with a certain degree of trepidation as to what they will find. Having arrived here the greatest disillusion for them is to find that things are not as they were promised. They arrive in South Africa, for example, and find that there is not the amount of housing available to them as they were told. We must be very careful of this when we talk to people overseas. I have spoken to a number of my own relatives in this regard. We say that housing is available, but that is not always the case. There was a report in the Star submitted by a committee in Pretoria which related about a Swiss family who waited 14 months for a house which they could afford. Another family lived in a flat, but were forced to move because they had to pay R145 rent per month. On the salary they received, they just could not live there. This particular committee went so far as to say that they had 25 families waiting for urgent accommodation on their lists. I believe that our housing problems are difficult, but such is the case in the rest of the world as well. It remains a serious mistake, however, when an immigrant arrives here and finds himself battling to find accommodation. I know that the department helps him to find accommodation initially but it cannot go on helping him indefinitely. It is soul-destroying to come here and find that rents are so much higher than expected. Overseas they are told that the salaries we pay in South Africa are higher than they are earning overseas. These facts are just not true. It may have been true ten or 15 years ago. But artisans are earning more in Europe today than they earn in South Africa. There may be, despite the lower salaries, advantages for them in South Africa. But if they were at least warned that their salaries would be lower in South Africa, they would not feel so disappointed when they come here and find that they will earn a good deal less.

Why I say that we seem to be wanting immigrants on the one hand and reject them on the other hand, is because the hon. the Minister says that he sets his target on 13 000 or 14 000 economically active immigrants per year, but the actual figure he achieves, I might suggest, is in fact not even that 13 000 or 14 000. It may look like that on paper, but if the emigrants were to be subtracted from that figure, we will find that it is less. I can tell the hon. the Minister that from the figures he has supplied to me in this House, one finds that the average number, for instance, of artisans added to our labour market in South Africa over the last ten years through our immigration scheme— and it has been working at some pace over the last ten years—is no more than 5 000 artisans per year. 5 000 Artisans per year is not all that much when we are battling with the labour shortage that we have. The hon. member for Zululand is perfectly correct in saying that we have probably set our sights far too low in this respect. We could absorb a great deal more immigrants and certainly skilled immigrants because of our labour shortage.

The other aspect of this matter is that at the moment there is unemployment of skilled labour in the United Kingdom, whereas in Germany they are crying out for labour. Many people emigrate from the United Kingdom to Germany to take employment there. Therefore, our greatest opportunities lie at the present time and for some time in the future, in the United Kingdom. Most of our immigrants have come from the United Kingdom in the past. I believe this is where they should come from. I am probably biased in this respect, but I am also realistic, because the people who come from the United Kingdom are far more easily assimilated into the South African society than people who come from elsewhere on the Continent. The people that come from the United Kingdom at least speak one of our official languages. Those who come from other parts of the Continent do not speak either of our official languages. I believe that this is a point to be remembered. The hon. the Minister himself has said that he tries to balance the number of immigrant children going into English and Afrikaans schools. Others have made statements in regard to religious affiliations of immigrants. When these matters are raised in regard to the question of immigration, when language and religion plays a part, I doubt the sincerity of the immigration policy of the department. I must be forgiven for saying this, because I know the department is trying its best. However, as far as I am concerned, the only criterion should be the use a man will serve to the country and not the language he speaks or the religion he worships. The higher he is skilled, the better we can use him.

In the report of the Department of Immigration the Department of the Interior, Treasury, the Public Service and so forth, are thanked. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister of Immigration that his department has little, if anything, to thank the Department of the Interior for, because experience has shown that when people do come to South Africa and apply for permanent residence—after all, the Department of Immigration is trying to attract people to come and settle in South Africa—the Department of the Interior lays all sorts of restrictions in their way. I go so far as to say that a person applying to come to South Africa as an immigrant, waits a long time before his papers are processed. Here in front of me I have a letter which has been written to a person who applied to come to South Africa. The footnote of this letter—which is from the 1820 Settlers’ Association and not the hon. the Minister’s department—reads—

This person had already been waiting for something like three months. Surely it is human nature to inquire, after waiting for three months, about the progress of your application. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his short speech the hon. member for Port Natal made a few remarks that sound to me fairly absurd. The hon. member implied in his speech, inter alia, that prospective immigrants are given the wrong impression when they are recruited. I think that this is a very absurd remark. Then he made the remark, “I doubt the sincerity of the Government’s immigration policy”. With that remark he revealed a true United Party mentality. However, I shall simply leave it at that.

The selection of prospective immigrants is actually done by the impartial and autonomous Immigrants’ Selection Board. Of course, they act according to Government policy. This selection is strict. Minimum requirements and qualifications are prescribed, and the immigrant must comply with that before he can immigrate to South Africa. These requirements for admission as an immigrant to the Republic are definitely among the strictest requirements encountered in any country for which immigrants are recruited. We know that persons and bodies have already, on various occasions, urged the Minister to lower these qualifications. However, the Minister has consistently refused. We on this side of the House would like to support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly in that refusal. The Government and the Minister, and consequently also the Immigrants’ Selection Board, sets the sights high when it comes to the recruiting and the selection of immigrants.

After the Minister has set these sights so high as a result of the high qualifications and requirements, our indigenous population, our old-established citizens, come along and add further high requirements. We expect these immigrants to sever ties with their country of origin virtually the moment they set foot on land. We expect them to actually terminate the loyalty to their country of origin immediately. Our people expect them to be willing to relinquish immediately a view of life they have accepted for years. In addition we expect them to be willing to link up with the way of living and thinking of the established citizens of our fatherland. We expect them, in the course of time, to be willing to assimilate in such a way that the established pattern of life will not be changed or detrimentally affected. We also require of them that they should be willing to educate their children in such a way that they will be taken up as such in the cultural stream and in time also in the general national stream. These requirements, and still many more, are imposed on the new arrivals by the established citizens. I say that it is probably the right and the privilege of established citizens of a country to impose such requirements. Therefore one cannot as such find no fault with that.

But, on the other hand, the established citizens must also be willing to help immigrants morally, and otherwise to give them support, so that they can comply with these requirements imposed by the established citizens. It is here where the task of integrating these people, taking them up in the national stream in the course of time, is so important. Integrating people is our neighbourly duty towards, as the Minister has expressed it, “the stranger within our gates”. It is a particularly critical moment when a person, in the process of immigration, has come so far as to break away from the country he has emigrated from and finds himself in totally new surroundings. In that respect I agree with the previous speaker. Someone stated it very forcibly as follows—

There are two important words here, “taken up” and “rejected”. Our attitude in South Africa—in this connection I particularly want to mention our Afrikaans-speaking people—towards the immigrant is one of expecting too much too soon. In order to actualize these high expectations and requirements imposed on immigrants, it must be realized that immigration also places a mutual task on the shoulders of the established inhabitants. The established inhabitants must seriously try to let the immigrants feel at home as soon as possible by way of social inter-action so that assimilation in the social and spirutual spheres can be facilitated. They must act in such a way that the process of integrating can be accelerated and can lay the foundations for absorbing the assimilable immigrants, even if this must take place in the second generation. The trouble with our people is that we want to see results too quickly in this whole process.

In addition, it is the established citizen’s moral duty to show an interest in the work of organizations concerning themselves intensively with the settlement and integrating of the immigrants, organizations which strive and aim at drawing these new arrivals closer and making them part of our South African pattern of life. In this connection I want to say that the task, which is stated very nicely on page 5, and further, of the report of the Department of Immigration, of integrating immigrants is a very important one, but that every person must make that task his object. It is a challenge to every established citizen. It is not the task of one’s neighbour or the other man’s task.

“Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie,” where the three Afrikaans churches are represented, concentrates chiefly on immigrants coming from the Continent of Europe. This society is assisted by regional committees in cities and towns, committees which particularly do very excellent work in connection with the settlement of and visits to immigrant families. It is a gigantic task that these various committees do in respect of integrating these people. These regional committees—I particularly want to refer to two of them, i.e. those in Johannesburg and Pretoria—usually also send reports to several of our House of Assembly members. I have received reports from them repeatedly. I appreciate this. Since I come from that city, it is of particular interest to me to read the reports of the Pretoria Immigrants’ Committee. Those annual reports are very informative. When the annual meetings take place we find a small group of people, established citizens, taking the lead and doing their best as far as that matter is concerned, but when those annual meetings take place it is remarkable that the very people attending those meetings are the older immigrants, the people who emigrated here a decade or more ago. They are the people who are willing to extend the hand of friendship to the new arrivals. One is encouraged to see how people who emigrated from various countries a decade ago are willing to help new arrivals. At the same time I regret to say that our old-established citizens do not display the same interest. [Time expired.]

It is not often that I have the privilege of agreeing with the hon. member. However, when he said that South Africans were expecting far too much from immigrants, I must agree with him entirely. He was quite right in stressing that point. As a matter of fact, I find it in the report of the department too. Assimilation of immigrants must come from both sides, and not only from the side of the immigrant. Furthermore, it is a very slow process. Being a South African it would take me a very, very long time to settle in any other country in the world. As a matter of fact, I hope I shall never become an immigrant. To change one’s roots and one’s anchors can sometimes be most terrible.

A few speakers on the other side raised the question of language and religious relationships. But I believe there is nothing really to worry about in this connection. Just let us take the settlers who came to this country during the period 1945 to 1948. I challenge any hon. member in this House to find and identify them today, so assimilated have they become. Some of them are speaking Afrikaans and others English. All of them have become South Africans. The tendency for immigrants is slowly to adopt the feelings of those who are nearest to them and who make friends with them, and it is axiomatic that they accept the language and customs of the group with whom they have become assimilated. Therefore I really do not see anything to worry about on this score.

We all know that the hon. the Minister is about to go overseas on an extended tour and that he will visit his information and immigration offices. It will therefore be apt if we as an Opposition try to be constructive and put forward certain suggestions to him.

He ought to take one of us with him.

Yes. I want to refer to Annexure 2, page 9 of the latest departmental report reflecting the staff position on the Continent of Europe. It is gratifying to find a good spread of consuls and vice-consuls over the whole of that Continent. However, I wonder whether the large concentration that we find in the City of London is sound policy. As a matter of fact, 17 out of a total staff of 44 seem to me to be quite a lot to concentrate in London. We all know that the bulk of our immigrants come from the British Isles, but London, although the largest city, is not the whole of the British Isles. We should also think of the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish who constituted quite a large proportion of the 1820 Settlers. In fact, some historians say that the British Empire was built with the blood of Scotsmen and was then colonized by the English shopkeepers. Furthermore, all of these people play good rugby. I feel therefore that the hon. the Minister ought to look into this position while overseas. Perhaps a better spread of staff over the whole of the United Kingdom would bring us a broader spectrum of the type of artisan and technician we want. There are places like Bristol, Manchester, Belfast, Leeds, Glasgow and others that come to mind. One thinks of Belfast particularly at the present time, with the unrest there is in Northern Ireland. A lot of them may feel like coming to a more peaceful country. In that way we may be able to recruit a few good shipbuilders and also some good rugby players, arid in addition, some jolly good fighters. So, I would appreciate it if the Minister could look into this matter while over there.

Another suggestion I want to make to the Minister is that he ought to make an effort now to recruit members of the staff from amongst immigrants who have become South African citizens, or perhaps from their children. Such people have proved their loyalty to the country by taking out citizenship. By this time also they would have a sound knowledge of conditions within the Republic as well as of conditions in their country of origin. Such people would make ideal representatives overseas, and could select prospective immigrants with a greater degree of sympathy and insight than any other South African. I suggest that such a scheme may be tried out as a pilot scheme by private enterprise when sending out recruiting agents under the aegis of the department. If this is done, we might in the future be spared much embarrassment, like we had in the case of the Barentz shipyard some years ago. The case of South Africa would not be over-emphasized because somebody with knowledge of both sides could give a more balanced picture.

Another point I want to make refers to chapter 3 of the report—Selection: It is obvious that there are abuses of this scheme when applications are made for permanent residence by people who are already in the Republic. On the other hand it is not always possible, nor always within the financial means of an artisan or a technician, especially in the case of someone who came out here to do a specific job and then finds he likes the country, to go back to their countries of origin and to make application from there. One also finds that many applications are turned down for technical reasons. We are definitely not asking the Minister to divulge the reasons for refusal in every case. However, where it is obvious to the department that there has only been a technical error, like a form that has been filled in incorrectly, the people concerned ought to be informed accordingly. They will thereby be placed in a position to rectify the error. I believe therefore that where there has been an obvious error, the department ought to notify the applicant that he has, for instance, filled in his form incorrectly, or has not given sufficient information as far as this or that is concerned. That could save expense. It could also sometimes save a man his job. Cases have come to notice where people have been turned down in the past purely as a result of a technical error. Meanwhile the job for which he applied is filled by someone else, and he either has to wait for another opportunity or go to another country. I am busy at the moment with a case of a person who has decided to settle in Rhodesia, simply because of a delay which was obviously the result of a technical error and not that the person concerned has a cloak and dagger background.

Finally I notice that from April 1969 the 1820 Settlers’ Association as well as “Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” received an increase from the Government, i.e. a subsidy to the tune of R72 000 per annum each. I would strongly appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider increasing this to a round figure of R100 000 per annum. I realize, of course, that he cannot do so in the current financial year.

It has already been increased to R92 000.

I am pleased to hear that. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Albany may relax and feel completely at ease; I am not going to row with him, not in this calm atmosphere in the discussion of this extremely important Vote. Besides, my time is too limited.

Immigration is necessary to South Africa, primarily to provide for the tremendous demand for skilled labour forces. Secondarily immigration is of the utmost importance in combating the decrease that has set in as far as our White birth rate is concerned. It is an acknowledged fact that our White birth rate in South Africa is decreasing. In 1960 it stood at 24,8 per thousand Whites, in 1965 it decreased to 22,8, and it is estimated that it will have decreased to as little as 18 by the end of this century. Sir, it is interesting to look for just a moment at how this phenomenon affects the numerical ratio of Whites to non-Whites in South Africa. In 1951 there were 26,3 Whites for every 100 non-Whites; in 1960 there were 24, and it is expected that there will be about 17 at the end of this century, even if we can evidence an annual gain in White immigrants of 30 000. Sir, because each of us realizes that the recruiting of skilled immigrants is indispensable for the progress and economic stability of South Africa, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Koedoespoort in making a very serious plea this afternoon that the attitude and approach of our South Africans should be much more sympathetic towards immigrants to South Africa—those people who declare themselves willing to weigh anchor and settle themselves in South Africa, those people who came to South Africa with the conviction and the goodwill to join us here as other South Africans in developing South Africa. The Department of Immigration and the Immigrants’ Selection Board are doing a big job, for which we are particularly grateful to them, but when immigrants set foot in South Africa, a big responsibility rests on the shoulders of every South African citizen to ensure that the immigrants we draw will be good inhabitants and eventually a big asset to South Africa. The subject of integrating people is quite rightly one that elicits a great deal of interest. It is also certainly one of the aspects of immigration that leads to the most criticism. I want to say, Sir, that the Department of Immigration has made wonderful progress in the past in trying to properly integrate immigrants who come to settle in South Africa. We have achieved a great deal, but a tremendous challenge still awaits us, and I want to repeat that I believe that our approach to immigrants, as South Africans, will have to undergo a drastic change. It goes without saying that during the first few months in their new fatherland, while they still feel unsure, immigrants hanker for association with previous fellow-countrymen and those who previously shared their language, so that the old traditions can be called to mind and so that they can have familiar ties to bring security into their lives again. This could result in their forming closed communities where they only have contact with their own people. That is why I say that the necessity for the South African population to do everything in its power to make the newcomers feel at home in all spheres, cannot be overemphasized. This tendency towards separation can be combated if the newcomer can rely on the sympathy, goodwill and positive help of the South African community. We must cultivate greater tolerance towards immigrants. In my honest and sincere opinion this is essential. It requires knowledge of our history, culture, way of life, religion and the country’s problems for immigrants to respect our habits and traditions, and if we are not prepared to convey these to them, how on earth must they understand them? How else must those people who come to South Africa appreciate and respect our traditions and way of life? Sir, perhaps I could just mention in passing, in support of this statement of mine, that an immigrant family from Holland took up residence in the town where I live about ten years ago, just across the street, My wife and I went out of our way to make those people feel at home here. It was a pleasure and a privilege to invite them over to our house at times. We made contact with them. Those people are no longer in Welkom today; today they are settled in Cape Town and he is an optician. After seven years he was naturalized; today he is a good South African citizen. His children are no longer Hollanders. They are now full-fledged South Africans, and perhaps I may just also just tell hon. members on that side that in the process I also made a very good Nationalist of him.

Sir, then there is another example I should like to mention to you in this connection. A week or so ago it was my pleasure and privilege to enjoy a meal here with the hon. member for Geduld, where he and the hon. the Minister of Immigration’s wife—he himself could unfortunately not be present—were entertaining a certain Dr. Frey and his wife from England, very refined people. Dr. Frey is a doctor of medicine. Not only did we, around that table, have personal contact with Dr. Frey and his wife, but the hon. member for Geduld went out of his way to take these people around Cape Town, to exchange ideas with them about the problems of South Africa. And I am grateful to be able to say that as a result of that personal contact they decided to emigrate to South Africa in the foreseeable future, and I also think that they will prove to be a particularly great asset for South Africa. Sir, the time has come for every White person in this country to realize that he has an important and indispensable contribution to make towards ensuring our White settlement on the southern tip of Africa once and for all. We do not want immigrants here merely as temporary workers. That would be extremely selfish. We want immigrants here who decide to come to South Africa to join us, who are settled here in South Africa, in developing a wonderful future for both our children and grandchildren and theirs. I believe that here a great challenge is being issued to many of our organizations in that connection. Here I specifically have in mind our cultural organizations such as the F.A.K. and other organizations, but I want to mention one organization in particular. I think that if ever there has been a challenge in this connection, there is a challenge now to the Rapportryer movement in South Africa that they should, instead of gathering once a month on a social basis and having a meal together, draw these strangers, who live in their respective areas, closer and take them under their wing, thereby doing something positive which would not only be a great credit to that organization, but also a great credit to South Africa. Sir, I say that the immigrants must learn to love South Africa and its people as we do, to such an extent that they will sacrifice everything for our country and our people. I believe that the old saying: “United we stand, divided we fall”, is applicable here. Let us in unity accept this challenge; let us, in the interests of South Africa, help to integrate these people, making them fully-fledged and happy citizens of our fatherland. In conclusion, Sir, I cannot but express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the great success they have achieved in the past in respect of this, in my opinion, extremely important matter, i.e. the integrating of people who have come to settle themselves in South Africa, thereby becoming, in the foreseeable future, fellow South Africans in this wonderfully lovely country, South Africa.

In the few minutes left to me I would like to say to the hon. member who has just sat down, and to some of the other hon. members on that side of the House, that it is refreshing for us on this side of the House to hear some of their comments. They are anxious to assimilate the immigrants into the South African way of life. We of course agree entirely, but I should like to sound just one note of warning. Immigrants may be assimilated into the South African way of life, but I can assure you, Sir, that they will never be forced into the South African way of life. This is the danger. We must hasten slowly in this respect. As I said just now, these people have left homes and friends and families behind, and it is natural that at times they should feel very homesick. When they are, I think it would be a mistake to try to compel them into a society to which they are by and large foreign. So I would plead with hon. members over there that while they are anxious to assimilate immigrants into their particular functions and their cultural organizations, they must be aware of the fact that these people will not be forced.

They will not be forced, for instance, to become bilingual. They will become bilingual in time, but they will certainly not be forced to become bilingual by any legislation or by any other means that have been applied so often in the past. In this respect I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a particular question. He pays for immigrants to learn the other official language. Up to a period of six months after their arrival they can learn Afrikaans or English at a technical college, where there is one, and I think this is a very fine thing. But I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that the period of six months is far too short. In that first six months they are by and large settling down. Many of them are not happy in the town at which they first arrived and they move on to another town. They may move from Durban to Johannesburg, though heaven knows why they should like to do that. But these things happen and it takes a little while for them to settle down, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this free tuition in the other language should be available for at least a period of two years so that an immigrant up to the period of two years can elect to learn the other language at the expense of the department. I think the first six months is too unsettling for them to make up their minds. We find, in any event, that even if the parent does not learn the other language, it is almost certain that his children will, and we must rather try to ensure that the second generation of immigrants becomes fluently bilingual rather than worry too much about the first generation. It is these initial pin-pricks in the early days of their settlement in South Africa that tend to make them unhappy and tend to make them feel that they have sacrificed some of the freedom of choice that they were entitled to elsewhere.

Before I sit down I should just like to come back to the point I was making, and that is the delay in the acceptance of new immigrants. I can show the hon. the Minister letters if he wishes to see them, but I am quite sure he has copies. Just quoting from one here very quickly, this was written on 9th September to a prospective immigrant. It says—

Lower down it says—

But three months later, when he wrote to the same association to ask what had happened, they said: “Please do not worry us; you are only making things worse”. This particular couple decided to come to South Africa. They had the money and a job and they arrived here in South Africa. Now they have been refused a residence permit. That is why I say to the hon. the Minister that one of his problems is to try to get a happier working relationship with the Department of the Interior, because the Department of the Interior is refusing these residence permits to certain people, and no reasons are given. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in this particular case whether reasons can be given if an immigrant is refused a resident’s permit after he has arrived under his own steam. After all, he has saved the country hundreds of rands, and surely if he is suitable in every respect, and providing there is nothing criminal in his record, at least we as members of Parliament should be told why that immigrant is not acceptable. Sir, I am left with one horrible thought, namely that too often the department decides the question of the suitability of immigrants for other reasons than the language or the country of origin; because surprisingly enough, when we have asked the department what work or what qualifications immigrants have, I have been given a whole list of what their qualifications were. It must have taken a good deal of work to supply me with that information, but if I ask the department what particular religion these immigrants belong to, the department cannot tell me. It seems that the department has a lot of information, but not this information. I would be very much happier if on occasion the Minister could tell me, or even instruct the Department of the Interior to inform us, why certain people are not allowed into the country.

In my reply to the debate I want to start by saying a few words about the retiring Secretary of this department, Mr. Du Rand, who is retiring from the Service on 30th April this year. On that date Mr. Du Rand will have completed a term of 36 years in the Public Service. When this department was established in 1961, he immediately joined it as Deputy Secretary after having been a member of the Department of Social Welfare. In 1966 he became Secretary, in which capacity he will have served until his retirement on 30th April. In the first place he is a man who has given a lifetime of service to the State, and in the second place he is a man who has been associated with the Department of Immigration since its establishment until now. I would be failing in my duty if on this occasion I did not record my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Du Rand for his efficiency, his loyalty, his exceptionally good advice under all circumstances and the way in which he has performed his work, as is proved by the report before us today as the last product which enjoyed his personal attention, and which illustrates the thoroughness of this dedicated official precisely. On behalf of this House, and I am certain on behalf of both sides of this House, as appeared from the speeches made here, we convey our thanks and appreciation to him and wish him a very pleasant retirement. I hope he will be spared for many years in order to enjoy the fruits of his labours over the past 36 years. At the same time it is my privilege to extend a warm welcome to the new Secretary for Immigration, Mr. Ellis, who is the Acting Secretary at the moment, but who has been appointed as Secretary from 1st May. Comparatively speaking, Mr. Ellis is a young official who has reached this high position at a fairly early age. He has had a fine career in the Public Service and has attained great achievements in various fields. On behalf of both sides of this House, I want to give him the assurance that we look forward to working with him because we know that he will perform his duties with dedication and with loyalty, which are both qualities which have contributed towards his attaining this post. Furthermore, I want to give him the assurance that we wish him many years of fruitful service in this department and that we shall give him our full co-operation in this undertaking.

I now want to come to the debate and to the various points raised by the various members. The method I shall be following, will be to reply more or less in turn to the hon. members as they spoke. On occasion I shall furnish further information where it is applicable to a specific matter raised by a particular member or by other members as well. For the information of the public outside, but also for the information of many members of this House who are not fully acquainted with the facts, I think it may be interesting to say right at the outset that the Department of Immigration has absolutely nothing to do with the temporary admission of persons into the country. Sir, you would be surprised to learn how many letters I receive from the public and even from members of this House in which they seek information from me in regard to visas or temporary permits which have been refused, or whatever. Let me state very clearly that the Department of Immigration has nothing to do with that. It will save you a great deal of trouble to address them directly to the particular Minister responsible for these matters. In the second place, many of the people who are taken for immigrants in South Africa and who often cause resistance to be built up against immigration among many people, are tourists or visitors in our country and not screened immigrants. Many of our people make the mistake of regarding every person whom they come across in the street or see walking somewhere and who speaks a foreign language, as someone who has been approved by the Department of Immigration as a permanent resident of South Africa and a permanent immigrant. This is not the case. The position is very clear. We approve a certain number of people per year after a very strict screening. As far as is practically possible, I am prepared to accept full responsibility for those people. But they must not be confused with visitors to South Africa who are merely travelling through the country as tourists, etc. We must draw a very clear distinction between the differences in this regard. In my opinion, it will also change our attitude towards immigration and the permanent immigrant in South Africa if we realize these facts.

The attack made by the hon. member for Zululand, the main speaker on the United Party side, was this year based mainly on the argument that we are in fact bringing too few immigrants into the country. that we should bring in more people and that we are not really succeeding in our aim of bringing in enough skilled manpower to maintain the per cent growth rate which we have set as our target. I assume it is a corollary to his argument that we should open the doors wider and admit more people into the country. I take this as being a logical inference from his entire argument. I want to start by saying at once that our present scheme is definitely based on the specific principle I explained last vear, and we still stand by it. The statistics I have before me, are very clear and very interesting in this regard. In this respect I do want to say, because I think it is essential, that last year—I shall now furnish the final figure for the year from January to December, 1970. which does not appear in the report—we obtained 41 523 immigrants. In the same period there were 9 154 emigrants. This means a gain of 32 369 for the year. For the information of the hon. member for Port Natal I want to point out that, after the emigrants have been subtracted from the immigrants, we are left with a gain of 32 369, and after the number of skilled workers who left the country is subtracted from the number which entered the country, we find that 14 841 economically active people entered the country, which is higher than the mark we in fact set, namely 14 000. The hon. member’s argument that we should subtract the number of emigrants therefore falls away in the light of the figures I have now officially made available.

The hon. member for Zululand put the matter in regard to the position of labour strongly. I am not going to discuss the entire labour question from the beginning. I do not think it is necessary that it should be discussed under my Vote. What I do want to say—and in this I want to agree one hundred per cent with the hon. member for Virginia—is that we must not for one moment argue that we should meet our full labour requirements by means of immigration from abroad. We should not make this our objective. There are also other considerations that enter into the matter, such as language and religion. I shall say more about this presently than I can at the moment.

I want to state very clearly that in this regard it will not be my object or policy to supplement the overall labour shortage in South Africa with immigrants from outside; I want to state very clearly and frankly that we have a non-White population in South Africa as well, who are permanent inhabitants of this subcontinent. I want to state very clearly that, if doing so will not jeopardize the position of the Whites, we shall allow our own non-Whites to work in certain positions by means of exemptions under the Work Reservation Act, as the hon. the Minister of Labour has done in the building industry, rather than in some cases bring in White immigrants who in many respects are not so acceptable to us. This is in no way a departure from our policy. If there were to be a recession or a decline in the economy one day, we would still be responsible for the Coloured people and the Bantu in our own area, because they are living here permanently. If we would then have brought too many people from overseas, we would be saddled with the problem of possible instability in our own country among our own non-Whites. No responsible Government dare do that.

On that basis you do not need immigrants.

This is typical of the hon. member. If I present a logical argument and state that I am prepared to accept those facts, he immediately wants to run away from the whole argument and say that we should uplift all the non-Whites to a higher standard and that we should have no immigration of any kind whatsoever.

I never said that.

But surely the hon. member asked why we were bringing in immigrants?

I welcome you to the 20th century.

I want to say to the hon. member that we are realistic in our approach, that we adhere to that standpoint and that there is no departure from our policy. It is a question of maintaining the balance between the number of people who may be accepted from overseas and who can be profitably absorbed and assimilated into the South African population without changing the character of the language, the religion and the people and, on the other hand, not bringing in so many people from overseas that when a problem arises, one’s own non-Whites are unemployed as a result. That is practical politics.

In this regard I want to mention another argument, namely that many people in South Africa are under the impression that queues of immigrants are waiting overseas and that one need merely press a button and then all of them want to come to South Africa. The impression is also created that this beastly Government does not want this and is keeping them out. It is said that the Government is limiting the flow of immigrants by laying down excessively high standards. However, what are the true facts? In this regard I want to quote a few figures in order to rectify the matter for the record. At the moment immigrants are in fact available on a fairly large scale in Britain as a result of conditions in that country. Nobody can say how long this position will continue. Nobody knows when the economic climate in Britain will change and when the position will take a completely different turn there. In regard to the rest of Europe and especially the Germanic countries of origin, we have the position that there is a tremendous shortage of workers. This fact is generally known. These shortages are not on a small scale, but are being experienced on a tremendously large scale. Let me mention a few figures. In June, 1968, there were 5 380 000 foreign workers in the Germanic countries of origin in Western Europe. They were distributed as follows: In France there were 1 400 000, in the Netherlands 83 000, in Belgium 250 000, in Switzerland 780 000, in Austria 75 000, and in West Germany 1 217 000. This position became worse and in May, 1970, there were 1 840 000 foreign workers in West Germany, but in spite of this there were 891 700 vacancies. If this is the position in respect of manpower in those countries, we must pat this department on the back and congratulate it on the fact that it still manages to obtain so many immigrants from those countries. It is very logical, after all, that a man will not leave his own country if all the employment opportunities and circumstances are available to him under his nose. We receive many requests from people who say that we should obtain more immigrants from the Netherlands, but the Netherlands has exactly the same problem. At the moment we receive more or less 1 500 immigrants annually from the Netherlands. The fact of the matter is that the year before last, a total of only 9 000 emigrated from the Netherlands to the rest of the world. Out of a total of 9 000 immigrants, therefore, South Africa obtained 1 500, which is a much higher figure and percentage than we obtained for several years previous to that. I am deliberately furnishing these figures in order to quash the argument which was purposely put forward here, namely that people are available overseas, but that the Government is preventing them from coming to South Africa as a result of excessively high standards, and on account of considerations of religion and language.

I want to add that the Government does not intend lowering its standards in respect of immigrants. This is not necessary and the Government is not prepared to do so. The fact of the matter is that certain educational qualifications are laid down which are compulsory by law. Similarly, certain requirements are laid down in respect of a person’s moral conduct, his police record, and a few other things which are prescribed by law and which I do not have the time to deal with now. Those standards, high as they are at present, nevertheless provide us with the number of immigrants we aim to attract annually. Why must the standards be lowered when sufficient immigrants are being obtained on the standards laid down? This would only mean that the quality of persons who would then be attracted would be lowered. This is my reply to this argument in this specific regard.

In the nature of the matter, there must be two requirements for healthy immigration. There must be some kind of pressure in the country of origin which encourages a person to leave that country. Over against that, there must be some attraction offering him the necessary opportunities in the country to which he is emigrating. These are the two basic concepts which should constantly be borne in mind and accepted in respect of immigration. As I have said, in the majority of overseas countries there is at the moment no pressure to leave those countries. The only country in which there is such a state of affairs at present, is Great Britain. As the figures indicate very clearly, the majority of our immigrants come from Great Britain at the moment. Now there are people who draw the wrong conclusions and say that our immigration scheme is being dominated by Britons and that we should be careful not to plough under the Afrikaans language and culture. In this regard I want to say that it is quite wrong to take the immigration figures of one or two years and to draw conclusions from them. It is very clear that the present position is that we are obtaining many immigrants from Britain. One does not know what the position may be in two or three years’ time. By that time the position in Britain may have changed to such an extent that we will obtain no immigrants from Britain, but that, as a result of communist activities, for example, we may perhaps obtain a large number of refugees of Germanic origin again. Therefore one cannot take the figures for one or two years and base one’s conclusions on them. The position overseas is subject to change and one must always bear this in mind. Moveover, our standards must always be kept high. In that case the balance will eventually prove itself. But I want to add—and I shall elaborate on this later—that we are keeping a check to ensure that the language and religious patterns in our country are not disturbed by immigration, because if they were disturbed, it would result in the people of South Africa protesting against the immigration effort as such, which would make immigration as a whole impossible. For this reason immigrants must be brought in on a sensible basis and the people must be taken along on this road. If they were alienated and made antagonistic towards the immigrants, the whole effort would eventually fail. This is the reason why we have to maintain this relationship, because our people still place great value on their language and religion, and rightly so.

I want to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. The hon. member delivered a very neat speech and illustrated the position by means of figures. He refuted the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville, who had spoken in the previous debates. The fact of the matter is that we do have the position in South Africa that, in spite of all the increases we are having at present, we still have a lower cost of living than most countries in the world. Every good South African knows and openly admits this. It is true. To suggest now that South Africa is no longer an attractive country for immigrants because its cost of living and taxation have become so high, is definitely devoid of all truth. It is true that South Africa is less attractive than it was ten years ago. This is as a result of changed circumstances. But it definitely cannot be denied that it is still more attractive than quite a number of other countries.

Why do immigrants come to South Africa? It is surprising to hear what replies people give me to these questions. If I ask people why they want to emigrate to South Africa, I am sometimes given strange reasons. In many cases I am given the reason, for example, that they do not see their way clear to raising their children in the permissive society of Western Europe. Immigrants of all language groups have openly said this to me. Surely this places a double responsibility on us to ensure that that permissivity does not increase in South Africa. For that reason we shall continue to act as we are doing at the moment. Many other people say: We are coming to South Africa because of the tremendous economic potential of the country. In our country there is no longer any room for a man with initiative, because everything I could have undertaken has already been done. But in South Africa there are openings and scope for a man with initiative. Under these circumstances, these people often achieve tremendous success in South Africa. Let me now say that we must accept and realize that an immigrant coming to South Africa, comes to a country which is at present being reviled, slandered and smeared abroad by propaganda from all quarters. We are held up to the people as being a police state, a state which oppresses, a state which grants no rights to anyone and as being an oppressive society.

In spite of all this propaganda these immigrants are coming to South Africa and joining forces with us. Therefore I very strongly support the appeal made by the hon. member for Welkom and other hon. members who spoke about the integration of immigrants. Our people should reconsider their views on and attitude towards immigrants completely, especially in the light of this particular fact. I want to leave this matter by thanking the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for his speech.

The hon. member for Port Natal expressed a few thoughts here. In the first place he said that we should not furnish incorrect information overseas. He said we should not misinform people, to bring them under misapprehensions or present too favourable a picture of conditions in South Africa, because then we would be bringing the people under a misapprehension. I want to say to him at once that my department take? the greatest trouble to ensure that no incorrect information is furnished overseas. Why would one deliberately mislead a person and tell him that he would receive a salary of R800 or R1 000 per month if one knows only too well it is not true? As far as it is humanly possibly to ascertain the true facts, we supply correct information. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member must remember, however, that it is not only the departments that does recruiting. There are also private undertakings that do recruiting and private business concerns that launch recruitment campaigns overseas. They send people abroad to go and tell the immigrants all sorts of things. Only after they have been recruited do they come to us for screening, and then they receive all the necessary pamphlets and all the necessary matters are explained to them. However, we cannot accept responsibility for information which a private recruiter gives an immigrant in a private conversation or when they discuss the future of South Africa. We really cannot accept responsibility for that. Time and again we appeal to people not to create false impressions or to give people mistaken notions, but we are in fact saddled with this problem. However, we are doing what we can in order to eliminate this in practice.

Then there is the question of housing. I do not want to take up time unnecessarily by referring in detail to the table appearing in this report, but this table shows how few immigrants actually make use of the facilities made available by us to accommodate them until they have been able to find their own accommodation. A minimal percentage of them make use of these facilities. Some make use of them for a period of 10 days, others for a period of 30 days, but a very small percentage make use of them for a period of longer than 30 days. We assist the immigrant for as long as he has no accommodation, but in practice the immigrant therefore does find accommodation. This is proved by this table. If this were not the case, this table would not have shown such low percentages. I must add to this that it is not always perfect accommodation according to his taste, but how many of our own people are not accommodated to their liking? Why must an immigrant receive preference over our own population? There would soon be a reaction in our country if houses were to be built on a large scale of which a certain number would be reserved for immigrants and which could not be occupied by our own people. There would then quite justifiably be a reaction. Therefore the immigrant must not enjoy preference. However, as far as possible we meet the requirements and do what is necessary for them.

Then the hon. member spoke about settling-in as such. If I may be allowed the time, I want to say a few things about settling-in. From time to time I have appealed both publicly and privately to numerous people and organizations that we should adopt a new attitude towards immigrants as far as settling-in is concerned. In some cases I have had a perfect reaction and perfect results. We had this in the case of the Czechoslovakian refugees who arrived here 18 months or more ago. They fell in with this idea which I am advocating and which, in my opinion, is succeeding, that is to say, the guardian family idea. According to this system, a South African married couple accept an immigrant couple and act as guardians to them. Thus the immigrant couple can immediately learn how to associate with us and whom to consult. In this way they get to know the simple little things. Everything which we accept as being a matter of course, is new and problematical to the immigrant. Small things such as where to buy their meat, where to take out radio licences, how to go about getting a telephone connection and which doctor or dentist to consult in their area, are important to know. It is these ordinary, everyday little things which they get to know in this way.

The system we have applied in these cases is working perfectly. The address of an immigrant couple is given to a good South African couple, who then contact the immigrant couple and give them their telephone number. Whenever the immigrant couple have a problem, they telephone the guardian couple. In this way the right attitude is engendered from the start, because the people give them the necessary information and assist them in the essentials. Within 18 months that Czechoslovakian couple had settled in so well that the South African couple came to me and said I could allocate another couple to them because those people were already settled in. That Czechoslovakian couple already had their own motor car, they could move around and go where they wanted, do what they wanted and were extremely happy South African citizens. We need no longer be concerned about them at all. The guardian couple of that couple were therefore prepared to take another couple and to settle them in in the same way. I made that appeal to the people and have received a very good reaction. Later, when the occasion lends itself to it, I shall make a special announcement in this regard. I just want to say that a certain women’s organization in our country has already offered to give me the names and addresses of 1 000 such guardian parents. I shall use these 1 000 families to settle in 1 000 immigrant families a year. Those particulars are already available and on the appropriate occasion I shall make the necessary announcement in this regard in order to establish the necessary first liaison between these people.

I do not want to dwell much longer on these particular points. The subsidies of the two settling-in organizations, namely the 1820 Settlers’ Organization and the Maat-skappy vir Europese Immigrasie, were increased as from 1st April by R20 000 each, so that they now receive a subsidy of R92 000. This concession has already been made in that field.

In addition, the hon. member for Albany asked whether we did not have too many people in London. I immediately want to explain the position to the hon. member and to the House in general. The staff of 17 in London are not there to concentrate specifically to such a tremendous extent on London and to recruit immigrants there. I need 17 people there to screen and go through the tremendous number of applications and to do the administrative work in this way, so that the applications may be submitted to the Selection Board and be screened. Because Britain is experiencing pressure from within today and the people are emigrating, there are more applications in the London office than in any other. Consequently we need such a large staff there in order to deal with the administrative problems as quickly as possible.

For the information of the hon. member I may just mention that as on 1st February this year an immigration office was opened in Glasgow as well. If the Scottish ancestral blood is warming up somewhere inside him, he may know that we have the office there now and that we can try to recruit suitable Scots there to come to South Africa. I think the Scots make excellent immigrants and I am very pleased to be able to make this announcement here. I have not yet opened an office in Wales. As yet I cannot satisfy members of Welsh extraction on that particular score.

The hon. member raised another minor point, which I could not understand and which I think must be a misunderstanding. No application is refused because the form has not been filled in properly or contain a minor mistake. This is not done. If a form has not been completed properly, it is sent back to the person and he is told: “In these places you have not filled in the form properly; we need that information; please complete the form and return it to us.” People are not refused because their forms have not been completed properly. In my opinion our system in this regard works quite well. We have basic standards which we lay down. When a person enquires about immigration, we send him a provisional questionnaire. This questionnaire contains a large number of the basic questions we want answered, because we know that if he cannot fulfil one or other of the requirements, he would be wasting his time and ours by making further application. If he does not fulfil the minimum educational qualifications, qualifications we have in mind and lay down as a precautionary measure, if he has a police record or does not fulfil one of these basic requirements, he would be wasting his time and incurring a lot of fruitless expenditure for X-rays, photographs and all sorts of unnecessary costs. On the strength of the basic questionnaire we can tell him that we cannot encourage him to apply, in view of the information we already have before us at that stage. This is the method of trying to facilitate the matter. But he is nevertheless free to apply—we must accept the application, which is then considered as such in the normal way.

The hon. member for Welkom also made a very positive contribution as regards the settling-in idea, on which I am in complete agreement with him.

In conclusion I should just like to emphasize a point as far as the matter of settling-in is concerned. I want to make the statement here that if the immigrant wife in South Africa, the mother, is settled in and feels at home and happy, the family is settled in. In my opinion she is the key to the whole success of it. The reason for this is that the immigrant father who comes here, has his sphere of employment, where he comes into contact with South African citizens. His attention is occupied there and he is busy there; it keeps him going and he very soon becomes integrated with the circle of friends there, at the club or wherever. The children are at school and integrate and mix with the South African children. They very soon feel at home there. The young people have their spheres of work and recreational opportunities, but it is the immigrant mother, the woman who sits alone at home by day, who in reality has contact with nobody, who must in the last resort be successfully settled in. Once she is settled in, the whole family is settled in, but if she is and remains unhappy, she eventually persuades the husband to go back because she cannot adjust and cannot feel at home. I therefore make an appeal, particularly to the South African woman, to fulfil her neighbourly duty by visiting the immigrant woman who has moved into her neighbourhood and by making her feel at home in South Africa. She should go and talk to her and make the necessary contact in order to settle her in, because once she is settled in, integrated and happy, the immigrant has been happily integrated. This is my conviction. According to the statistics I have here, this is in fact the position.

Before I conclude, I want to mention two last statistics which I think are essential to refer to on this occasion. I do not want to assess our immigrants in terms of financial value, but if one takes the total appropriation for immigration, with the exception of a few small items which are not relevant, for the period from 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, and divides it by the number of approved immigrants who entered the country in that period, namely 42 283, one finds that the unit costs per immigrant amounts to R151. In my opinion it is one of the best investments one can make if one can bring a skilled worker and his children to South Africa and eventually settle them in as good South Africans at a cost to the State of R151 per person. This is one of the best investments one can make as far as the future of our country is concerned.

In the second place, I want to assure everybody who has misgivings about immigration that we apply strict screening; that we shall watch the language position; that we shall watch the position in respect of religion. These will not be changed drastically or out of proportion as a result of immigration. We shall guard against that, as it is our duty to do. But I want to add that we shall not allow the wrong type of immigrant into the country either. If an immigrant of this type does enter the country by accident on a permanent residence permit, we have the right to withdraw that permit and, then he would be in the country illegally. He would then be handed over to the Department of the Interior and would have to be deported or would have to obtain permission from the Department of the Interior to remain in the country. Sir, this is not a dead letter. If, after a person has obtained a permanent residence permit from us, it is found that he is undesirable, that he had entered the country under false pretences and with lies and that the application would have been refused had those facts been known before he came here, we have the right to withdraw that permit, and I in fact do this from time to time. The numbers are not considerable, but this is in fact being done. In 1968 I withdrew 23 permits from permanent immigrants, who then had to leave the country; in 1969 23 permits were withdrawn and in 1970 44 permits were withdrawn. Here hon. members have a clear indication that we keep a close watch on things and that we have and also use the power of withdrawing a residence permit if a person has entered the country under false pretences or is undesirable and we discover this after he has obtained such a permit. He would then be returned to his country of origin, because we want to ensure that our immigration scheme remains a purely selective one. We only want certain people here, and there are others whom we definitely do not want here.

Revenue Vote No. 6.—“Treasury”, R11 703 000, Loan Vote A.—“Miscella-eous Loans and Services”, R344 347 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.—“Miscellaneous Services”, R3 899 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Basically I want to deal this evening with the third report of the Franzsen Commission, but before I come to that there are two questions that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first is the announcement that appeared in the Press on Monday that the City of Johannesburg was about to borrow R16 million or 80 million Deutsche marks abroad and that legislation will be introduced into the House this session to enable the Government to guarantee this amount. Sir, as far as I know, when the Government borrows direct, it has a rate of, let us say, 8 per cent, but when borrowings are undertaken by Escom or Iscor or the City of Johannesburg, although the loan is guaranteed by the Government, the rate is somewhat higher. It seems to me that there is no real need for us to be paying a higher rate of interest. It seems to me that it will be more advantageous from South Africa’s point of view if the hon. the Minister borrowed on behalf of the Government at the lowest rate that the Government could get and then re-lent the money to the institution or local authority concerned. The hon. the Minister himself might make the ¼ per cent or ½ per cent profit; we would not mind because it would remain in the country, but it does seem to us, on the face of it, that there is an unnecessary increase in the rates being paid on loans which are borrowed by institutions direct, although they are guaranteed by the Government.

The second matter, Sir, is the question of the 7½ per cent loan levy on dividends. The hon. the Minister did make a statement on the question of the loan levy when he replied to the Budget debate, but I am sorry to have to tell him that as far as commerce and industry and accountants and tax experts are concerned, the position is still not at all clear. To take just one issue, for example, there is the proviso that that portion of the dividend received that is passed on to another company will be free of the levy. The problem here, of course, is this: How do you determine whether the shareholder is a company or not a company? You can get a situation, as you often do, where nominee companies, which are companies, hold shares on behalf of individuals. You can get the converse; you can get the situation where an individual may hold the shares in his name and basically he is holding them on behalf of a company. We are approaching the end of the financial year of quite a number of companies. Although the end of the financial year has been changed to the end of February, a number of companies still close their financial year at the end of June. I hope the hon. the Minister will make a statement which will clarify this position completely so that companies will know exactly what they have to do. I hope that we will not have to wait until we get the Income Tax Bill before discovering what the position is. After all, more than three weeks have elapsed since the Budget, and I am sure that the hon. Minister and the department will have had ample opportunity of going into all the problems that have been raised. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to help us and tell us what the answer is.

Now, Sir, I come to part three, particularly, of the Franzsen Commission’s report, and I want to take the opportunity this afternoon of congratulating Dr. Franzsen and his commissioners on the expeditious manner in which they completed this investigation and this report. The commission was only appointed on the 24th November, 1967, and it reported in November, 1970. The three reports cover a very wide field indeed, and the commission not only investigated matters in the Republic but it investigated a considerable number of matters abroad. To complete its investigate on and its report within the space of three years, as this commission did, compared to the time taken by some other commissions that we have had in the past few years and whose reports we have received fairly recently, is an effort on which we would like to congratulate the commission. Not that we are in favour of all the recommendations of the commission. In fact there are a great number with which we do not agree at all, but I will deal with those a little later.

Before I come to the details of the report, Sir, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I hope that before he makes final decisions on any of these matters which are dealt with in the report, he will consult those affected by the report. There are a number of recommendations in the report which are going to affect certain sectors very seriously indeed. For example, there are the banking sector and the insurance sector, and I certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will consult with the sectors before any irrevocable position is taken.

Now I want to deal with one or two items of the report in some detail. The list of recommendations in the report commences in chapter II on page VII. Let me say immediately that we on this side of the House agree entirely with these chapter II recommendations, recommendations for forward planning, co-ordinating and control of public spending. Of course, Sir, the interesting thing about these recommendations is that they confirm exactly what we on this side of the House have been saying for years, namely that there is no proper planning by the Government, that control over public expenditure is inadequate and certainly not completely satisfactory; that the Government have no long-term strategy nor has it any proper system for determining priorities. What concerns us, Sir, is that the position is a great deal worse than we thought, because what do these recommendations say? I want to look at them in some detail. The first one is that “a Cabinet committee on finance should be constituted from a number of Ministers under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance for the purpose of performing the control function”. Here the Franzsen Commission report is saying to us that as things are at the moment there is inadequate control and the hon. the Minister must set up a committee to see that there is proper control.

Surely that is an assumption on your part.

No, it is a simple understanding of the English language, which the hon. the Minister of Sport evidently does not understand. Then we come to the second recommendation: “The committee should meet regularly for the purpose of offering constant guidance and exercising constant control over the proposed expenditure of Government departments to an even larger extent than now”. Now this does presuppose that there is a modicum of control, but certainly insufficient control because the recommendation is that more control should be exercised. Then we come to recommendation No. 5: “The forward planning of total public expenditure, before being considered by the Cabinet committee, should be submitted to the Prime Minister’s Economic Adviser for his recommendation and comment, especially with regard to the effect the expenditure will have both from the point of view of the broad national interest, and in particular of development in the private sector”. Sir, we have been saying this year after year, that the Government must take into account the needs and requirements of the private sector when it plans its own affairs. What has been happening is that the Government has been taking the lot. It simply goes ahead. It makes no effort to cut down its own expenditure and it seems to forget that there is such a thing as the private sector. I am glad that the Franzsen Commission has drawn the attention of the country to this.

Then we come to recommendation No. 6: “that the Department of Finance itself should accept responsibility in future for the reliability of the information furnished about expected capital expenditure”. Sir, what does this mean? It means that the information which has been furnished to the hon. the Minister up to now by other Ministers is not reliable.

That is not so.

Because the commission now says the Minister must accept the responsibility for the reliability of the information furnished. This is a sorry state of affairs, if it is the situation in our country. Then we come to No. 7: “The planning of public expenditure for five years in advance should be undertaken as soon as possible”. Sir, I am amazed to read this. Does the Minister tell us that there is no long-term planning going on at all, and that everything is ad hoc, that it takes place from day to day and that there is no projection made for five years? This is the minimum period any private business works on today. In private enterprise we are projecting 10 to 20 to 25 years ahead, but the Franzsen Commission has to come to the Government to ask please, “project for five years ahead”. Then it goes on to say that the Estimates concerned should be revised annually as part of the Budget procedure adopted by every institution and by the Department of Finance. Sir, it is fantastic, that this should appear in a report; that you must up-date things. The tiniest business in the land does this. It up-dates its budgetary situation long-term, every three months, every six months, but here the Government of the Republic of South Africa has to be told by the commission that they had better fall in line with the little grocery shop on the corner and do what they do. Sir, this is a frightening state of affairs.

Then we come to No. 8: “The system of cost benefit analysis should be introduced”. Is the House being told that there is no cost benefit analysis taking place in Government departments today? This is something that has been done for years now in any business which has any management control whatsoever, but apparently it is not being done by the Government. It says it should be “introduced immediately in departments undertaking a large number of capital works, such as water affairs and transport, and should gradually be extended to other departments”. Sir, this indicates that no cost benefit analysis is being done at all. That it should now be introduced and when it is found how it works it should be extended to other departments. Water Affairs alone is spending this year something in the order of R101 million and they do not do cost benefit analysis! Sir, really, the country will be shocked when they know what is in this report. Then No. 9 says that “a programme budgeting system should be introduced”. Sir, this is the year 1971 and the Franzsen Commission comes to this House and reports that a programme budgeting system should be introduced. I should like to know what my hon. friends opposite, on the Finance Committee of the Government, will say to this, that a programme budgeting system should be introduced.

You will hear it.

Will the hon. member who interjected run any business without programme budgeting? [Interactions.] Sir, as I say, it is much worse than we ever believed. In our innocence we complained about what was happening, but we never dreamt that we would be faced with a picture like this.

You will get the headlines tomorrow.

The trouble with the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is that he thinks everything in this House should be treated on a sporting basis. But these are very serious matters. If the Minister wants to ask questions seriously, I will take cognizance of him. These are serious matters. I go on. We come to No. 10, and this I regard as very important. It says that “the department should pay for all important services that are at present received free of charge … and account for all costs associated with a particular task or function”. Now this is something we have been disturbed about for some time. When we get figures from the Government as to what a particular project has cost, we have never been able to ascertain whether all the surrounding costs, if I might call them that, have been built in. That is the cost of other departments, the cost of the time of persons in a particular department, etc. In other words, if the hon. the Minister of Community Development says he can build a house for R6 000, what does that R6 000 include? Does it include architects’ and quantity surveyors fees? [Interjections.] We never know what it means.

Why do you not know what it means?

Listen, and I will tell you. We do not know what amount of your departmental costs you take into account. We do not know whether you take into account the cost of other departments which help you. But this recommendation No. 10 will ensure that in future we will get something like proper costs. Then we go on to No. 11, where it is suggested that the various items in the actual Budget, apart from the ordinary detailed classification, should also be consolidated in meaningful broad categories and the White Paper tabled each year when the Budget is submitted should be expanded to include such information. And on page 40 of the report a suggested pattern is given. Now this will be of great assistance to the House, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree, because if you look at page 40 of the report you will see that the Budget is broken down into specific categories; for example. Defence, which normally we do not have much trouble with; but take Education. For Education you can have different Votes showing education. Take Social Assistance and Welfare, Agriculture, the S.A. Bantu Trust expenditure. We will be able to see at a glance what amount of money has been expended on a particular category of service. This will be a great help to us and it will particularly help the hon. member for the Transkei, who sometimes has problem in collating all the figures from different Votes in so far as Bantu expenditure is concerned. This will be a great help and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this recommendation.

The last recommendation, No. 12, is “that the Controller and Auditor-General should consider reporting not only on the year’s result on an item basis, but also on the extent to which expenditure in the various categories referred to above differs from the amounts voted. In other words, his comment will be on this category breakdown and this will also be of great help. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister that, in so far as the chapter II recommendations are concerned, we support them wholeheartedly. We are really most distressed and disturbed to find that the Franzsen Commission has had to make these recommendations.

In paragraph 178 of the report, the Commission recommends what I have always called a “one-line Budget”, namely to do away with the present distinction between revenue and loan accounts. I do not think we can accept this recommendation. It is true that we have been moving in this direction for some time, because what is really revenue or income to the extent of approximately R190 million from transfer duties, estate duty, diamond sales and export duty, and mining leases is already credited as loan income. It is, of course, really revenue income. Nevertheless, we still believe that a better picture will be given to the House and to the public, if we segregate revenue income and expenditure and capital income and expenditure. I know that, as the Franzsen Commission report tells us, they have gone a lot further in America and in England. They simply say that total revenue is A, expenditure is B, the difference between B and A is X and therefore this is what we are going to find by way of loan account. I do not think it tells us enough.

In paragraph 195 the Commission deals with what it calls “the self-financing of public authorities, Government enterprises and public corporations” and makes two suggestions. The first is that depreciation should be based on replacement value and not on present value. We go along with that thinking. We believe this to be correct, particularly if there are no reserves created. Then the Commission also suggests that 40 per cent, or a rate to be decided upon by the Government, of net new investment should come out of revenue. We are not against this principle. We have often said in this House that revenue can be utilized for capital purposes. The principle is a normal business procedure. What we certainly do not accept is that 40 per cent of the capital costs of any Government or semi-government institution, should be paid for out of revenue. We object very strongly to the rate of 61,2 per cent which was taken out of the Post Office’s revenue this year to provide for capital works. We would perhaps accept a rate of the order of 15 to 20 per cent.

In paragraph 88 of the second report and paragraph 223 of the third report the question of interest is dealt with. We do not like their suggestions. We believe that it will reduce investment in Government bonds and in investment media like premium bonds, and not increase it. We believe that a straight acceptable rate of fully deductable tax, as the hon. the Minister has said he will do with premium bonds, is the best method because, if one uses the scale that the Franzsen Commission suggests to bring it into line with dividends, it simply means that the high income taxpayer investor is going to lose two-thirds of the benefits he gets, the small income taxpayer is not going to receive any greater benefit and the middle income taxpayer is also going to lose, particularly if the recommendation is accepted that it should only deal with prescribed interest investments.

What the report says with regard to the sales tax is very interesting. We accept the recommendation which says: “That the duty should be imposed selectively, that is especially on less essential goods so that the acceptability of the tax may be enhanced”. We have told the hon. the Minister this I think once or twice in the course of the last two years. The commission, too, says “on the less essential goods”.

We have already indicated in this House that we do not accept the proposals set out in paragraph 358, namely that the hon. the Minister should have the right between sessions of Parliament to adjust the rates of certain taxes and the loan levy, subject to a laid-down maximum. It is true that there is a suggestion that any flow from this right the hon. the Minister might have, will go to the Stabilization Fund and not into the general pool and this might alleviate the position somewhat, but I do have one problem in this regard. What does “that it should go into the Stabilization Fund” mean? How long has the hon. the Minister got to keep it there? A week, two weeks, two years, three years, four years? Generally, after the experience we have had with taxation by instalments, we prefer to let Parliament have the right to decide on taxation. Paragraph 599 proposes to give the Reserve Bank the power to issue credit directives to banking institutions and to prescribe penalties. We do not like this; we prefer that the present system of doing this by way of proclamation should be adhered to. We do not want to build up any more empires in this country. The Reserve Bank has plenty to do. We will leave the hon. the Minister and the Treasury to issue proclamations and we can then deal with them in Parliament. Paragraph 673 deals with interest rates. Although the report says the deposit rate control is not recommended, the control of interest rates by the Reserve Bank is recommended. As the hon. the Minister knows, we do not support any control of interest rates.

Not in any event?

No; it has always been our policy that interest rates must be subject to the discipline of the market.

So you do not agree with the hon. member for East London City?

If he said there should be control, I definitely do not agree with him. The policy of this side of the House is that we do not agree with the control of interest rates. We support the recommendation contained in paragraph 693 for open market transactions in Government securities. I think this should be a very good thing for the hon. the Minister and for the finance of the country generally. We certainly endorse the warnings that have been given, namely that if and when this is introduced, it must be done with great caution. Paragraph 786 recommends that the Technical Committee on Banks and Building Societies should investigate the desirability of reporting large credits by banks. They suggest a figure of R500 00 upwards. We reject this entirely. We do not believe that it is the job of the Reserve Bank to know what individual amounts are lent by banks to individual people. We do not want any empire-building. Let the Reserve Bank take care of its own problems and let it not interfere with the private sector and what loans they are getting.

There are many other matters in this report that have to be dealt with. We have already discussed some of them in this House. Last year the hon. the Minister introduced legislation which gave effect to quite a number of items which appear in Part II and Part III of the report. There are also others, such as the tax recommendations which appear in Part II. These will be subject to special bills which the hon. the Minister will presumably introduce. Others will be dealt with by some of my colleagues. To summarize, I want to say that we are grateful to the Franszen Commission for this report. We are disturbed by what we have learnt from section II of Part III. Time and time again we have told this Government that we do not believe that this attitude of short-term planning is in the best interests of the country and that what we want to see is short-term planning, particularly in regard to inflation, tied up with long-term plans. This is how the world works today. One cannot do things in isolation today. What happens today is going to affect tomorrow. Certain projections are being done by certain economists in this country, as the hon. the Minister probably knows; they are already projecting that by 1972-’73 and 1973-’74 the tax position in this country and the loan levy position are going to get so serious that it is going to be very dangerous. The loan levies and foreign borrowings are simply going to be utilized for taking care of loan repayments. If we go on as we are doing by projecting what is happening now, the amount of taxation must continue to rise. The hon. the Minister, if the recommendations of the Franszen Commission are put into effect, will have a picture in front of him showing that what he does today will project the result in two, three or five years’ time. The hon. the Minister will, of course, not be concerned with affairs in five years’ time, because that will then be our responsibility. But we are now talking about a basic principle and not of a particular Government. As a principle I want to say that this is very important. I suppose the hon. the Minister will tell us that something is being done, but then he must explain to us why these recommendations have been made because we find them very disturbing indeed.

Mr. Chairman, although the hon. member for Pinetown had a lot of reports in front of him, he was still unable to speak for his full half-hour. As a matter of fact, during the time he was speaking, he was speaking nothing but a lot of nonsense. The hon. member for Parktown is also a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I have a very high regard for the hon. member’s training and ability. But why is it so that this hon. member, when we are sitting on the Committee on Public Accounts, sits there like a mummy without opening his mouth? The power has been delegated to that Committee to cross-question Departments, and the secretaries of all Government Departments and other Government institutions appear before that Committee. However, hon. members of the opposite side of this House ask no questions during the cross-questioning of these officials. Actually hon. members on this side of the House are the ones who do the work on that Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not true that the only function of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is to see that money that is voted is correctly spent?

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. But I want to tell that hon. member quite frankly that he is not fulfilling his function on that Committee. When the Committee comes across matters in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General to which attention must be given, Opposition members on that Committee remain silent. Members on this side of the House are the ones who do their duty. But the hon. members of the Opposition on that Committee are afraid they will give offence to the officials. National Party members on the Committee have always been consistent in taking up the matter whenever anything appears to be wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to a few of the recommendations made by this commission. In the first place I should like to congratulate the Franzsen Commission on the thorough study it made in such a relatively short time. I shall refer point by point to the recommendations made by the commission. Then I shall put a few questions to the hon. member for Parktown and reply to the statements made by him. The first recommendation made by the Franzsen Commission reads as follows—

The second recommendation goes with the first, and reads as follows—

It is not necessary …

Read the last few words.

I have read the whole sentence. I want to tell that hon. member, this House and the whole country that this is what has been done throughout the years. That hon. member is living in a strange world. He does not know how the Budget is drawn up. The various departments have to submit their budgets to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance then scrutinizes those budgets. Subsequent to that it is submitted to the full Cabinet and not only to a Cabinet Committee. There is nothing wrong with the recommendation made in this connection by the Franzsen Commission. They simply have a smaller committee in mind. The full Cabinet accepts responsibility for what happens in this regard. It is not true that certain matters are not seen to.

But I also want to refer to the fifth recommendation, about which the hon. member for Pinetown had quite a lot to say. In point of fact, this was the recommendation he emphasized. It reads as follows—

Does that hon. member not know that the Prime Minister’s Economic Adviser and the full Economic Council are constantly making recommendations in this connection? They are not the only ones who are consulted.

I did not say that. The Franzsen Commission says that in its report.

Mr. Chairman, the Franzsen Commission merely made a recommendation in this connection. However, that hon. member said there was no planning. That was the insinuation the hon. member for Parktown made. He said there was no forward planning by the Cabinet. There is proper forward planning and a proper investigation is made of these matters. The only thing is that these things are done in a different way to that suggested by the Franzsen Commission. The hon. member was insinuating, however, that there was no control and no planning of any nature whatsoever, merely because the approach of the Franzsen Commission was different. It says it is passing the chair on the left while we are passing the chair on the right. The hon. member wanted to suggest that there was no planning in that whole Department. I also want to refer to point seven of the report which the hon. member emphasized, i.e. that the planning of public expenditure for five years in advance should be undertaken as soon as possible. But this is in fact being done. People say this is now being done for five years, but this is merely a matter of planning in advance for a further five years. We know that this Government of ours is planning in advance. How much has not already been planned? Take the economic development programme as an example. In addition each department has its own planning. If this hon. member had said today that the Government and the State should let the Opposition have more in advance, I would have been able to understand that. As I said the other day, when they do not have a White Paper they are no longer able to criticize, because they do not do their homework. The hon. member referred to the Department of Water Affairs. Their advance planning extends over as much as 30 years. Take the Orange River scheme which initially, when it was announced, would have cost R450 million. It was stated clearly in advance that the scheme would be completed in 30 years’ time. Hon. members can see that we do not only plan in advance for five years but for 30 years. In this way I can mention one example after the other. I want to ask the hon. member something. This is not what the Franzsen Commission said, because he was distorting the report we have in front of us … [Interjections.] It is very easy to interpret something in a different way.

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. member was distorting the report. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it, but I just want to tell that hon. member that he should interpret the report in such a way that his interpretation is within the bounds of what is written in the report or what may be interpreted from the report. The hon. member said he did not accept a number of the matters mentioned by the report. He is at liberty to say that.

Then I want to refer to another matter, and that is cost-benefit analysis. The Franzsen Commission refers to that and suggests a certain way of doing it, but surely the hon. member knows that it is being done in the departments. The hon. member could have posed his question more to the point and with more emphasis on this. He cannot say here that the Government does not make proper calculations of expenses. This is being done in the way that gives one the best possible cost analysis. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Parktown knows that this is being done. Let us just consider what would have happened if no cost control was being applied by the State. If that were the position, would this State have been able to proceed with its work in such an economic way? Take its capital expenditure as an example. Would it have been possible to undertake that as economically as it is being done at present? The services of the best consultants are obtained, private consultants as well as consultants of the State itself. Tenders are invited for the work; the lowest tender is accepted. If that is not good enough in the opinion of the department, the Minister and the Cabinet, such a contract is not even accepted. Hon. members know that we on the Select Committee have had several cases of such tenders not having been accepted because the Government regarded the costs as too high. Hon. members know that there is one case at present of a large contract which was not awarded. I take the case of the Department of Water Affairs which was announced by the hon. the Minister the other day. The hon. the Minister announced that that enormous contract had not been accepted and that the State was undertaking it itself as the State, after it had made its calculation of the costs, had realized that it could do it cheaper. This will now be done.

Then there is another small matter I should like to emphasize. It is the matter to which the hon. the Minister has already referred. It is the change-over from a source within the Republic to a world basis. I should like to know from that hon. member whether he is able to agree with that? Does he agree with the Franzsen Report?

No.

Oh, the hon. member does not want to agree with that, he rejects it.

I said so in the Budget debate.

The Franzsen Commission proved very clearly to us that revenue, on which this Government gets no tax, increased from R8 million to R95 million in a matter of a few years. Who are the people who benefit? Surely they are his people. But now he does not want us to levy tax on that. I should like the hon. the Minister to give attention as soon as possible to this matter, i.e. our changing over to a world basis. The commission calculated that we were losing at least from R3 million to R4 million in revenue at the present time, if we calculate that the average tax on that would be 15 per cent. [Time expired.]

I am surprised at the hon. member for Sunnyside. If he is right, he is virtually criticizing the Franszen Commission’s report and the commission itself. He has quite misunderstood the hon. member for Parktown. When he suggests that the hon. member for Parktown is not doing his duty on the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it is quite clear that he does not appreciate the importance of the committee and what its function is.

I do know.

I served on that committee for over five years. It is concerned with the Auditor-General’s report and the expenses of the departments. It is not concerned with policy matters. That is not its function. If anybody had said to me that there is not planning for five years ahead in the Department of Finance, I would have been surprised. But when we find that a commission of inquiry says that planning of public expenditure over five years in advance must be undertaken as soon as possible, one obviously assumes that at the present moment it is not being done. It was a great surprise to me to find that a department such as the Minister’s, the Treasury, is not planning five years ahead. What we would like to know, is whether the Minister accepts the recommendations and criticisms of the commission, because in effect, it is criticism. We would like to know whether he is going to take notice of it.

Then the hon. member referred to paragraph 9, which refers to paragraph 146. Paragraph 146 says the following—

I am quite sure that, if the Minister would go to any major business undertaking in this country, he will find that they could not carry on without a budgeting system. Here we find that in State departments it is going to take considerable time to implement it. It just shows that the kind of discipline one would expect to be exercised over State departments’ expenditure by the Treasury leaves much to be desired. It shows that it is not up to date and that it is essential that these recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible. No doubt, in good time that can be explained to the hon. member for Sunnyside. The Minister can explain it to him in due course.

I want to come to another matter which I raised in the course of the Budget debate, to which I had a partial reply from the hon. the Minister. It concerns a portion of the Franzsen Commission’s report, namely part 3, pp. xvii and xix. Paragraph 13 says—

I should like to know whether the Minister intends to accept this recommendation; how it is proposed to be implemented and, if so, the reasons for doing so? On page xix there is reference made to a 50 per cent share in the bank held by one owner, that anything over 50 per cent should not have ministerial approval, and that the Banking Act should be amended accordingly.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was dealing with the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Budget debate in connection with the holdings in South African banks by foreign holders. I referred the hon. the Minister to page xix where the following appears—

My point is whether the hon. the Minister intends to accept that recommendation and if he does, what period does he intend to allow the foreign banks. Furthermore, is this tendency likely to spread to other institutions? The hon. the Minister in the course of his reply indicated that he was quite prepared to encourage South African industries. I illustrated the case of overseas companies such as Ford and General Motors and similarly the oil companies which have big interests in South Africa. Would not this step in regard to the banks be regarded as an indication of what could be expected in the future? For example, if an overseas bank has more than 50 per cent interest in South African banks, will it not tell its possible investors to be careful having regard to the fact that they themselves were limited to 50 per cent? Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that the banks, having been given a warning that 50 per cent is the first step, may think the next step might be 49 per cent. We know what has happened in Africa in various countries that have been given independence. There the overseas investors have been assured that their interests would be protected. The next step was that the Bantu were given 50 per cent control and later on complete nationalization. That has been a pattern of Africa over the years. When one sees a report such as this, one cannot blame them for anticipating that the same steps will be taken here. It is for that reason that we ask the hon. the Minister ito clarify the position. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister does not intend that that is going to be the procedure as far as the future is concerned. In respect of overseas investors we would like to have a ministerial reassurance and indication whether in so far as banking institutions are concerned, the hon. the Minister intends to accept that recommendation and if so, why? If he does not intend to accept the recommendation, then the country should know where they stand. A similar assurance should be given to overseas investors. I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he wants overseas people to invest in this country. Something more positive however is wanted than that given by the Minister in the course of his reply to the Budget debate. For that reason I bring this matter up again with the Minister and I hope that he will clarify the position. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that as he wants foreign capital invested in this country, this matter should be cleared beyond doubt in the interests of the prospective investor and the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown has just been up to his old tricks once again, and that is to put one question after the other. He kept on asking questions about a report which the Government has not considered as yet. We do not know what recommendations the Government is going to accept. We do not mind him asking questions, as long as they are questions which are relevant, but in my opinion especially one of the questions he asked was an absurd one. At the same time it was an insult to South Africa. He actually drew a distinction concerning what he called “the pattern in Africa” and applied that to South Africa. We know that overseas business undertakings invest in African States. Within a certain time those businesses are nationalized or taken over by the Governments of those States. Now, he asks the Minister whether this was going to happen in South Africa, too, in respect of the control of foreign banks. I want to repeat that that was an insult to South Africa. It was an absurd question. It was not a question I had expected from a person of the calibre of the hon. member for Pinetown. I think he put that question in a moment of weakness. I think he should withdraw it, because it was completely unpatriotic.

The hon. member for Pinetown was not the only one who surprised us this evening. The hon. member for Parktown gave a completely surprising exhibition this afternoon. All he did, was to make cheap politics. He had actually jumped the gun. He devoted his entire speech to the first report of the Franzsen Commission. As yet this report has not even been considered or accepted by the Government, but he went on to tell us which recommendations his party accepted. Does he not realize that that is so much hot air and that it has no meaning whatsoever? After all, this side of the House is governing and not that side. Whatever they want to accept is of no importance.

Sir, what I find really surprising is the fact that those hon. members truly had nothing new to discuss. Why did the hon. member not wait until the Government had considered all these recommendations? If he had done so, he would have heard which recommendations the Government had accepted. In that case he would have been in a position to discuss the merits of each recommendation. In that case he would have been in a position to criticize the Government. He did not do so. Instead of that he read out to us the full chapter II, which contains a whole series of recommendations. On the basis of those recommendations he made a superficial deduction. He said that according to the recommendations there was no planning within departments, and that he supported those recommendations for that reason. In other words, if his argument were a valid one, he should make similar deductions in respect of the first two reports. The first two reports deal with taxation proposals and the Income Tax Act. In that case he might argue that we had never had any Income Tax Act in view of the fact that the report made certain taxation proposals. Surely, in that case he should say that we have never had any taxation legislation. Surely that standpoint of his is ridiculous.

He made allegations concerning planning. I want to remind the hon. member of our economic development programme. Is that not a planning programme for five years in advance, one which has existed for many years? It is a programme which embraces the whole of the economy of South Africa, the private as well as the public sectors. Is that not advance planning? Instead of pointing that out, the hon. member vent his spleen in this regard. He asked desparaginly, “But does the Government not know of any programming budgeting control?” He also told us how this was being used in the private sector. Of course, it is being used in the private sector, but I want to tell him that it is very unclear to me what the budgeting control recommendation includes all in all. Surely there are many kinds of programming control systems. We know that there is a budgeting control system in the private sector under which one measures production in terms of preconceived standards, and subsequent to that one measures any departures in terms of the anticipated profits. But what does he expect of Government departments? After all, a Government department is not a factory. We do not know what kind of control the commission has in mind. Sir, you must not think that the commission cannot err. The commission, too, can err. Just refer to the commission’s recommendation in connection with retained dividend profits. The Government has not accepted the recommendation that a 25 per cent plough-back be allowed to private companies. The commission was not quite right there. I do not want to say that the commission is wrong, but before this hon. member can say here that there is no planning in Government departments, we should first have clarity about the matter. The report does not describe what kind of control is to be applied. I accept that any departmental authority plans in advance. Nowhere in this report is it stated that there is no planning in advance. The commission wants to improve this, but as yet I am not sure in what way they want to implement this. It will differ from one department to the other. It is clear to me, Sir, that the hon. member and his party are in serious trouble. He did not argue here about recommendations which this Government had accepted. Now, what is really the trouble with that party? Their economic policy makes it as clear as daylight to us that they are moving more and more to the left each day. The economic policy of that party is exactly the same as that of the Progressive Party. If it is not, they must tell us what the difference is. I am very interested in that difference. I listened to the attack of the hon. member for Houghton on the Budget and I listened to the hon. member for Parktown. I read the attack of the English language newspapers of the Progressive Party, and exactly the same arguments they used are used by the United Party. I want to tell the United Party that they are the prisoners of the English Press. They are its prisoners on two points, Sir. They are prisoners as regards the question of job reservation. They attack the policy of this Government and say that job reservation causes inflation. Those other people say the same thing. But then the hon. member for Yeoville tells us—his colleagues do not—that the United Party will consult with the trade unions. But that argument that they will consult with the trade unions is on a par with the small print one finds in any insurance policy. It means nothing and no-one understands it. The entire economic policy of that party is based on laissez-faire. [Interjections.] If that hon. member does not understand this, he should ask an economist what it means.

A laissez-faire policy.

Their policy is based on an unrestricted influx of non-Whites; the non-Whites must have the right to sell their labour freely on the market; that is their answer as far as the problem of inflation is concerned. The United Party tells us, just as the Progressive Party does, that South Africa has one homogenous economic population of 21 million people; that there is no difference between those 21 million people in the economic set-up of the country. And then they come and tell us that they want to retain White control. (Time expired.)

Sir, I think this day, 28th April, 1971, will always be known as an historic date in the financial history of South Africa. I think it will be known as the day on which the United Party acquired a financial policy. I have been sitting in this House for many years, and I am still waiting to hear from the United Party what its financial policy is. In all the many years we have never had anything but negative criticism from them, but this evening the hon. member for Parktown all of a sudden came forward here with a financial policy. Sir, I am reminded of Longfellow’s poem which hon. members all know: “A youth, who bore, ’mid snow and ice, a banner with the strange device …”

Excelsior!

Yes, “Excelsior”! Hon. members opposite had thought that they could come here this afternoon and this evening and advance a step higher by telling us they were accepting the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission: Excelsior!—“carrying a banner with a strange device! ” Sir, I want to agree wholeheartedly with those hon. members that we are grateful to Dr. Franzsen and his colleagues for the work they have done and for the expeditious way in which they brought out this report. I already expressed in my Budget speech. However, I think hon. members on the opposite side can also thank the Government for the expeditious way in which it has given effect to the recommendations made by the commission, particularly in the first and second reports. Now those hon. members, from whom we have never heard a financial policy before, have all of a sudden accepted the policy of the Franzsen Commission, as set out in a few chapters; now this has suddenly become their policy— “carrying a banner with the strange device ...” I wonder whether the hon. member for Parktown can show me where the proposals made here by Dr. Franzsen were advocated by them in this House in the past.

Read Hansard.

We can go through all the Hansards, but I do not have the time for that; what is more, I know that I shall not find it there. However, we are grateful, as they are, to Dr. Franzsen for the great work he has done. They can be extremely grateful that they now at least have a basis for a policy they can propound. Sir, the funniest of all is that the hon. member for Parktown asks us to consult all the bodies concerned before taking a decision on the recommendations of the commission. This is quite correct. But then the hon. member for Pinetown comes along and says the Minister must state this evening what his policy is in regard to these things.

How long have you had the report?

We received the report in the course of the parliamentary Session. The report was signed in November, 1970. Then it was translated and printed and a few weeks ago it was handed to us. It could not have been done more quickly than that. The hon. member for Parktown now says we should first submit the recommendations to interested bodies in order to hear their views, but the hon. member for Pinetown says I must give a reply to certain of these questions this very evening. What is the policy of hon. members on that side? I want to state very clearly that this Government has always acted very responsibly in all these matters. We have taken out of the first and second reports those points with which we agree, and as far as the majority of those points are concerned, we have introduced legislation in this House, and further legislation will still be introduced during this Session. I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that the third report is a very important one, because it contains points of policy which are of cardinal significance. We shall not act precipitately in regard to this report. We are going to study it very carefully and I can give the hon. member for Parktown the assurance that we shall study and discuss it with the bodies involved. I do not say we shall always accept what they say, but we shall allow a certain period of time to elapse so that the recommendations may be made known, to the public and as soon as we feel we have enough information on the standpoints of the bodies concerned, particularly of the financial bodies affected here, we shall decide which recommendations we accept and which we reject. We shall not act as fast as the hon. member for Pinetown wants us to do. Sir, this applies to the points of criticism which the hon. member for Park-town mentioned here. He mentioned a whole series of points which now, after the publication of the report of the Franzsen Commission, have all of a sudden become the policy of the United Party.

Not all of a sudden.

We are only amazed that you are not doing these things already.

I am only amazed at the great many things in the Franzsen report you do not accept. Now they are extremely proud of those points of policy in the Franzsen report and they are accusing us of being behind the times because we have not yet accepted those points.

Do you accent all of them?

No, but they reject half of the other part of the report. I said a moment ago that we are not going to be as precipitate as the hon. member for Parktown wants us to be, i.e. by saying we accept all of these proposals before having studied them thoroughly. I now make the assertion, on this memorable day on which the United Party has acquired a financial policy, that they have accepted this policy before having studied and considered it properly. Let me ask my hon. friend a question. He says we, as a Government, should not take a decision before having consulted the bodies concerned. Have they consulted the bodies concerned? [Interjection.] The whole question has been discussed here. Have the hon. members on the other side done what they want me to do and what I shall do? Did they consult the bodies concerned, such as the bankers’ associations and the insurance companies, about this report before accepting these points? I can give hon. members opposite the assurance that all of the matters broached here will be investigated by the Government in consultation with the interested parties. We shall do this, and next year, or whenever it may be, we shall come forward with legislation where legislation is necessary, and in respect of a few of the other recommendations which do not require legislation, we shall adjust our practices accordingly. There are, for example, the few points which the hon. member for Parktown mentioned here. He talked about planning, a five-year plan. Certain of our departments are already working on that. But we are not all of a sudden going to introduce a system while we have appointed an authoritative commission which will give us advice on certain points, and we are not going to anticipate it. Take the programme budget for example. Hon. members know that certain countries, such as America, introduced a programme budget and had to withdraw it again. This is not a simple matter that you accept just like that.

†The hon. member for Pinetown asked me about the recommendations of this commission in regard to the local and foreign shareholding in certain companies. I must give him more or less the same reply as I gave him in the Budget debate. This report concerns financial, insurance and banking companies, and I am not going to express an opinion about those companies. We are first going to study that report. But the hon. member had the right to ask me about other companies. In the previous debate he referred to textiles and shoes. Now he speaks about motor companies and he asked me, if we accept the principle of 50 per cent participation in financial companies, whether that principle would also be applied to other companies. My reply, firstly, is that we have not yet accepted the principle of the 50 per cent participation in the case of finance companies. We have not accepted these proposals of the Franzsen Commission. We have to study them first. That leaves these things apart for the time being. As regards other companies, I can declare quite openly here again tonight that it is not the intention of the Government to force any of those companies to allow South African participation in their shareholding. It is completely out of the question that we would like to sort of nationalize those companies in the sense that we should force them to have a more than 50 per cent South African participation. We always stand on the basis of private enterprise and we think it is one of the assets of our economy that we should adhere to the principle of private enterprise, and that the Government should interfere as little as possible.

It is a fair question.

It is a fair question, but it was not fair of the hon. member to ask me what my opinion was about the Franzsen Commission’s report regarding financial companies because I cannot give that reply now. I do not want to give it now. I state once again very clearly that we in South Africa have always welcomed foreign capital, not only for the sake of the capital we needed, but for the sake of the know-how also, because this is a young country, and also for the sake of the relationships between South Africa and the foreign world, which we need as a relatively isolated country in the south of Africa.

And before 1948?

We always did. As a Government we always welcome foreign participation. Of course, I must say we would welcome South African participation in some companies, but we shall not force companies to give South Africans participation if they do not wish to do so. In regard to the existing companies here, particularly in these times, it would be foolish on our part to force them to grant South Africans participation when this requires foreign exchange which we badly need. If we want to do that we would only do so in connection with new companies, where no foreign exchange is needed. So I hope I can set the mind of my hon. friend at rest. This is not our policy. We welcome foreign capital and we shall go on welcoming foreign capital in the years to come.

May I ask a question? But it may be policy to apply it to financial companies in the future?

The hon. member must not ask a leading question now. He should at least be fair. Here we have a report of a commission that was appointed by the Government. Surely it is right for me to be afforded the opportunity of studying that report and then replying to that. I have to study it. It deals with financial companies. After having studied it, I shall give a reply. In regard to other matters I am prepared to give a reply, as I have already done, but I do not want to give a reply on this now.

†The hon. member for Pinetown asked me about the European loan to the City of Johannesburg and whether all these loans could not be lumped together into one loan, because the interest rate, he says, is higher in the case of the Johannesburg loan than in the case of the South African Government loan. Of course the hon. member knows that there are not only loans by the South African Government and by the City of Johannesburg, but there are also loans by Iscor and Escom, and it may be by the Rand Water Board, too. The interest rates on these loans have been slightly higher than the interest rates on South African Government loans, because these companies or corporations have been comparative newcomers to the capital market of Europe. We think that in due course, as these corporations become better known in Europe on the capital market, the interest rates will also decline to some extent. That is the one point. The other point is one which I have discussed also with European bankers lately, namely whether it is advisable that the South African Government should raise one big loan and that we should then dish out some of that money to the other corporations or city councils. The advice I received is not to do so. They say it is better for more than one South African lender to go on to the capital market, and that we will get more money that way.

At a higher rate of interest?

No, I have just spoken about the rate of interest. If you go to Europe for a loan, you have to stand in a queue. You cannot simply knock at the door and say you want R100 million or something like that. You can say so, but they will say they will accommodate you, but you will have to await your turn. Now if there are three or four South African borrowers, we might all get a turn within a year; otherwise we might get only one or two. We have discussed this matter fully with bankers from overseas, and asked them what they thought was the best policy. Their very clear advise was that this is the best policy, to have not only South African Government loans, but more bodies asking for loans. We must also be very careful not to have too many. I think if it goes to s^:x or seven, that would be wrong too. Three or four, I think, would be the right number. But this has been fully discussed with the capital market in Europe and we think that is the best policy to follow.

I should like to ask a question. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would find Eurodollars as acceptable today as marks or French francs.

The question is whether we would regard Eurodollars as being as acceptable as Deutsche marks or French francs. Yes, I say definitely yes, for reasons which I would not like to announce in the House tonight. We have had the experiences in the past that the interest rates on the Eurodollar sometimes were higher than in other cases. The reason for that might have been that people expected a devaluation of the dollar and wanted to make good by means of higher interest rates. To us it makes no difference if we immediately use that Eurodollar for overseas payments. It could be dangerous to borrow German marks. Swiss francs or Belgian francs, because there is just a possibility of a revaluation of these currencies. I am not sure of that; I am just expressing an opinion. We have nothing against the possibility of borrowing Eurodollars.

The hon. member for Parktown has again come back to the per cent loan levy on dividends. I cannot tell him much more than I told him in the Budget Speech. The point is that in this country individuals pay tax and ordinary companies pay a 40 per cent tax. Companies whose income consists of dividends do not pay any tax on those dividends at all. We think it is fair that companies, who pay no tax on dividends at all, should contribute something to the coffers of the State by way of a loan levy, not a tax. In most other countries dividends are taxed more or less in the same way as the other profits of a company are. I think that in Germany, Australia and the Netherlands dividends are fully taxed. In other countries dividends are partially taxed. There are moves, in Australia and in Canada for instance, to tax dividends fully. We are not taxing dividends at all and we think that we are completely entitled to get something from these dividend collecting companies by way of a loan levy. When we introduced the Budget, we quoted to hon. members the sum of R20 million, which was to be arrived at in this way. The figure we worked on was also contained in the report of the Franzsen Commission, the originator of the policy of the opposite side. That commission quoted the figure of dividends paid out to companies. They quoted a figure of R190 million. So we worked on R200 million. With a gross figure of R200 million or more at I per cent, we estimated that we should collect approximately R20 million. Then came all the outcries and questions. We were asked about the “escalation”, the cascading effect of a dividend being paid to another company and that company paying it to a second company, a third, a fourth and a fifth. We know that there are such instances with the pyramid companies, where there are five or six interlocking companies, or one company on top of the other company, where the dividend passes from below through three or four companies to the one on top. If the dividends were to be taxed every time they pass from one company to another, it would perhaps have brought in R100 million or more. That would have been quite possible. It would have made it very difficult for all these pyramid companies and associated companies to retain their liquidity. That would have been the problem. Their balance sheets with their assets, and so on, would have been more or less the same, but their liquidity would have been affected because money would have been drawn out of these companies. That was never our idea. We never wanted to impose a loan levy twice on the same dividend.

On the same money.

Yes, on the same money. So I explained to my hon. friend the other day that the intention is that, if a company, for instance, has R1 000 in dividend as income and it passes on R500 to another company, which is also subject to tax, this first company only pays on the dividends it has retained. The second company again passes on 50 per cent and is only taxed on the dividends it retains. There is therefore not this escalating effect, this doubling of the same loan levy on the same dividend over and over again. This is what it actually amounts to. I know there are some technical difficulties in regard to this matter, but I am not going to reply to all of them. I listened to what the hon. member for Parktown said because he sometimes gives very good advice. He told me that we should consider this matter very carefully and that we should discuss it with other people. That is what we are doing at the present moment. We are discussing it with those companies which do fall into this category of pyramid companies. In this way we hope to iron out all the technical difficulties. The hon. member mentioned one, but we know of quite a number. Once we have ironed out these difficulties we will be able to come to a decision as soon as possible.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me, but before I sit down I want again to congratulate hon. members on the other side for having enunciated a new financial policy.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he requires time to consider the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. I think we need hardly impress upon him the urgency of a statement on many aspects of the Commission’s report and I hope there will be no unnecessary delay. The hon. the Minister has been exemplary in placing the reports before the House as quickly as he has. As far as Chapter II recommendations are concerned, he need talk to nobody but himself. He can make decisions and there is no need for any delay as far as they are concerned. When the hon. the Minister asks when the United Party advocated what the Franzsen Commission has recommended, I am afraid he is either suffering from a lapse of memory or he has not read the record. I want to deal with another matter which falls under the hon. the Minister’s responsibility where there has been a serious lapse of memory as far as he is concerned.

During the Second Reading debate on this Bill I requested the Government to state clearly and unequivocally its policy in regard to the retention of provincial councils as legislative bodies…

Order! The hon. member is discussing a matter which falls under another Vote entirely. I have not put that Vote yet.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 8.—“Provincial Administrations”, R88 000:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised with the hon. the Minister the retention of provincial councils as legislative bodies and also the extension and not the diminution of the powers of provincial councils. In his reply the hon. the Minister made some extraordinary statements which require some examination. First of all he said that I “alleged that the autonomy of the provinces was being eroded” and continued to say that no proof has been advanced for this general and vague statement. He later said that over the last 60 years the activities and powers of the provinces have changed, that new powers have been given and that some old powers have been taken away. He did not elaborate on that. Had he taken time to study his subject, I do not think the hon. the Minister would have made such a statement. It would be more correct to say that the old powers which the provincial administrations have had constitutionally and had exercised for 42 years under previous Governments, have been seriously eroded during the last 18 years under the Nationalist Government. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what has happened in the last years. He talked about taking away and giving. I want to look at the debits and credits so far as provincial administrations are concerned. I shall do so in respect of each of the departments for which the provinces are or were responsible.

Let me deal with education. Under the South Africa Act, one of the functions of the provincial administrations was to deal, with Bantu Education. That function was removed in 1953. In 1961 the country accepted a Constitution for the Republic. Immediately thereafter, powers which were included in the Republican Constitution as provincial powers, were removed. In 1963 Coloured education was removed from the provincial administrations. In 1966 Indian education was removed. In 1967 educational Bills were introduced which laid down that without prior approval of the Central Government, ordinances and regulations could not be adopted by the provinces regarding educational matters.

Let me come to hospitals and curative health. The Schumann Commission reported that the provincial administrations should be placed in charge of a unified hospital system. It was motivated by almost unanimous professional evidence that the present division was artificial. It also advocated that regional control should be under provincial direction and that the involvement of the public generally, local authorities and welfare organizations should be aimed at. But what does the White Paper indicate? These have been rejected. The policy and control will be in the hands of the Central Government. Legislation and regulations will require prior State approval.

Road traffic was the responsibility of the provincial administrations. We now find that uniform road traffic legislation originates from an extra-constitutional body, namely the Road Traffic Advisory Council. The provincial council merely rubber-stamps the ordinances which are approved by this extra-constitutional body.

That is not so.

The hon. the Minister knows that that is so with the unified road ordinances which were recently placed before the provincial administrations. The planning of national roads is now to be removed from the provincial administrations. The provincial administrations will become glorified repairers of national roads so far as the State is concerned. They will not have any effective say in the planning and locating of these national roads.

Let us look at the supervision of local authorities. The provincial administrations were responsible for the provision of separate amenities. The Government then stepped in and said that the provincial administrations were not doing this job properly. After an ineffective and unavailing attempt by the Central Government, this power was handed back to the provincial administrations. The Central Government handed the baby back to the provincial administrations and asked them to provide the separate amenities in future. In 1963 the whole system of consultative and management committees for the Coloureds was forced on the provincial administrations by the Government in spite of local provincial commissions having found that it was an impracticable proposition which was advocated by the Central Government. In 1968 the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act was passed under which a vast area of control was removed from the provincial administrations. The 1966 Community Development Act which was extended in 1969 enables the Community Development Board to usurp the functions of local authorities and it is free from any provincial control in its activities within a municipal area.

Now we come to taxation. The right to levy provincial income tax and personal tax is now to be removed. The provinces are left with the limited rights of raising funds from licence fees on motor vehicles, dogs, game licences, entertainment tax and fines for certain municipal and traffic offences. It is no wonder the Administrator of the Transvaal has now had to consider seriously introducing off-course totalisators. The major income which provincial councils now will have, if this power of taxation is removed, is from gambling and horse racing.

Finally, I come to capital requirements. The hon. the Minister said:

The hon. the Minister of the Interior knows what that close scrutiny of the Treasury is since year after year he with his colleagues from the Cape, the Transvaal and the Free State had to come begging for adequate funds to deal with provincial matters.

You are being a bit superficial.

Well, his ex-colleague, the Administrator of the Cape, said he was tired of going cap-in-hand to the Minister of Finance for funds. In conclusion I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that Government and democracy work best where matters which can be effectively dealt with locally are left to a decentralized authority. Government policy has been precisely the contrary to this. It is a continuous move to centralization and to hold all power at the top. This is blatant authoritarianism. The Republic of South Africa and all its peoples are going to pay the price for this new policy and this new direction of this Government. Now that I have recited in the brief time available to me some of the powers which have been removed from the provinces, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in conclusion, whether this earlier statement of mine that provincial autonomy was being eroded was such a vague statement and without proof as he ventured to suggest at the end of his Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to come …

You are worth about a half per cent.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not even worth a half per cent and I think he must rather keep quiet. I should like to come to the point made by the hon. member for Green Point in the last instance. He sees the removal of the powers of taxation from the provinces as part of the process of weakening, as he alleges, the provincial system. It is very interesting to note that he was quite critical of the hon. the Minister having said in respect of the capital requirements of the provinces that these will be determined after the Minister’s Treasury had gone into the matter and supervised that spending effectively. On the one hand the hon. member for Parktown accepts the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission in respect of a Cabinet Committee which should effectively control State spending. Now I want to ask him whether spending by provinces is not part of State spending in South Africa, or do they exist as separate bodies apart from the State structure in South Africa? I want to go further. The hon. member for Green Point was once a representative in the Provincial Council of the Cape. I want to ask him whether the survival of a specific system or level of government or administration is dependent upon the own revenue ability of that system or administration. In other words, does the hon. member for Green Point allege that the survival of the provincial system is dependent upon the degree to which it is able to levy and control its own sources of taxation?

That is one of the questions you people asked here …

Order!

The hon. member for Orange Grove would do better to go and listen in. I am asking the hon. member this question, because I should like him to reply to it. I think we must get complete clarity in regard to certain specific basic facets. The first aspect in regard to which we should get clarity, is whether the fact that the provinces or local authorities, if the hon. members like, obtain their revenue from direct sources is a primary condition for the survival of the provincial system or any level of local authority. In the Cape Province there is a third level of administration. It is not only the level of local authorities, but the divisional council system. The divisional council system had its own sources of taxation and still has. If own revenue sources are a condition for the survival of a level of administration, I want to ask the hon. member whether the same applies to the divisional council. Does the same apply to the divisional council? The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the opposite side are adopting the usual double-talk standpoint in regard to the divisional council system. Because at one stage it served their political purpose, a colleague of the hon. members on the opposite side introduced a motion in the Cape Provincial Council in 1964. One must read this motion to be able to understand what hon. members are doing. I am quoting from the Provincial Council Hansard (1964, Volume 18, page 322). What is the motion?—

But that is not all, Sir-—

In other words, this system can survive without its own tax basis.

What are they doing in the Transvaal?

Oh, the hon. member must rather talk about agriculture, because he knows nothing about this in any case. I should like to make this point. When it served their political purpose, those hon. members advocated the retention of the divisional council system without powers of taxation. But the provincial system cannot exist without primarily finding its revenue from its own sources of taxation.

But there is a second important facet in regard to which hon. members must give us a reply. Is it not a fact that the provincial system in our country has been brought into discredit and that it has often been blatantly condemned, precisely as a result of the inequality in the taxation pressure among our various provinces? Is it not a fact that in all the provinces the different sources of revenue they had were in fact the cause of an unequal tax levy? But I challenge hon. members to deny that as far as personal tax is concerned, the same tariff applied in the four provinces. I challenge them to say that the same tariff applied in respect of provincial income tax. What does that mean? It means that this system had in fact been brought into discredit as a result of the fact, that when it had its own revenue sources, as it has today, it had to apply tariffs which were not the same in the same province as part of the implementation and fulfilment of the functions entrusted to it, depending on the circumstances which were prevailing in the province. But in spite of the fact that these revenue sources were there, there was not one province which did not from time to time, virtually every year, have to go to the Minister of Finance on an, ad hoc basis and to say that it could not with its own taxation sources and its own revenue under the 1956 Act, render the services which had been entrusted to it. It then had to ask: “Would you not please give me an extra statutory allowance?” I just want to mention one example. This legislation was passed in 1946 in respect of recurring expenditure. Since 1957 to date one province —the same applies to a certain extent to the others as well—namely the Free State, had consistently to be paid an increasing extra statutory allowance in order to render its services; it varied from 7 per cent in 1957 to 18,8 per cent in 1968.

But there is a third aspect we must reply to. This is the question of whether the efficiency with which services are being rendered in a province, must necessarily depend on the ability of the province to pay for them itself. It is true that the population distribution in our country and the location of the population in the various provinces has resulted in the revenue ability of the provinces being unequal. But it is true that the economically active population group—that is consequently the population group which has to pay the tax— varies from one province to another. I want to illustrate this with an example in respect of our provincial income tax for the provinces as it exists, which is a percentage of the normal taxation and relates to the number and the income level of the economically active people in a specific province. The fact of the matter is that the average, normal tax for the Cape which is paid to the State, was R163 per annum in 1965 for example. In the Transvaal it was R204 per annum, in Natal R183 per annum and in the Free State R168 per annum. In other words, the basis on which provinces were able to levy their provincial income tax, differed. And that is why, even if they were to levy the same percentages, which they are not doing, the income from these sources is not the same.

Is this in respect of the total population?

Yes, the total population. But it goes further. The costs of rendering services according to the needs existing in a province, cannot be correlated with the ability of the province to pay for it. That is why the proposed formula has two very clear benefits for the purposes of my arguments. Because it makes provision for a formula which is correlated with the need in the province and more than that with the cost of rendering the services in accordance with these needs, it entails that the provinces are to a lesser extent—to a minimal extent if you wish—dependent on their own revenue and to a maximal extent on a subsidy provided by law. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the enthusiasm of the hon. member for False Bay, who was a member of the Executive Committee of the Cape …

So is your colleague, the hon. member for Green Point.

… which had to come cap in hand to the Central Government to virtually blackmail the Government into giving them an additional R19 million. This was necessary because the Cape Provincial Administration last year was unable to provide the services required of it without this additional extra-statutory subsidy. I can understand that he would therefore welcome a system which he claims will maintain the provincial system but which in fact means the death knell of provincial autonomy of any sort or type.

The hon. member spoke of the “basiese fasette van die probleem”.

*But what is the basic problem? The basic problem is this: Where does the system of provincial councils stand in the system of administration and government of our country as a whole? The basic question which we must answer in this House is what hope does that system have of surviving if it becomes a subordinate body of this Parliament and the Minister of Finance and can exist exclusively on condition that the Minister of Finance gives them the money to enable them to remain in existence.

Is any level of administration or government dependent for its continued existence on having sources of revenue of its own?

The reply is: not entirely. But it must have a certain latitude to fill any gap between what it can raise itself and what it requires. But this plan amounts to the provinces being deprived totally of their right of self-determination and of taking their own decisions.

†I want to come back to this but would like to deal with it in terms of the Schumann Commission report which we have before us and which we are now debating. I want to deal with it logically from the start. Page 3 of this Commission’s report starts off with the following statement—one of the factors which was considered was:

The hon. member for False Bay will agree with me in this respect. On page 2 it is stated that:

In other words, this commission took into account the changing times which had been brought about in regard to our finance. Then we find the following statement in paragraph 29 on page 17—

In other words, in one of the two paragraphs we are told that this commission was required to take into account, and in fact did take into account, the changing times brought about by the establishment of the Republic which, the hon. member will know, occurred in 1961. Then on page 17 we are told that the Schumann Commission could not take that into account because the statistics did not permit it to take anything into consideration beyond 1961. Sir, here we start with the basic nonsense which the Government is trying to put across.

Read a paragraph further.

Very well. It says in effect that because of this, the Government cannot accept the recommendations in regard to the particular item under consideration, namely education. My first quotation referred to education, and this one refers to renewed investigations. In other words, the Government is trying to pretend that this is an up-to-date investigation to bring South Africa into line with the requirements of 1971, and then admits, when it is in difficulties, that the report is 10 years out of date. These are 10 lost years! Already this is a piece of Africana, which deserves to be put in a museum. Many of its recommendations are turned down. I do not have time to deal with them all, but the commission was asked to deal with the division of functions, the adequacy of sources of provincial taxation and the formula or procedure of subsidy payments. It took into account all the factors listed, such as the coming of the Republic and the changing economic situation, yet these are all things which have happened since 1961.

You have not yet read the paragraph I asked you to read.

Which paragraph?

Paragraph 29.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has unlimited time. I ask him to read paragraph 29, because I have 10 minutes against the Minister’s unlimited time. I challenge him to read it and to show that my basic argument is incorrect. He has the factors set out here, which are in the first place the establishment of the Republic, and then on page 17, in paragraph 29, we are told that the report is out of date because this commission had figures and information up to 1960-’61 only.

Sir, let us look at those aspects which are not dealt with in this report. On page 4 we find that the commission was asked to deal with the effective employment of the available manpower. What does the Government say about the effective employment of available manpower?

Turn to page 4.

I am on page 4 at the moment, but let us go on and see what some of the other pages say. Let us turn to page 6. Here we find the following situation. I quote from paragraph 8—

This Government has been in power for 23 years …

Twenty-three years too long.

And this is what it says—

Sir, that is the word used—we checked in the dictionary and it is a 19th century word—

For 23 years, Mr. Chairman, this Government has sat with an organization created to co-ordinate health services, and in 23 years it has not used the machinery at its disposal. The commission admits that that body has met three times, so now it must create a new advisory council and it must abandon what has been at its disposal but not used for 23 years. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban Point only dealt with two lesser important matters here that arise from the Schumann Commission’s report.

Are provincial councils of lesser importance?

One should rather argue basically about these matters.

Are provincial councils of lesser importance?

I shall deal with that point if the hon. member would be prepared to keep quiet for a moment and listen. Sir, I say that one must speak about the basic aspects here. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Durban Point and to other hon. members on that side: Has the mere fact that a country such as Botswana has until recently obtained a very large portion of its revenue by way of allocations from the British Government, in any way affected its sovereignty? Why must this argument then be used here, merely because the State will now give a much greater proportion of the Province’s revenue to them by way of subsidies, instead of their obtaining it in another way from the taxpayers, i.e. by way of a surcharge on normal income tax, personal tax and a portion of the company tax, that those bodies will be less effective now? Is the real question one should ask not rather whether the system serves it proper purpose with the sources of revenue available to the provinces? Sir, the hon. member for False Bay told you that in his experience the United Party frequently sang a different tune in the provincial councils in the past to the tune that hon. members opposite are trying to sing in this debate. This has also been my personal experience for almost a decade.

If this Government wanted to do away with the provincial system in South Africa, it had the best opportunity for doing so when we obtained a Republic in the year 1961. When the Constitution had to be rewritten, with the advent of the Republic, these basic questions must have been in the Government’s thoughts. The mere fact that the provincial system was retained in those years when South Africa gave itself a new political form, is sufficient proof that the Government does not intend to do away with the provincial system.

Sir, what are the facts, seen from the point of view of those receiving the services and those that have to pay rates and taxes? I think that I may say without fear of contradiction that the biggest criticism against the provincial system was based firstly on the so-called inequality between the services in the various provinces; secondly, the unequal rates imposed by the various provinces and thirdly the fact that here in the Cape another form of tax is levied for services for which taxpayers did not pay directly in other provinces, i.e. the tax to divisional councils. Then there is also the mere fact that there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty among those responsible for the planning of provincial services. Sir, I was myself amazed that such a scientific formula could be found in terms of which subsidies are going to be paid to provinces in the future. I remember that in debates that took place in the Cape Provincial Council the Opposition side frequently complained that the Government does not make a sufficient contribution to the Province so that it can manage its services properly. Here we have now, on a very scientific basis, found a formula in terms of which there will be certainty for the Provinces. We now find that, instead of 63 per cent, the provinces will this year obtain 82 per cent of their total revenue by way of subsidies from the Central Government.

What is the formula; what certainty is there?

Sir, if the hon. member would just listen for a moment, I could explain this to him. The basic viewpoint is that equal services must be supplied to taxpayers and others in all provinces. That is why there is a standard expenditure estimate for road building, for hospital services, for education and for virtually every facet of the services supplied by the provinces. What is more, Sir, every possible factor that can influence that standard expenditure has been taken into account. If hon. members on that side could have told us that certain factors had not been taken into account in the determination of the formula according to which the Government is subsidizing road building costs, the hospital and health services and all the other functions of the provinces, they would have made a positive contribution in the interests of those persons detrimentally affected as a result of that in any specific province. Sir, I want to go as far as to say that the mere acceptance of this formula ensures the continued existence of the provincial system. The fact that citizens in the various provinces will, in future, know that they will be treated on an equal footing with other provinces, will result in the disappearance of the basic arguments against the continued existence of this system. Sir, I think it will now be much pleasanter to be the Administrator or a member of the Executive Committee in any province where the burden of finding the necessary revenue has now been taken off one’s shoulders. Sir, I now want to say thank you here on behalf of the Cape for the fact that a final decision has now been reached on this footing, because on this new basis the taxpayer of the Cape will, with the particular problems that exist here and that will continue to exist here forever, be in a much more favourable position than he was in the past. I just want to express the hope that since the Cape will receive about R10 million orR11 million more than it would have received in the past under the formulae that previously existed, it will think of increasing the standard of the services rather than endeavouring to decrease rates immediately to the same level as rates in other provinces. I also trust that the Cape Administration will now be able to give more help to the various municipalities and divisional councils, so that they will then be able to give the inhabitants of the Cape services of a much higher standard.

May I ask the hon. member whether the divisional council road tax in the tax is now going to be abolished?

In the calculation of expenditure and revenue from their own sources, the amount which the Cape pays by way of divisional council taxes has been properly taken into account, and the difference that there will now be between what the Cape will receive this year and what it would have received under normal circumstances, is virtually equal to the total amount of divisional council taxes that would normally be paid during this year. That is why I do not want to advocate that this province should go as far as doing away with a system of divisional council taxation, and that they should much rather utilize the stronger financial position for the benefit of the inhabitants of this province who are faced with problems that do not necessarily apply in other provinces, and that they will make a much greater endeavour to establish services of an increasingly higher standard.

Whilst the hon. member who has just sat down seems to be certain in his own mind that the status and the power of the provincial councils and the system of provincial councils will be retained, we are absolutely satisfied from the terms of the report that far from that taking place, the powers of the provincial authorities will in due course diminish; they will become entirely dependent on the Government and in fact the Central Government will virtually emasculate them of most of the independent and direct activities to which they have been accustomed in the interest of the closer and more intimate communities which they serve and which was the purpose of the preservation of the system of provincial councils. If one looks at the actual formula, one finds that the formula as enunciated in paragraph 31 on page 17 of the Schumann Commission report is that all the moneys they require from time to time will be constantly subject to consultation and subject to certain estimates and conditions, and will have to take into account possible sources of revenue, the recovery of that revenue, deficits and so forth. In fact I see something even deeper and more sinister than that. I see that in due course the Central Government will through this system virtually have direct control of the affairs of local authorities and even direct their affairs, their methods of spending funds and their methods of administration in the interests of the smaller communities which local authorities have traditionally served. I find, for instance, a statement in the Borcken-hagen report which deals with financial assistance to local authorities. It says this—

In this little sentence is virtually bound up a great deal of this control which will eventually be exercised over local authorities. I think one should take into account a City Council like Johannesburg, or even a City Council like Pretoria, particularly the latter, which in recent years, have advanced considerably, whose areas of administration have expanded enormously, and where in the interest of the community a tremendous amount of money is required either in the form of direct taxation or loan funds. The trading on which the commission relies as a source of revenue is something which cannot be relied on by a local authority which is required to balance its expenditure in its trading account. It has to supply water, electricity, sewerage services, etc., and equate the cost with the income it receives. It is not there to make a profit on these services from the public that it serves. But the municipality has to rely almost entirely on its rate fund and the taxation of only a section of the inhabitants of a local authority in order to have funds to carry out its work. In Johannesburg, for instance, the taxation on property has risen. The rate fund has increased over the last 15 years by almost three times, and just recently the rate income of the City Council of Johannesburg grew by R6 million from about R22½ million to nearly R28 million.

Which party governs that City Council?

That is not the point. I am talking about the sources of revenue. As the Minister knows, by some good fortune, and I assume it was because the Central Government realized the difficulties facing Johannesburg, it took the unprecedented step of allowing it to negotiate its own loan overseas. I believe the officials of the Council are leaving tomorrow in order to arrange the matter with the banks which will float the loan through various consortiums or institutions. But the point we must bear in mind is that these local authorities which are now growing will eventually reach the stage where they can have a new system of taxation enabling them to tax in various ways in order to receive the necessary funds both for infrastructure as well as the necessary services that a local authority requires. I can give the hon. the Minister a few ideas.

For instance, in the collection of motor licences the City Council collects somewhere in the region of R19 million and pays most of it over to the province. Traffic fines, something on which one should not necessarily rely for income, and other fines for breach of municipal regulations, flow to the State instead of direct to the local authority. It was recommended by the Borckenhagen Commission that possibly one cent of the petrol tax should be made use of by the province in order to finance roads for the city councils. But when the City Council presented a report with regard to its motorways, it made this comment which I think is of great interest. Johannesburg itself has 13,4 per cent of the cars and commercial vehicles of the entire Republic, 185 500 as against 1 400 000 approximately. It goes on to point out that the portion of the National Road Fund income from TJ vehicles, that is from the petrol revenue, would amount to nearly R6 million, the amount going to the National Road Fund being R48 million, of which petrol revenue is R44 300 000. Here would be a source of income which would give the local authority of a city like Johannesburg something like R6 million to R8 million per annum if it participates fairly and equitably in its share of the source of revenue for which it virtually alone is responsible.

Then there is the question of imposing tolls on its highways for vehicles entering the city and driving through it, and a smaller tax, for instance, on hotel beds, similar to many towns and cities, such as New York. Furthermore, it could have the right to raise loans whenever it needs these loans, and wherever it could find them, of which the recent action of the hon. the Minister is an excellent example. We should have a very much broader picture with regard not only to our provincial councils, but our local authorities. We should realize that in a country like the Republic, where some cities have reached proportions which place them in the forefront of the developing cities of the world, the time may well have come to consider giving them these extra powers, perhaps in the form of a charter to these cities so that they can impose their own taxation and not have to do what was reported in the Council yesterday, namely that township development in the north and south of the city may have to be frozen because of the Treasury’s order to cut back capital spending by R20 million this year, after taking into account this R16 million which is to be raised. One of the most serious consequences of the curbs will be the slashing of a sewerage development programme by over R2 million, part of an enormous scheme on which the whole future township development around Johannesburg depends. They say further—

(Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that not only during this Session, but over the past few years when this matter was discussed, a Babel-like confusion of speech was created on the part of the United Party, or they at least tried to create this confusion in connection with a term that is now generally bandied about but which no-one apparently understands, least of all of the Opposition, i.e. the so-called autonomy of provinces and the autonomy of local authorities, that is supposedly being encroached upon. From the few authoritative books there are about the system of government in South Africa, I should like to quote what Prof. J. J. N. Cloete says about central, provincial and municipal institutions of South Africa. What I want to quote can be found on page 156 of his book. In paragraph 2 the following is said in connection with the powers of provincial councils (translation)—

A description then follows.

I have sat in this House for a few years listening to discussions. I want to come to one particular aspect, which is also dealt with in the Schumann Commission and in the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Committee, in illustration of what I want to say about the legislation in connection with health. The words that are freely used by the United Party are a sort of “Johnny is frightening the baby”. Each time the slogan is that the autonomy of the provinces and of the local authorities is being taken away from them. I was witness to that in this House. In fact, once I had the privilege, when I was the mover of a motion on health legislation, of being able to enjoy the full and lavish support of speakers on that side of the House when I asked for more co-ordination and legislation in connection with health in the Republic of South Africa. One may argue about the meaning of words. What does co-ordination mean, and what is the difference between co-ordination, unity, centralization, etc.? Let us not be dogmatic about that kind of thing. I think that there is one point that was clear to everyone. In respect of health services and the way they functioned since the Union Health Act of 1919, all members in this House were agreed that shortcomings existed that had to be eliminated. It was said that there was overlapping and a duplication of services. Both sides said as much. Both sides at least acknowledged it. I want to ask, as a purely categorical question: The members of the party opposite advocated that this overlapping should be eliminated and that there should be co-ordination of health services. My question is, how does one do this? Co-ordination can only take place in one way, i.e. with one body carrying the responsibility. This is so obvious that I do not need to elaborate on it. That body does not have to be responsible for the implementation, but eventually it must in any case be responsible for the allocation of. powers, for the supervision of powers and for everything that goes hand in hand with that. What does the Opposition now want? Here is the report of the Schumann Commission on health services and the report of the Borckenhagen Committee on the same subject.

Is it a categorical question to which you do not want a reply?

I shall put the question very clearly to the hon. member. If I must state it more clearly, so that he can understand it, he must just tell me. Then I will give it to him in simple words. Let me first give him the history. With respect to the question of health services I shall begin with 1946, because one of the hon. members spoke about that. I shall begin with 1946, because one of the hon. members spoke about that, but long before that time commissions had been appointed to deal with these matters, because it was felt that there were shortcomings. During the time of the United Party, and it also took a long time before that report was published, the report of the so-called Gluckman Commission was published on health services. This commission recommended that there should be a kind of co-ordinating body, almost on the same lines but less accurately defined than this commission that is now being recommended. That commission could not carry out its functions, and if the hon. member for Orange Grove would like to do some homework this evening, he may read what is said in the report of the Snyman Commission, and also in other reports, about the health services provided by provinces and municipalities and by the Central Government.

I have done so.

The hon. member says that he has done so, and I am glad of that, because then there is at least one hon. member opposite who will understand something of what I now want to say. I hope that he will convey this to his colleagues. In 1962 this Government began to study all reports about these questions. One of the questions—while I am dealing with this—was the co-ordination of health services in the Republic, which everyone felt must be improved. I now want to ask hon. members opposite something: The hon. member for Johannesburg who, like all Johannesburg citizens, can wax very eloquent about Johannesburg, as if Johannesburg is not a mere part of the Republic of South Africa, but a part of the entire universe. I just want to remind the hon. member that Johannesburg is part of the Republic, and subject to the interests of the Republic.

Tell that to hon. members opposite.

I say this to anyone who wants to believe it. Johannesburg is always presented as the one city that is being wronged. This discussion about health services has, however, affected all the larger and smaller municipalities. It has been discussed on a municipal and a local authority level, and it has also been discussed at the meetings of the United Municipal Executive, and Johannesburg has direct representation there. Each time it has been clearly stated that there must be more central control. I know that if I ask the hon. member for Jeppes what he suggests, he would want to say that we should recognize the autonomy of local authorities to such an extent that Johannesburg probably obtains control of health services in the Republic of South Africa. I am now going to extremes, but that is the impression that is being created, because on each occasion this question is localized, as if there is only one local authority that is faced with such a problem. What the recommendations that are being made amount to is that there will be central control, in accordance with what the feeling has always been since 1919 in connection with health services. May I just add that in this report, and in the other reports and White Papers, the final word has not yet been spoken. When it was broached by that side of the House, it was said in connection with health services, and it is also being said here, that the negotiations with the provinces will be continued. What does “negotiations with provinces” mean? Does it mean that their autonomy is being taken away from them, that their powers are being taken away from them and that they are being trampled underfoot? This specifically means that there is consultation. This principle is contained in the White Paper. Legislation must still be submitted about this matter. It is simply incomprehensible that people can advocate one moment that there must be an elimination of overlapping and other things, and that centralization of control should take place, while the following moment saying that this is damning as far as the Government is concerned. Let me rephrase the question: Do hon. members opposite want me now to say—and I have the utmost appreciation for what the provinces and the administrations of the local authorities have done and are still going to do—that all health services should now simply be taken over by the provinces? What do hon. members opposite expect? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member who has just sat down has done his homework. He refers to the commission’s report almost as having provided an answer to all the problems which he felt were facing us in regard to health services. In fact, if the hon. member goes through the reports, he will find that a number of the recommendations of the commission are just brushed aside by the Government in statements of policy. The Government is either maintaining the status quo or making other suggestions. Nobody has even suggested that everyone should accept the terms of these reports. These reports are in many instances completely outdated. There is no point in confusing the whole issue by talking about central co-ordination.

There is one other matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member, namely that in the health services of the State, there are constant changes of policy in many respects. Regarding the question of the central co-ordination of health services, I should like to say that if one reads the report, one finds that in that respect many services which are being dealt with by the provincial administrations or the State or the local authorities are left in the hands of these bodies as part of State policy. Certain other suggestions are made such as a national health advisory council. No one has been over-critical of a scheme of this nature. It follows on the original Gluckman health report in which the view was expressed that an advisory council was necessary for the co-ordination of services throughout the country. It is an authoritative statement from authorities in this particular field that health policy, particularly in recent days, is constantly undergoing changes. In fact, there has been a complete reorganization in the whole of the Health Department.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member? The hon. member said I had not read the report. I should like to read from page 11.

Order! The hon. member should put a question and not make a speech.

Did the hon. member read paragraph 19 of page 11 of the report which deals with health services?

Mr. Chairman, I will refer the hon. member to a number of instances such as on page 7, where it is said:

Further on it says:

That is one example. I can refer the hon. member to another example.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I referred to the summary …

Order! That is not a point of order.

Furthermore it is reported that it would obviously be undesirable to modify existing arrangements and to divorce the department from the statutory functions which have lawfully been assigned to it. With regard to infectious diseases it is furthermore reported that the Government policy takes a different line. So it continues right through the report of this commission. This matter, I think, will be debated in more detail when the matter comes under consideration under the Health Vote.

However, I should like to complete what I intended to say about local authorities and provinces. I think the hon. the Minister knows that some years ago, after a study in depth of local authority life and its development in this country, the question of a charter for cities was discussed and brought to the attention of the Transvaal provincial authorities. I think it is in this field that the hon. the Minister can show more imagination regarding the general colourful picture of large cities in South Africa. One obviously refers to Johannesburg because it is the largest city in the Republic. I think it is the second largest city in the whole of the continent of Africa. It has a budget today of Rill million for ordinary revenue and expenditure. It had a proposed budget of R58 million for loan capital. It has the third largest budget in the Republic. Its budget is only exceeded by that of the Transvaal province and the State itself. This is a city of which note must be taken. This is not being said in any parochial party sense, but this is said because I believe it is in the interests of local authority life that we should now reach a stage where we can give cities the opportunity to carry out their own form of taxation in certain matters. These matters can be laid down by consultation between the State Treasury and the local authorities and there should be some system upon which the parties agree. This is a trend which one will find in cities right throughout the world today and it is becoming much more evident. That would help cities to solve these important problems of urban arterial roadways or our freeways through the cities where the State has decided to clamp down completely on providing any further subsidies or assistance. These are important factors.

Yes, but that is not relevant to this debate.

I merely gave that as an example to indicate the important relationship between the finances of the local authority, the province and the State as visualized by these reports. The question of local authority finance, in so far as housing and other things are concerned, is also dealt with by the Franzsen Commission. These are all important factors which cannot be ignored and which cannot be isolated. My view is that Treasury at the moment in its policy is concentrating more and more on the globular pillar of the State itself with the other services and the other authorities being merely adjuncts which can be controlled and dealt with just as it may suit perhaps the whims or requirements of the State Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppes has again now rehashed a very old matter here. He referred to the City Council of Johannesburg and to the provincial councils. He repeated here this evening that the authority and the powers to levy its own taxes should be given to a large city like Johannesburg. To state my opinion in plain language: That will be the day. That will be the day we do something like that in South Africa, particularly in a city like Johannesburg, where you already, under United Party administration, have over-taxation of the taxpayers. These people must take better care of their finances, they must control the city better and they must make better use of the taxation sources they already have and the revenue they derive from them. Then they will have no need to ask for these powers.

I think one of the reasons which gave rise to these commissions being appointed was that we had had, even then, such tremendous complaints from the taxpayers of the country in regard to the multiple taxes which were being levied. There are municipal taxes, provincial taxes and then there is the general Central Government tax. I really want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his now having been able to find this acceptable formula according to which the Provinces receive their subsidies from the Central Government to carry out the duties imposed on them. We are grateful for that.

Does the Transvaal accept it?

Let me Candidly admit now that I had something to do with this at the outset when I was a member of the Executive Committee. I was a member of the Executive Committee when this commission was appointed. We submitted evidence to this commission, and we made certain recommendations. Many of the recommendations we made were included in the report of the Schumann Commission. They in their turn made recommendations on the basis of their findings. There is nothing static in this country. I want to refer the hon. member to the fact—and I think I can emphasize this with great conviction tonight—that the provinces agree with what stands in this White Paper. The Transvaal Provincial Administration also accepts this White Paper. To-night we want to felicitate the Minister on not having disregarded the Provinces completely as far as this White Paper is concerned. I think that the recommendations in the White Paper were made after there had been proper consultation and discussions with these bodies.

No.

With what authority can the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District say that this is not the case? I do not want to say that I think that the Provinces are in 100 per cent agreement with this. We are not ashamed of that. However, there were considerations and it is only a strong Government which can take decisions when other people think otherwise. In paragraph 3 of Part I it is stated—

1. (1) The establishment of the Republic and the new approach which it necessitated to matters domestic as well as external;
2. (2) the increased tempo of economic development which was fed by inter alia the new upsurge of confidence, and which posed new challenges to the available manpower, the existing institutions as well as the public finances, e.g. in the matter of providing basic services;
3. (3) the increased responsibility which developed on the Government in respect of defence, foreign affairs and aid to neighbouring territories;
4. (4) the more rapid application of the policy of homeland development …

So it continues. Now I want to come to the paragraph which the hon. member for Durban Point seized upon so deftly here this evening. I am reading it—

This is what the hon. member for Durban Point so deftly omitted—

1. (1) the basic requirements set by the Schumann Commission for a practical subsidy formula still provide a sound basis for establishing the nature of a formula according to which the Provinces could be subsidized;
2. (2) it is possible to assign to such formula a statistical content which would satisfy the major practical requirements.

This thorough investigation, I can state here this evening—4 think these are the actual facts—took place in conjunction and in consultation with the Provinces. I think that the allegation which was made here tonight and the impression which the United Party tried to create is that we are with this matter tampering with the autonomy of the provinces. Sir, that is a misconception which is being created here. The provinces have repeatedly been given the assurance by many important organizations, and by no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister, that there would be no attempt to weaken the provincial system.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I do not have the time. I think that under this very fair formula, and with assistance from the Revolving Fund which has been established, as was stated here very clearly the other day by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, it is now possible for the provinces to plan in advance. They now have the guarantee of a regular subsidy which is determined according to a proper scientific formula. I honestly think that we ought now to be assured that it will be possible for the provinces to carry out properly the administrative functions which have been entrusted to them for the performance of certain important tasks.

Sir, listening to the hon. member for Langlaagte, one is reminded of the fact that a number of exprovincial councillors and ex-Executive Committee members, have taken part in this debate here tonight. One would think that they would be a little bit more knowledgeable, especially those members on the Government side. The hon. member for Langlaagte was telling us …

It is wasted on you.

… that the White Paper submitted by the Schumann Commission had been accepted by the provincial councils. I can tell him that that is not so. It may have been accepted by the majority party in the Transvaal, but it has certainly not been accepted by the Cape Provincial Council, nor has it been discussed. Sir, it is unfortunate that important documents such as the reports of these commissions, reports for which we have been waiting for a number of years, have to be discussed in this very limited debate. After all, we are dealing here with a most important subject, namely the whole future of the provincial councils. Sir, much has been said here about the powers of the provincial councils and the constitution, but I would like to ask hon. members to read section 84 (1) dealing with the powers of provincial councils. This section provides that, “subject to the provisions of this Act, the Financial Relations Consolidation Amendment Act”, the provinces have the power to levy direct taxation within the province in order to raise revenue for provincial services. In terms of the proposals submitted by the hon. the Minister of Finance, which are in line with the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, the right of the provincial authorities to levy personal taxation and income taxation on individuals is to be withdrawn and provincial authorities are to share in the revenue derived from the taxation collections of the Central Government on the income of individuals, as is already done in the case of company taxation. Sir, those of us who have had experience in the provincial councils—and I was in the provincial council in 1949—know what difficulties the various Administrators have in raising funds to meet the commitments of the provinces. The sources of taxation of the provinces were, of course, always limited. Sir, I have before me last year’s Estimates of Taxation of the Cape. May I quote these figures. The totalisator tax raised R1 350 000. the betting tax R800 000, the company tax, via the Central Government, R27 million, entertainment duty R750 000, income tax just on R27 million, licences (game, fish) R26 000, licences for motor vehicles R19 500 000, tax on persons R10 609 000, giving a total of R86 977 000. In order to meet their commitments they had to receive Government grants of R79 million, R29 million, R2 661 000 and R14 million. Sir, that shows the very unsatisfactory position that existed. We in the provincial council were hoping that as a result of the appointment of the Borckenhagen Committee and the Schumann Commission we would be able to see some daylight. After all, the provincial councils form a very material part of the whole of the administrative set-up in this country. They form a most important part of it, but certain hon. members on that side of the House who have served as provincial councillors in the past seem to forget that, especially the hon. member for Langlaagte. They are in closer contact with the people of this country than we are. Administrator after Administrator has had this difficulty of financing and budgeting. It is impossible to budget if you do not know what you are going to get.

But now they know.

They do not know.

How do they know? They come cap in hand!

We know the history and how the Cape Province administered Bantu education with a direct subsidy from this Government. I think I am correct in saying that it was R8 million, 4 million, at the time. That was taken away from them. There was never a kind word said to the Cape Province about how they administered Bantu education. They did it on a limited budget. Later on we witnessed the hasty Legislation in this House as a result of the first part of the Schumann Commission’s report whereby Coloured education was taken away from the provinces because the Cape Province could not administer it. Why? The simple reason was that they had insufficient funds. We saw what happened. The moment this Government took over that particular portfolio, unlimited funds were placed at the disposal of Coloured Education. But in the Cape Provincial Administration there was a first class Coloured Education Department. That was taken over by the Central Government. The whole history of the Central Government’s attitude to the provinces is one of taking over powers.

I should like to remind this House that we are being asked here to vote R88 000 and nothing else. There is going to be an additional appropriation as far as the grants to the provinces are concerned. We are going to put the provinces in the position where they will have no powers at all. They will have to budget for the amounts that they require, come to the hon. the Minister and be told they will get RX million this year …

It is all in this report.

I know, I have seen it. That is all they will get. They will be in the hands of the Central Government. All their powers of taxation will be taken away from them. They will be completely emasculated. The South African Railways at least have its own budget, so does the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They have the means of raising taxation. We have heard here what is happening in the Johannesburg Municipal Council. But an important province such as the Cape Province will lose all these rights and will not know what it will be getting. The Estimates show a blank; it shows a complete blank as to what the provinces will get.

You are talking nonsense. Read paragraph 50.

I am talking about what we are being asked to vote here tonight. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question on the restricted taxation and the means of taxation that the provinces are going to have. Let us take the case of the Cape, for instance. They have a capital indebtedness to the Central Government at the present moment of approximately R168 million. They were able to repay a certain portion last year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance how he hopes to get the provinces to repay the capital loans that are going to be levied on them. Are they going to repay those loans from the money that will be loaned to them? That will be interesting. The provinces have certain capital commitments. Are they going to be required to repay these capital commitments out of the revenue that the Central Government is going to pay to them? It is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will be a ridiculous position. I said at the beginning that it is most unfortunate that in this very limited debate we should be discussing this most important matter. We are putting the whole future of our provincial system into the melting pot. I think we should get away from politics.

Would you like to see Natal being excluded from the whole new scheme?

I cannot speak for Natal. I speak for the Cape. I would not like to see any province excluded. I would like to see the building up of our provinces. I would not like to see the exclusion of any province. I would like to see our provinces put on a sound basis. Those of us who have been on the provincial councils and those of us who have had experience of provincial councils over the years, would like to see them have a better deal than they have at present. This business of centrally gathering all the control is a mistake. It will eventually break down the whole system of our government. It must, to an extent, be decentralized. We have the local authorities, city councils, provincial councils and in the Cape we have our divisional councils. None of the provinces will have any power. [Time expired.]

I really think the Opposition’s attempt here this evening is a little too blatant. It is an attempt to suggest that the Government intends to weaken the provincial authorities in some way or another. It has been done a little too blatantly here this evening to make any impression. What strikes me is the way in which the Opposition has simply rejected all the facts which are contained in these White Papers and have been accepted by the Government and which point in the opposite direction. They have simply kept quiet about the greater stability and security introduced in the case of the provincial authorities in these formulae, for example the way in which they will be financed in the future. They have simply kept quiet about all the advantages which these will have for the provincial authorities as well as for the local authorities. Therefore one cannot but come to the conclusion that one is faced here with a blatant attempt at linking to the Government something of which the Government really cannot be suspected.

May I ask a question? Is the hon. the Minister prepared to arrange for us to have a full debate on these reports instead of the limited discussion of this evening, so that we may really discuss them?

One of the amazing facts in this debate this evening is that, since we have to come forward with legislation and with appropriations under the new scheme, there will be opportunities to debate both the legislation and the appropriations. We have an attempt at conducting a debate here this evening which I cannot but regard as a little premature on the part of the Opposition. But the opportunities must come. Although hon. members now have ten-minute turns, they will, in the case of legislation, have half-hour turns to speak of which the hon. members may avail themselves. I may rather ask the hon. member why he has taken part in this debate this evening. Why does the hon. the Opposition complain this evening, as the hon. member for Salt River did, about the limited time, while there ought to be and will be far more opportunity than only this evening for the discussion the hon. members want to conduct?

May I ask a question? Just in order to reply to the accusation by the hon. the Minister in regard to weakening of the provincial councils, may I ask the hon. the Minister what the Government’s policy is in respect of the provincial council system?

I do not understand the question, because I have just said that the attempt to accuse the Government of weakening the provincial councils is so blatant and obvious that we cannot regard it as a serious one. I have just said that this attempt to accuse the Central Government of weakening the provincial authorities is so blatantly and so obviously not a serious one, because the Opposition keeps quiet particularly about the cardinal advantages to the provinces arising from these reports. For example, if I were to ask the hon. member for Durban Point this evening, in pursuance of what the hon. the Minister of the Interior said a moment ago, if these proposals are supposed to be so malicious, would he declare that Natal would prefer to retain the old system rather than to accept this new system and programme?

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister resume his seat so that I may reply?

Order! The hon. member will get another opportunity of making a speech later. This is a Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. the Deputy Minister asked me a question …

It was a rhetorical question. The hon. the Deputy Minister must proceed.

The methods of the hon. member for Durban Point are known to all of us, and if it would have been quite in order I would gladly have resumed my seat in order to give the hon. member that opportunity. He may just as well reply “yes” or “no” to me from his bench now. He will not do so … [Interjections.]

Order! There are still 79 hours left for the discussion of this Committee Stage and hon. members may rise later and speak for ten minutes. I will not allow these continuous interruptions to be made. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Green Point went back a long way, i.e. to 1953, in the speech he made here this evening. I do not want to go back as far as that, and I just want to say hon. members opposite will accept that, particularly from a financial point of view, there have been problems and probably shortcomings in the relations with provincial authorities, which have had to be solved. I think these problems are already 50 or 60 years old and have existed since the time of Union. There have been various attempts to solve them. Here we again have an honest attempt. Hon. members opposite surely cannot expect the Government not to accept the responsibility which it must accept in this respect, and to accept the recommendations of, for example, commissions of enquiry unconditionally. Surely it does not work out this way. What is more, the final responsibility for what happens in provincial councils and provincial authorities has always been that of the Government and this Parliament, and this has been the case since the time of Union. This is a responsibility which it has never been possible to pass on. It is a responsibility which still has to be carried out, even this evening while we are conducting this, to my mind somewhat absurd debate. The hon. member for Green Point spoke about education, health and roads and I also want to mention a single example. In respect of roads, for example, the position, if one looks at paragraph 23 of the report of the Schumann commission, is that this Parliament has always accepted the financial responsibility, while it had no physical control. In respect of the aspect of roads in South Africa, it is now accepting both responsibility and physical control. What is wrong with that? What is wrong, is rather the position as it was. I can go on in this way and mention more examples in respect of roads. If the hon. member reads paragraphs 23 and 24 of the report carefully, it will become clear to him.

The hon. member for Durban Point even went so far as to ask: Where do the provincial councils stand in our system of government? Surely there is not the least doubt or any misgivings in this connection. Surely the two White Papers before the House this evening contain nothing to indicate that this provincial system is being threatened in any way. On the contrary, a great deal is being done here to stabilize and develop it. The most important aspect of provincial administration or of any administration is the financial aspect. In this connection there has to be the necessary security and cover. In these measures now being announced, the provinces are getting more security than they have ever had before. If hon. members opposite are looking for proof of the good intentions of the Government, they will find it in the scrupulousness with which the Government is making provision for budgeting capacity, which is now being weakened as a result of certain powers of taxation, and the care with which the Government is extending the budgeting capacity which the provinces require in order to be able to function more independently, display more initiative and plan farther ahead on their own. The way in which this is being extended, hon. members will find in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the White Paper. The hon. member even went so far as to say that the provincial councils are being deprived of their entire right of making decisions. But in the past they had to come and ask without having the least idea of what they would get. Now they can come along and say that, in terms of the formula, they have to get a certain amount. It is a formula which has been accepted by the Government. Therefore, what have they been deprived of? They have been deprived of greater uncertainty, and they have been given more certainty. Surely there is nothing in these White Papers in terms of which the hon. member for Durban Point could come to this conclusion. But look at what the hon. member does in respect of paragraph 29, to which he referred. The hon. the Minister of Finance pressed him to read further. What the hon. member read out, reads as follows—

Then the hon. member finds a contradiction in another paragraph. Immediately below this, it says—

This is what the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to. But the hon. member simply could not get as far as reading it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Can the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain in detail who determines the reasonable needs and the deficit: The province or the Central Government?

I would advise the hon. member to read this White Paper. All of it is contained in this White Paper.

I have read it.

Has he read the annexures?

Yes, but who determines it?

Then I want to refer to the hon. member for Jeppes. He complained about the position of the City Council of Johannesburg.

I mentioned examples.

Yes, the hon. member mentioned examples and he stated that the Treasury had reduced the capital budget of Johannesburg by R20 million. But the information I have received is different. I have been informed that it is a fact that the various divisional budgets of Johannesburg amounted to a total sum of R71 300 000. The City Council itself cut that figure to R50 100 000.

Yes, they did so themselves. It was R71 300 000 at first, but they themselves reduced it by R20 million. After that the Treasury also reduced it.

Order!

After that, the Treasury reduced it by R0,7 million, after having discussed it with the Johannesburg City Council. Let us take a look at the increases of Johannesburg’s expenditure from the Consolidated Loan Fund. In 1969-’70 there was an increase of 30,8 per cent. In 1970-’71 there was an increase of 21,2 per cent, and in 1971-’72 an increase of 29,8 per cent was envisaged. It seems to me as if the hon. member wants reason to complain. The main point he made in respect of the position of Johannesburg is entirely unfounded.

I now come to the points raised by the hon. member for Salt River. I have dealt with practically all these points. He complained about the discussion in a limited debate. He also complained about the income tax powers which are being withdrawn. He also complained about the difficulties experienced with funds. He elaborated at quite some length on the difficulties experienced with funds. His arguments finally amounted to this, that the provincial authorities no longer have the budgeting capacity they used to have. Surely it is clear from the White Papers how the Government, on its part, practically went out of its way to eliminate that uncertainty about financial means. There must be an adjustment between the requirements which can be met from their own resources, and the additional requirements which the Government then has to meet. As I have indicated, the Government has gone out of its way to ensure that the provincial authorities will have sufficient budgeting capacity so that they will not be deprived of all initiative.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 11.—“Customs and Excise”, R28 400 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 4,—“Customs and Excise”, R114 000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister to apply his mind to formulating some more simple method for the granting of rebates on sales duty to traders who have sold dutiable goods to bona fide tourists. These sales are regarded as genuine exports and it is admitted that they are subject to rebate of sales duty. However, the system that is in force at present for the obtaining of these rebates, is primarily designed to cater for the ordinary export trade, that is export trade in bulk. This system is entirely unsuitable, as far as rebates in regard to sales to genuine tourists are concerned.

The present system requires in the first place, as far as South African manufactured goods are concerned, that the seller of the goods to the tourist must be a licensed dealer for sales duty purposes. It means in effect that he is either a jeweller who may be a licensed dealer or the manufacturer of the goods. If the goods in question are imported goods, the seller, in order to obtain the rebate, must be the importer of those goods. In the second place, the present system requires that a somewhat cumbersome procedure of filling out a bill of entry for export and having that bill of entry certified by a customs officer at the point of exit to the effect that the goods have actually been exported, must be complied with. I suggest that these conditions make the obtaining of rebates on sales to bona fide tourists virtually impossible. In the first place the traders who sell goods to tourists are in most cases not licensed dealers. They are retailers who have mostly purchased their supplies from manufacturers or wholesalers; they are not importers themselves. Even if they were licensed dealers, the system of having to complete bills of entry and having them certified by customs officers, is so cumbersome that it is not worth while these relatively small traders complying with those requirements. The result is that in virtually all cases the rebate that could be allowed on these sales, is not obtained, and the tourists are therefore required to pay the sales tax.

I suggest that this is a matter which requires careful consideration by the hon. the Minister and his department. Purchases by tourists do represent potentially considerable and very advantageous trade to the country and a source of foreign currency. Last year, as the hon. the Minister of Tourism will probably know, tourists spent R62 million in this country. This is a figure that is growing fast every year because the tourist industry is a growth industry. I would suggest that we need, under our present economic circumstances, to explore every possible avenue to increase our earnings of foreign currency. This is one of such avenues.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.