Mr. Speaker, I move—

As honourable members know it is customary to request the House for an advance in order to meet essential Government expenditure during the first months of the coming financial year, that is until such time as the Appropriation Act is passed.

The amount required totals R982 000 000, of which R730 000 000 is chargeable to the Revenue Account, R220 000 000 to the Loan Account, R14 000 000 to the Bantu Education Account and R18 00 000 to the South-West Africa Account.

Mr. Speaker, the amounts included for the Revenue and Loan Accounts considerably exceed the provision in last year’s Part Appropriation Act. There are, however, good reasons for these increases. The amount required to meet interest commitments during May, 1972, is, for instance, approximately R20 million higher than the amount actually paid out for the same purpose during May, 1971. This is due to the fact that interest on a new stock issue falls due on the 15th May, 1972. It is further expected that the Provincial, Postal and Railway Administrations will take up considerably more money in the early part of the financial year.

I feel it my duty therefore, to warn hon. members to take note of the fact that departmental expenditure does not follow the same pattern every year and that they should not take this increase as a guide to estimate the total requirements for 1972-73.

As hon. members know the money voted can only be spent on approved services.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been announced that I intend to deliver my Budget Speech on 29th March, and on that occasion I shall, as usual, give the House a comprehensive picture of our economic situation. I shall, therefore, not anticipate that speech this afternoon, but I think it will be appropriate nevertheless to deal here with some of the most important economic developments of the recent past. Some of them were discussed at some length in the no-confidence debate, but I believe that a further discussion, in the somewhat calmer atmosphere of the Part Appropriation, may be useful.

I have never contended that there are no unsatisfactory developments in the South African economy, but I have said, and I stand by this view, that these weaknesses are not so serious as is often alleged and are, in fact, relatively mild by international standards. The three least satisfactory aspects in recent months have been the continued inflationary pressure, the weaknesses in the balance of payments, and the slower growth of the economy, and I shall deal briefly with these in turn.

It is not necessary for me to repeat the figures of the rise in consumer prices in other countries, which show conclusively that, in comparison with many first-rank countries, South Africa has done well in restraining the increase in its cost of living. There has apparently been some misunderstanding of the figure of 4 per cent which I mentioned in a previous debate. What I said was that if the effect of the increases in indirect taxes and State-administered prices is excluded, then the increase in the retail price index in the year 1971, as compared with 1970, was about 4 per cent. As the Reserve Bank stated in its Annual Economic Report, “a rise in the consumer price index as a result of the direct actions of the Government to curb inflation should not be interpreted as an indication of a general rise in the price level or of the degree of inflation, but should be identified separately”. Referring to the increase in indirect taxes and Government-administered prices during the second quarter of 1971, the Governor of the Bank explained in his Annual Address that “these intermittent upward adjustments … do not relate only to the period in which such prices and rates are adjusted, but to the whole period over which they were kept constant while other prices and costs were moving upwards. Thus, if the estimated effects of sales duties and other indirect taxes as well as of increases in Government-administered prices and rates are eliminated from the consumer price index, the rate of increase of all other prices did not accelerate between 1969-70 and 1970-’71 and was approximately 4 per cent in both years”. Recent calculations by the Bank show that the increase between the calendar years 1970 and 1971 remained at approximately 4 per cent.

There has also been misunderstanding of a newspaper report of what I said would happen to prices after March this year. What I actually said was that, because of the accelerated increase in the consumer price index in the second quarter of 1971 due to increases in indirect taxes and State-administered prices, a comparison of the price indices for, say, January, 1971 and January, 1972, was likely to show a steeper rise than a comparison between, say, May, 1971, and May, 1972; in other words, the rate of increase, on a twelve-monthly basis, was likely to slow down after next March.

I come back to the general question of inflation. There is no doubt that the authorities had considerable success in 1971 in cooling down the over-heated economy and reducing the inflationary pressure. As the Reserve Bank put it in its December bulletin, “there were clear indications that the official monetary and fiscal policy of reducing excessive demand was slowly but surely achieving its objective. A slow-down in the rate of increase in the aggregate domestic demand for goods and services was accompanied by a discontinuation of the strong upsurge in imports. The pressure on labour and other factors of production was also reduced.”

The Government is not, however, complacent at its achievements in the fight against inflation. Apart from the effect of devaluation on prices, to which I shall refer later, the inflationary pressure has been reduced but not eliminated—no more than it has been eliminated in any other country. One of the factors in the continuation of inflationary pressure, as the Reserve Bank has stated and as I have never denied, is the increase in public sector spending— an increase which could not be financed entirely from non-inflationary sources. The Government could indeed have avoided the use of bank credit by raising interest rates on Government securities substantially, but this would have had serious social effects throughout the community. The Government is therefore giving serious attention to the question of public sector expenditure and is determined to reduce the rate of increase in such expenditure.

I turn now to the balance of payments. My colleagues and I have frequently referred to the causes of the deterioration in our balance of payments since 1968, and I shall not cover all the same ground again. Certainly one of the factors has been the rapid increase in imports associated with the increase in consumption expenditure. Even more important, however, has been the relative stagnation of our export trade, due largely to factors outside our control. Thus the index of the physical volume of our exports was actually lower in 1969 and 1970 than it was in 1968, due largely to unfavourable climate factors, whereas the physical volume of imports increased over the period 1968-’70 by 28 per cent. From the last quarter of 1970 a further adverse factor set in, namely a substantial fall in export prices associated with declining demand for several of our important export products, notably wool, diamonds, platinum, copper and several other minerals. Since import prices continued to rise during this period, we were faced with a dramatic fall in our terms of trade by no less than 17 per cent between September, 1970, and September, 1971.

Through resolute action to curb monetary demand and through some revival in exports during 1971, our current balance of payments showed some improvement during the first three quarters of last year. Then a further blow fell. The suspension of the formal convertibility of the dollar into gold last August precipitated a period of international currency uncertainty which, as has often been explained, led to a substantial decline in the inflow of foreign capital into South Africa and also to an appreciable loss of foreign exchange through leads and lags in the payments for our imports and exports respectively.

Since there was at that time no means of knowing when the international currency uncertainty would be removed, the Government decided last November to intensify import controls.

Some four weeks later came the announcement of the United States Administration’s intention to devalue the dollar and of the general realignment of a number of major currencies. For reasons which I have stated but which I shall again explain, the Government then decided to devalue the rand. Since it will clearly take some time for the full effect of devaluation to show itself in the balance of payments, however, it was also decided to maintain import controls for the time being.

I may mention that the intensified import restrictions were applied in full conformity with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which makes express provision for a situation such as that with which the Republic has been confronted. In further compliance with our obligations, the Government has been in consultation with the Contracting Parties to the GATT.

There still seems to be much misunderstanding of the meaning of devaluation. It is not an act of national insolvency, as has been suggested; we still continue to meet our international obligations, which are normally expressed in foreign currencies, as we have always done. Nor does it mean that the internal purchasing power of the rand is automatically reduced. Devaluation simply means a reduction in the value of the rand in terms of gold and foreign currencies; it is an adjustment which has to be made by nearly every country from time to time.

The Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund recognize that such adjustments may be necessary, but they lay down that devaluation is only permissible in certain situations. These are nowhere rigidly defined, but broadly speaking it can be said that devaluation is permissible in a situation where normal fiscal and monetary measures could only rectify the balance of payments deficit at the risk of causing an economic recession. This is exactly the situation which obtained in the Republic. As I have mentioned, we succeeded in 1971 in cooling down the economy and reducing the inflationary pressure, but, largely because of the depressed state of the foreign markets for some of our principal export products and the deterioration in our terms of trade, this did not lead to a sufficient improvement in our balance of payments. More severe monetary and fiscal measures to restrain the demand for imports would have exposed us to the risk of an economic recession, and in these circumstances devaluation is the accepted and classic measure to apply. I may mention that the International Monetary Fund had no hesitation in approving our devaluation.

Why was the rand devalued by 12,28 per cent i.e. by more than the dollar? Not because the rand was one of the weakest currencies in the world, as is sometimes alleged, but because the Government judged that a somewhat larger devaluation than the dollar would be in the best interests of South Africa. It will, in the first place, give adequate protection to our secondary industries—and here we must remember that the pound sterling and the French franc were devalued by 14,3 per cent and 11,1 per cent in 1967 and 1969 respectively, thus giving Britain and France a competitive advantage in our market. Secondly a greater stimulus to our export industries, some of which have been experiencing difficult times in foreign markets, seems justified, and in this connection we must bear in mind the possible consequences for some export industries of Britain’s accession to the European Economic Community. Allied to this is the desirability of giving an added stimulus to the gold mining industry, which for nearly twenty years after 1949 had to accept practically a fixed price for its product in terms of local currency—something with which few, if any, other major industries in the world have had to contend. Lastly, it is desirable to scotch any impression that the devaluation of the rand is insufficient or is only an interim step—an impression which, as the House will have observed, has gained some ground in the case of the United States dollar. If a currency has to be devalued, then it is desirable that the devaluation should be large enough to ensure that it is regarded as final.

Devaluation naturally tends to raise the price of imported goods in terms of rands. This is an inevitable and in some respects even a desirable tendency, since it increases the ability of local industry to compete with imported articles. In our case the price-raising effect is likely to be limited, at least for the immediate future, by the presence of large pre-devaluation stocks within the country, and also by the action of some foreign exporters in cutting prices in order to retain their markets. On the other hand, there will, unfortunately, always be some merchants who will seek to take advantage of the situation by raising prices to a quite unjustifiable extent, but the Government has already given evidence of its determination to act against such practices.

The stimulus given by devaluation to the export industries and to those industries which thereby gain some added protection against foreign competition, should give a welcome fillip to our whole economy. The greatest danger is that the advantage gained through devaluation will be dissipated in rising costs. It is therefore vital that we should maintain our measures against inflation while at the same time permitting healthy growth. It is above all important that we should not, through excessive increases in wages, salaries and other cost items, raise our cost structure to such an extent that the stimulus of devaluation is lost. I believe that organized labour in South Africa, which has always acted with great responsibility, will, in its own interest and in the national interest, exercise restraint and moderation in this respect.

What has been the effect of devaluation thus far on the South African balance of payments? Obviously the full effects will take some time to show themselves, but it is significant that, in the seven weeks since devaluation up to 4th February, the gold and foreign exchange reserves of the Reserve Bank rose by R49 million or an average of R7 million per week. This excludes the effect of the revaluation of the Bank’s gold and foreign exchange and also excludes the new allocation of Special Drawing Rights at the beginning of January. This gain of R7 million per week may be compared with a loss of R85 million in the seven weeks before devaluation—an average fall of R12 million per week. In other words, there has been an improvement of some R19 million per week on the average over the period.

Turning for a moment to the international scene, I should like to refer briefly to the price of gold. Honourable members will know that the price on the free market has risen appreciably in recent weeks. It should be remembered, of course, that the price is usually expressed in terms of dollars, and that the increase in terms of the revalued currencies is not nearly so great. To some extent the recent increase must be ascribed to speculation and to the continuing uncertainty regarding the dollar to which I have already referred. While the higher free market gold price is welcome to South Africa, my own feeling is that it would be in the long-term interest of the world and of South Africa if we were now to have a period of greater calm and stability in international finance. This does not affect my belief that the ultimate solution for the world’s currency problems lies in the restoration of dollar convertibility into gold, and that this can only be attained through a substantial rise in the official dollar price of gold. I believe strongly that this would be the best solution for the world and for America itself, but I shall not pursue this subject further here this afternoon.

The third unsatisfactory aspect of our economy to which I referred was the slower growth rate, and to a considerable extent my remarks on devaluation cover this aspect too. The slowing down in our rate of growth is due in the first instance to the general cooling down of our economy, and to that extent it provides a necessary breathing space for consolidation before we enter a new expansionary phase. Other contributory factors include the recession experienced in certain export industries and the apparent decline in productivity. In its annual report the Reserve Bank noted that, during the twelve-monthly period to June, 1971, employment in the non-agricultural sectors of the economy increased by approximately 5 per cent whereas the contributions of these sectors to the real gross domestic product rose by only about 4 per cent, which indicates a decline in production per worker.

Whatever the causes, there is no doubt that the stimulus provided by devaluation furnishes a golden opportunity for the resumption of rapid growth. It is for private enterprise to seize this chance, for South Africa is a private enterprise economy. The ability of our industry and commerce to adapt itself to the new circumstances, to recognize and to grasp the opportunity—in our rugby parlance, to “take the gap”— will be tested to the full. We shall need, as I have already mentioned, moderation and restraint on the part of organized labour, but we shall also need enterprise and marketing ability on the part of management, and organizing ability to promote greater productivity.

Certainly, the Government must also play its part. One of the matters which will require consideration is the appropriate monetary and credit policies which will permit healthy growth without exposing us to the risk of undue inflationary pressure. The authorities have recognized that the present credit ceiling on the monetary banks has unsatisfactory aspects, notably in its tendency to stimulate the so-called grey market. But for various reasons it has hitherto not been possible to change the basis of this anti-inflationary measure. The matter is, however, now receiving close attention, as also are several other matters relating to economic growth.

Devaluation presents us with a challenge. We need a combined national effort, a positive programme to meet this challenge and to reap the maximum benefit from devaluation. With co-operation between the Government and the private sector, I believe that a period of renewed expansion in our economy is within our grasp.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the public would have hoped today to hear from the hon. the Minister some positive proposals on how to deal with our economy in the light of the events of the past few months.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister did say that devaluation presents us with a challenge. We agree with this; we agree it fully. He also said that it was a golden opportunity for the resumption of rapid growth. We agree with that as well. However, there was no indication from the hon. the Minister in his entire speech of how these challenges were to be met.

Hear, hear!

You know, platitudes are sometimes very pleasant to listen to …

Do you not know there is a Budget coming?

What about last year? Then you were very keen to jump in.

There is a Budget coming on the 29th March; that is six weeks hence. It is already three months since we have had import control; it is already two months since we have had devaluation, and the hon. the Minister wants another six weeks to be able to come to the country with some positive suggestion of how to meet the challenges to which he referred this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister did say that the Government would play its part and was going into the question of the credit ceilings and the question of steps relating to the economic growth of the country. But after brief perusal of the speech I find they were in such general terms that we must admit it gives very little confidence to the man in the street. I would like to make a proper study of the hon. the Minister’s speech to be able to recommend to him the positive steps that we think should be taken and to spell them out for him. I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the documents which have already been tabled, hon. members will note that provision is being made for additional expenditure to the amount of R12 024 000 which must be defrayed from revenue funds during the financial year 1971-’72.

The revenue for the present financial year will be dealt with when the Main Estimates are submitted on 8th March, therefore I shall not say anything about that now.

The additional appropriation under Railways—Head No. 14, Interest on Capital, Net Revenue Account—amounts to R3 919 000. This increase is due mainly to the increase in interest rates on loan fund withdrawals and the conversion of stocks. In addition, loan funds were drawn from the Treasury earlier than originally anticipated.

In respect of Head No. 15—Interest on Superannuation and other Funds—an additional amount of R7 290 000 is required, mainly as a result of a decision taken last year to increase the previous guaranteed rate of interest of 4½ per cent on the balances of the Pension Funds to the average rate of interest earned from year to year on the Administration’s permanent investments with the Public Debt Commissioners.

Under Head no. 17—Miscellaneous Expenditure—additional provision is being made to the amount of R815 000, mainly as a result of losses suffered on the realization of investments.

Additional expenditure on capital and betterment works amounts to R19 909 700, but as a result of savings on existing provisions an amount of R15 840 200 can be financed from that source, while R4 million is required from the Betterment Fund. The balance of R69 500 is available as a result of the recovery of working capital provided for the construction and electrification of private sidings. No additional loan funds will therefore be required.

Under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways—an additional cash provision of R8 700 000 is required, mainly because the construction of the new railway line from Vryheid to a point on the line being constructed between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay has progressed more quickly than anticipated when the Railway Budget was introduced last year.

The additional provision under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—amounts to R6 320 500. This includes, inter alia, cash provision for a number of urgent works which have in the meantime been financed from Unforeseen Works Vote and for which specific provision now has to be made, while an additional cash provision to the amount of R728 800 is required in respect of provisional costs in connection with the proposed railway line for the exportation of coal through Richard’s Bay. In order to keep pace with the good progress being made with certain work, it is necessary to increase the cash provision for several items. Thus, for example, it will be necessary to increase the provision for the partial doubling of the railway line and the installation of centralized traffic control between Klerksdorp and Fourteen Streams by almost R900 000.

The earlier delivery of cartage service vehicles necessitates an amount of R1,4 million being voted.

In regard to Head No. 3—Rolling Stock —the additional provision of R2 469 000 is required mainly as a result of the earlier delivery of main-line wagons and tank wagons for the conveyance of treacle.

During the year the South African Airways took over the handling equipment at the airports and the cash provision of R463 000 being requested under Head No. 6—Airways—is intended mainly for this.

Under Head No. 7—-Pipelines—provision is being made for an additional amount of R350 000, R300 000 of which is required for the construction of a pipeline for the conveyance of aviation fuel from Sasolbure to Jan Smuts Airport; R50 000 is required for improved fire-fighting measures.

A further amount of R1,5 million is required under Head No. 8—Working Capital—in order to complete transactions entered into in terms of the Administration’s house ownership scheme.

By way of summary, the position is that an additional appropriation of R12 024 000 for expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds and R19 909 700 in respect of capital and betterment works is required.

Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is not one which lends itself to a detailed debate, being limited under the rules to the specific items which are dealt with in the two additional estimates.

The main increase is of course the same increase as that from which South Africa as a whole is suffering, namely higher interest rates. However, we welcome the expenditure on higher interest rates for the Superannuation and other funds. This is a matter which we have always felt strongly about. This is the railwayman’s money which is being used, and we have always felt that he should get the maximum possible interest on it, the same sort of interest which he would obtain if that money was freely invested in the public finance field. However, I do not want to deal with it in detail. I would have thought however that the hon. the Minister would perhaps use the opportunity to expand on the effect which the greater flexibility in the use of budgeted funds has had during the current year. As he knows, last year the Select Committee dealt with various measures to make it possible to achieve greater flexibility in the spending of money and savings. The hon. the Minister has not referred to that specifically. Perhaps he would care to do so and indicate to what extent the measures taken, the flexibility given to the Administration, has achieved the purpose for which it was designed. There are other matters which we will raise in the subsequent stages of the Bill. Therefore I will not take them further at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedule 1: Revenue Services:

Head No. 14.—“Interest on Capital— Railways”, R3 919 000:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us greater detail on what increases there have been in the rates of interest which are reflected in this almost R4 million that is being asked for?

It was originally 6½ per cent and was then increased to 8 per cent and then again to 8½ per cent.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and other Funds—Railways”, R7 290 000:

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what is in fact the average interest payable on the Superannuation Fund?

It used to be 4½ per cent, as the hon. member knows. Now it has been increased to the average rate of 5,757 per cent.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure-Railways”, R815 000:

Concerning Account No. 534, can the hon. the Minister tell us about the loss on the realization of investments of R795 600? Concerning an item further down, could the hon. the Minister tell us a little more about the loss of Mr. Bekker’s thoroughbred horse for which we had to pay R6 700?

The hon. member knows that there is a very large amount of capital invested in stocks carrying a low rate of interest, of 4½ per cent or 4¼ per cent. Today interests on stocks are, of course, considerably higher. It has been the practice for some years to sell some of the stocks carrying a low rate of interest, at a loss obviously. The money is being reinvested in stocks carrying a higher rate of interest. Over a period of three years the loss suffered because of the selling of stocks is usually recouped. In this particular case certain stocks with an interest rate of 4½ per cent or 4¼ per cent were sold. Some of the money was invested in stocks carrying a higher rate of interest and some of the money was utilized for capital expenditure. That is the reason for the total loss of R795 600 which occurs under this head.

What was the net gain?

This is actually a loss because a large amount of about R27 million was used for capital expenditure, a multi-investment.

I asked about the horse.

On the 16th April, 1971, Mr. Bekker of Aliwal North railed a thoroughbred horse in care of an attendant from Braamspruit siding to the annual auction of thoroughbred yearlings at Milner Park in Johannesburg. The following evening the horse was injured during shunting operations at Bloemfontein to such an extent that it died. This was entirely due to the negligence of the shunters. They flyshunted the truck with the horse without putting on the handbrake. The truck collided with another truck and the horse was injured to such an extent that it died. The Administration thought it only fair to compensate Mr. Bekker to the amount of R6 700 for the death of his horse.

Further arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply to the query concerning the loss of a thoroughbred horse, can he indicate whether trucks conveying such valuable animals are clearly marked? As this is a new item, I presume we will be allowed to discuss it in some greater detail. In view of the fact that the value of the horses that are transported by rail is such that the loss of one horse alone is estimated at R6 700, can the hon. the Minister tell us whether these trucks are suitably marked so as to warn against fly-shunting?

All the trucks containing livestock are marked with labels stipulating that livestock is being conveyed in those particular trucks. In addition there is a regulation that trucks containing livestock may not be fly-shunted. In spite of that regulation, this particular truck was flyshunted, the hand-brake was not put on when the truck was running down the hump, it collided with another truck and this horse was injured.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether disciplinary action has been taken against those shunters.

Yes, action is always taken against servants who are negligent. In this particular case it was taken.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services:

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Item 3 and want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the speeding-up of the work on the Vryheid-Empangeni line will make any difference to the total cost of that work. The total cost is already much more than the original estimated cost, and I therefore want to ask whether the speeding-up of the work will make any further difference.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the speeding-up of the work will make any difference. However, as the hon. member knows escalation clauses are included in all such big contracts. In other words, as labour costs and the cost of materials increase, the total amount eventually becomes so much more. As circumstances are today, the ultimate cost of constructing this railway line will probably be considerably more than has been provided for here. This is what I expect will probably happen. The sooner the work is completed, therefore, the better it will be for the Administration and the contractors.

That is precisely my question. I realize that the costs increase every year. What I should like to know, however, is whether the speeding-up of the work will make any difference to the increase of the cost thereof.

I cannot give the hon. member the exact amount, because it is a very large contract. Millions of rands are involved here and it will take a few more years to complete the contract. However, the sooner the work is completed, the less the ultimate cost will be, to the benefit of both the Administration and the contractor.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines Loan Funds, Betterment Fund, Capital Credits and Recoveries”, R6 320 500:

Mr. Chairman, with reference to item 39, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it was necessary to deviate the line over the Molopo River.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the deviation of the line was to reduce the gradient and to flatten the curves. These improvements are always taking place. The hon. member probably knows that when the gradient is reduced and curves are flattened trains can move so much faster over that section of line.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Airways”, R463 000:

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister can give us information in regard to the modifications to Boeing 707 aircraft. Were these modifications prescribed by the suppliers or are they being dons on our own initiative? Then item 124, “Equipment for handling of traffic”, is a new item and I would like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on it.

The modifications under items Nos. 122 and 123 are necessary for the safety and efficiency of Boeing 707 aircraft. Owing to the tight flight schedule, these aircraft have not always been readily available for modifications and the work was consequently not completed by March, 1971. Item 123 is to provide for escape slide illumination on the Boeing 707 aircraft. Because the aircraft were not readily available for modification work, it could not be completed by March 1971, but I can get the particulars of the modifications for the hon. member.

I just want to know if these were factory modifications.

No, they were done in the South African Airways workshop.

Requested by the Boeing factory?

No, they were not requested by the Boeing factory.

The hon. member also wanted to know something about item 124. It includes the passengers’ steps for the Boeing 747 aircraft, luggage vans and fork, lifts for the handling of traffic.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us something about the R8 650 000 under “Savings”.

To which item are you referring?

I am referring to Head No. 6 on page 30, namely “Less savings, R8 650 000”. That is the savings that came up in the summary as well. I just wanted to know whether it represents general overall savings, or did it perhaps apply in respect of any particular purchases of aircraft?

No, it represents general savings on the whole of the estimates provided for at the beginning of the year. There are numerous items and it totals up to this particular mount.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Pipelines”, R350 000:

Item 128, namely the pipeline that is going to be constructed from Sasolburg to Jan Smuts, is a new item. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether it is going to be confined to one petroleum company, or will the other petroleum companies in this country be allowed to use this line?

The purpose of this pipeline is to convey aviation fuel. It is being built from Natref, a new refinery at Sasolburg, to Jan Smuts. In other words, it will be used by Natref alone to supply aviation fuel to Jan Smuts Airport.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether this particular refinery is making a contribution towards the construction of this pipeline?

No, it is the sole responsibility of the Railways.

But it will be confined to the one refinery?

Yes.

The other oil companies will not be able to use the pipeline?

No. The problem is that the pipeline will have to be extended to the other refineries, and these are all in Durban. It will be a considerable expense to build a pipeline from Jan Smuts to Durban. The one at Sasolburg, close to Jan Smuts Airport, is the only refinery we have in the Transvaal. We cannot use the ordinary pipeline for aviation fuel, because the aviation fuel might be contaminated by the other products flowing through that pipeline, and to have contaminated aviation fuel supplied to aircraft, would be a very dangerous procedure. Because it is a short distance from Natref to Jan Smuts, this pipeline will be for the sole use of Natref conveying their aviation fuel to Jan Smuts.

Does that mean then that Natref has a monopoly on aviation fuel for all flights, internal and external in and out of Jan Smuts?

It is the position, yes.

The hon. the Minister confirms that that is the position. I want to ask him then what the comparative cost is in regard to the supply of aviation fuel. In the past there have been tenders. Different companies have tendered and it has been possible for the Administration to take the lowest tender. Natref have now obtained a monopoly. On what basis is there to be any check on prices and competition which previously were governed by private enterprise and the competitive availability of other fuel? In the past other companies have had the contracts. The contracts have been allocated on a tender basis and various suppliers have obtained these contracts. They must have got the aviation fuel there in the past. The hon. the Minister says that they cannot use the pipelines, but I understood that aviation fuel could be pumped through the pipelines. I should like to have some further information from the hon. the Minister in regard to these two aspects, viz. how aviation fuel was supplied in the past if it could not be pumped through the pipeline, and what the competitive situation is going to be now, in other words what control there will be over what the Administration pays for this, the most valuable monopoly in the whole of aviation in South Africa. This is after all the vast bulk of aviation fuel which is supplied.

Until the pipeline is built, aviation fuel will be transported by tank-wagon. Once the pipeline has been built, it will be transported by pipeline. You cannot possibly ask for tenders when there is no pipeline from Durban to Jan Smuts. It is considerably more expensive to transport aviation fuel by tank-wagons than by pipeline. One of the arguments of the Opposition is that the transportation of oil products by pipeline is so much cheaper than transportation by rail that I ought to reduce the charges. It is to the advantage of the Administration, the Railways and the Airways to have the aviation fuel transported by pipeline from Natref refinery at Sasolburg instead of by tank-wagon from Durban, from the other refineries. In regard to the cost, I can assure the hon. member that the Administration will not allow itself to be exploited by any companies. If a company starts exploiting the Administration by charging unduly high prices for aviation fuel, we shall be prepared to extend the pipeline to other refineries, to enable the other oil companies to compete. A very close watch will be kept on the prices charged because the Administration of course knows what the price of aviation fuel is. When tenders are called for there is a very slight difference in the prices quoted by the different oil companies, because most of them are fixed prices.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that one pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg, or to Kroonstad, wherever the link is, actually does pump refined products such as petrol, and I understand that it does in fact convey aviation fuel. I understand that that is the position at the present moment?

I shall read hon. members the Minute I received from the Management in this regard—

In other words, the oil companies objected. They say that the aviation fuel will be contaminated. The Minute continues—

I can therefore tell the hon. member that no aviation fuel is being pumped through the pipeline at the present time. It is being sent by tank-wagon and not through the pipeline. Petroleum products such as petrol and oil are pumped through the pipeline, but not aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is being transported by tank-wagon. Even the companies themselves object to aviation fuel being pumped through the pipeline, for fear of contamination.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a bit difficult to recommence a Committee Stage argument on a clause after having had a break of two or three days, so I am sure, Sir, you will bear with me, as the first speaker on this side, if I recapitulate a little bit of the arguments advanced when we last discussed this matter on Friday. I am sure that not only the hon. the Deputy Minister but other members will appreciate it if I bring this argument to the point that we had reached when the debate was adjourned on Friday.

Sir, at that stage various questions had been put to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he had given a reply which, I regret to say, was not wholly satisfactory to us on this side of the House. I want to raise with him again those particular aspects with which we were not satisfied. My hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, had asked the hon. the Deputy Minister about the provision which he had made in the amendment proposed by him to clause 2, namely to add a further subclause (4) and had asked him why provision was being made only for a reduction in the amount of the levy to be paid by an employer if an employee left his employ before the end of the month. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this had been requested by commerce and industry for ease of administration. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot accept that argument at all. I also wonder why the hon. the Deputy Minister has proposed such a cumbersome amendment as this proposed new subclause (4). Surely it would have been a simple matter to say that if a Bantu was not employed for the full month, the contribution would be on a pro rata basis, as he has provided for here in the Bill; that the contribution to be paid by the employer would be on the basis of the ratio that the number of days worked bears to 30.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point has asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to move such an amendment. I hope he has had time to think about this over the weekend, and I sincerely hope that he is going to tell this Committee just now that he accepts the principle, because surely this is the logical thing to do, firstly; it is the fairest thing to do, secondly, and, thirdly, from the point of view of ease of administration, not only for his department but also for the employers concerned, the easiest and the simplest thing to say is that if the Bantu is employed for X days, the ratio which X bears to 30 will be the amount of the levy or of this tax which is now being introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington was to add a proviso that the provisions of this Bill will not apply to housewives and farmers. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he cannot accept this amendment, but he has said that the Act will not apply to housewives and to farmers at this stage. Now, if this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention is, why is he asking for this power now and why will he not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington?

But…

Before the hon. the Deputy Minister says anything further, let me just remind him of what is contained in the Bantu Services Levy Act, where, in terms of section 2, the Act applies only to an urban area or to “every other urban area and every other area or portion of an area under the jurisdiction of a body contemplated by paragraph (vi) of section 85 of the South Africa Act”, which is an urban or a peri-urban area. There are no farmers in any of those areas. So at this stage it does not apply to farmers and therefore this becomes a new tax on farmers. The Deputy Minister says he does not intend to tax farmers, but he will not accept an amendment to the Bill to the effect that he may not tax those farmers, if he does wish to do so. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that he gives us his word that he does not want to tax them at this stage. Sir, I submit that when he does want to tax them he should then come to this House and take power to tax them, but he must not ask for it now and say that he might use it in the future. He says he is not going to use it, but he might want to use it in the future, so he is taking the power now. That is not the way that we should be asked to legislate in this House.

Exactly the same argument applies to the question of housewives. If I may refresh the memory of the hon. the Deputy Minister I must point out that section 3 (2) of the Bantu Services Levy Act reads: “No contribution shall be payable in respect of any domestic servant employed by a private householder …” Now the Deputy Minister says it is not his intention to tax that housewife “at this stage”. I do not know whether that is just talk for Brakpan or for the other various by-elections that are taking place, or whether it is his intention to apply this tax only after those byelections have taken place. But we on this side of the House feel that if it is not his intention to tax these people now, they should be specifically excluded, and when this Deputy Minister feels that the time has come when he must tax them—if that time arises—he can come back to this House and ask for an amendment and make out a case why he should tax them and why he needs the money.

The hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands, setting a ceiling of R1 on the tax which he can place on employers, said that if he accepted R1 there would be many places in the Republic which would operate at a loss. What does he mean by “operate at a loss”? I fail to see how he can say that they will “operate at a loss”, because there is no question of expenditure here. There is no question of expenditure which is fixed and which has to be paid out. This is a levy which was applied originally to employers of Bantu to provide amenities for those people, amenities commensurate with the amounts which would be collected by way of levies. Now the Deputy Minister talks about operating at a loss. How can they operate at a loss? We have heard of these tremendous surpluses which have been built up, and I must repeat again, built up through the actions of this hon. Deputy Minister’s department, who have not allowed the local authorities concerned to spend the money on amenities.

Just to make sure, what surpluses are you referring to now?

To the surpluses in the Bantu Services Levy Fund. As I say, there are these surpluses which have been built up, but they have been built up because of the actions of the department. I cannot see what the hon. the Deputy Minister means when he talks about operating at a loss. They cannot operate at a loss, unless of course the argument which we raised in this House last year against the Bantu Administration Act, whereby the Bantu Administration Boards were established, is correct. We said then that these Boards would cost more money, but it was of course denied by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us what he means by this “running at a loss”?

I now come to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I am glad to see that he is here with us. What he said was, firstly, that this is not a tax—this statement we reject completely—and then he said that not a jot or tittle is going to be added to the cost of the employer. How can he say that? In the light of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude towards housewives and farmers, how can he say not a jot or tittle is going to be added? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has said in regard to domestic servants. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give some thought to the problem which arises in densely populated, areas such as my constituency. With a large number of flat dwellers, there is an attempt to eliminate the need for domestic servants-in-residence; in other words, use is made of casual labourers or chars. An extraordinary situation arises in this regard if such a casual worker or “los arbeider” must be registered in terms of the present provisions of the law. I have before me one of the documents issued by the Bantu Affairs Department to such a char and I want to read to the hon. the Deputy Minister what is on this document. It says that the bearer is permitted to work as a casual labourer in the prescribed area of the Cape Peninsula. Certain particulars must be furnished, such as the names and addresses of the persons by whom she is employed and the dates upon which she worked. There is a schedule which the char must complete. Then there is an “N.B.” which reads as follows—

Then comes the point which I want to emphasize—

What is the position if eight good housewives, who support the Nationalist Party and believe in the Nationalist Party’s policy of reducing Bantu labour, decide that they will share a char between them? They each have the char for two hours per day for three days per week. The char works eight hours per day for six days a week. As the law now stands, the hon. the Minister will have to go to eight housewives to pay the levy in respect of the same char, the same Bantu employee, because she will be in the permanent employ of each of those housewives. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I do not expect him at this moment to be able to answer the question.

Here is the document before me and I myself took it up with the department and I asked them whether they were not keen that housewives should use non-resident domestic servants in places like Sea Point and Green Point which are densely populated. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I hope he will explain where I am wrong, because here is an official document. If each one of those persons employs a char and has her in her home on three days a week, be it for two hours per day each, it constitutes full-time employment. There will thus be eight employers of one employee. This is a matter which causes me to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to think again on the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Kensington, to exclude domestic servants entirely from this levy. This levy places an additional burden on housewives, it causes additional paper work for housewives, and heaven knows housewives have a tough enough time at the present time with cost-of-living and other problems without having this additional burden.

But they do pay it now, as they have done all along.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned last week, the hon. the Deputy Minister was unable to tell us the purpose for which the additional money which he required is to be used. When it was suggested to him that it was a form of indirect taxation, he and those who supported him, took the line that it actually replaced a levy which had been in existence for some time and that it was nothing new. He did continue to reiterate during the course of his address to the House on this subject, that he needed funds for administrative purposes. I wonder for what administrative purposes he wishes to use the money. When he painted a picture of the various amenities which he thought should be provided to assist labour conditions, he did paint us a picture of amenities which obviously required the expenditure of funds. However, he did not clearly indicate that the money which he intended to raise by virtue of what he calls the levy, and which we maintain is a form of indirect taxation, was to be used for purely administrative purposes or for any other purposes. If you have a look at the Bantu Revenue Account, which is going to be taken over by these boards, you will find an expenditure of approximately R10½ million for Johannesburg and that it will receive approximately R10½ million. Money is used for all sorts of purposes. It is used to pay salaries, for example for the administration. To take again Johannesburg as an example, you will find that approximately R3½ million is paid out for salaries. It then expends another R3½ million on various administrative matters such as advertising, bursraies, conferences, insurance, investigations, legal expenses, medical services, nursery schools, etc. Then it spends a further amount of money on maintaining the townships in which the Bantu find themselves, townships falling under the administration of this particular body. It also deals with the maintenance of buildings and then it receives a considerable amount of money to meet all these expenses, from the Bantu labour bureau fees, from Bantu registration fees, transport levies, cemetery fees, fines, licence fees, lodger permits, nursery school services, produce markets, rents, sundry revenue, etc. At the same time it also receives money from the beer profits whereby it can alleviate certain losses with regard to housing and also to provide certain recreation. Furthermore it receives certain moneys from some other account which I cannot pinpoint right now. However, it does receive certain contributions towards the various services. Hon. members can well imagine that this is a revenue account which envisages considerable expenditure of money which maintains enormous trading departments, such as beer sales. The other money they get in, which I could not pinpoint just now, was from the sales of liquor, the sales of general liquor other than the Bantu Beer which is sold through its breweries. It has enormous turnovers. It is a very big undertaking and it meets all the expenditure through the income which is received from various sources. Normally the rentals would pay for the maintenance of houses and the provision thereof, for the redemption and interest thereof, while shortages would be made up through the various trading departments with which the Bantu Revenue Account deals. When we look at the Bantu Administration Boards, we would probably envisage a little more expenditure because we know that as soon as the Government decides to create something fresh or when it decides to take something away from the normal administration of a town or city or out of the hands of private enterprise or when it forms a co-operative or decides to establish another board of some nature, it requires additional expenses for a new cocoon which has just been brought into being, and from which eventually something has to burst forth to see the light of day. So I envisage that there will be a certain amount of additional expenditure. Why the sum of the additional expenditure has to be R5½ million in the case of one municipality, which is most probably emblematical of other municipalities, we do not know. Surely that cannot all be required for administrative purposes. If it can be, if it will be, then surely the hon. the Deputy Minister must explain why he needs such a large sum of money for administrative purposes. If he requires it for other purposes in the townships, if he requires it to assist those small little entities that fall under the administration of the board, let him give us an example, because I cannot conceive, no matter how broad the activities of any particular Bantu administration board will be, that it will require the R23 million which the hon. the Deputy Minister envisages to obtain at the rate of R1,05 cents. He has already almost conceded that the figure will be R1,50 because he has now placed a fresh ceiling, the removal of which will require notice to the public. Therefore, at R1,50 he will obtain about R30 million. What is this money required for? The least this House is entitled to know is how he intends to dispose of that money. If it is merely for administration, let us know what new empire is being created in the country that requires a further R30 million from the pocket of the public. If, on the other hand, he is going to do something constructive and valuable, the House is surely entitled to know what the future entails in the work which the boards will carry out. The hon. member for Langlaagte, who should himself have given us a better explanation than he did, contented himself merely by saying: “A replaces B, therefore A is virtually equal to B and no one is affected at all.” I maintain that there is very much more in this matter than can merely be dismissed in this lighthearted manner in which the chairman of a very important committee of this House has done it. I call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister, who does endeavour to show some sense of co-operation in these important and vital matters, to enlighten the House as to how he intends to spend the money. At least let there be some cold comfort on the side of the taxpayer burdened as he is already to a greater extent than he should be, that his money may be put to a useful and valuable purpose and not to create another empire in the country which will add on to the numerous other boards and directors-general and deputy generals that are being appointed here, there and everywhere in order to multiply continuously the servants of the State and continuously draw this manpower out of the meagre manpower force that we have available in South Africa to try to build up the growth in this country for which the Minister of Finance pleads so very sincerely and abjectly at times. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us this story, he can bring this debate to a very much quicker end.

The Deputy Minister is an empire builder!

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned last week, two matters were before the hon. the Deputy Minister, matters on which we have not received satisfactory replies.

The first of these was the question of work for part of a month. Two categories of such employees are reduced to a proportionate tax or levy depending on how long they have worked, but the third category is not. The category of person who was in employment and dismissed during a month now has applied to him only a proportionate amount of the levy, or tax as we call it, according to the period he worked. A person employed after the first of the month and dismissed on or before the end of the month, equally, is levied only by the proportionate amount, but the person employed during the month who is not dismissed must pay the full amount for a full month, even if he worked for only one day. This is an unacceptable discrimination, and the only reply of the hon. the Minister was that it is for administrative convenience.

I have outlined exactly what the position will be; it carries on into the next month.

When he is dismissed in the middle of the month.

Of course. Then he pays only for those few days that he did work.

That is right, but he has already paid for the whole of the month in which he was engaged. So if he is engaged on the 29th of the month and he is dismissed on the 5th of the following month, he has worked for one week but he has paid for the whole of the month in which he was employed plus for five days of the month in which he was dismissed. Consequently he has paid for 1¼ months for one week’s work. In other words, he is penalized five times the ratio of work done simply because he is employed before the last day of the month. I have said that this will mitigate against the employment of a man if a week—in a factory where the staff is weekly paid— starts, for instance, on the 28th or 29th of the month. The factory is going to be inconvenienced because they do not want to pay one month’s levy, which can be from R1,50 to R2,50 eventually, for two days’ work. Consequently, the factory waits until the first of the month to employ the person, the person loses two days’ pay, and the factory loses two days’ production, unless they are prepared to pay a full month’s levy for the two days’ work. If the levy amounts to R1,50, as the hon. the Minister says, the Government is taking a 75 per cent levy per day on the man who works for two days, or a levy of R1,50 per day of work if the person is taken on on the last day of the month. In other words, the Government is taking R1,50 which may well be more than the man himself earns for his labour.

To put this on record, I wish to move as an amendment—

The effect of this is that the full levy will not be payable for a part-month. This is a much simpler provision than that of the hon. the Minister. This amendment says in seven or eight words all that the hon. the Minister said in a long paragraph of some 15 lines, which in any case is very difficult to read and understand and which, I suggest, was intended to be difficult to read and understand, in the hope that no one would notice it. Therefore I move that amendment.

I wish to move a further amendment, as indicated last week, namely to give effect to the assurance of the hon. the Minister that a housewife would not be required to pay more than the 20 cents she is paying now. The hon. the Minister said, “The housewife can trust us.” I am sorry, but one does not live on trust. I do not trust any “hope”, which was the word that was used by the hon. the Deputy Minister: he “hopes” that he will not have to do this; he “hopes” there will not have to be an increase. There is only one hope I have— I hope it will not be long before we do not have this sort of legislation and before we have another Government which will not impose these burdens. As long as we have a Government which keeps imposing more and more burdens on the people we will wherever possible protect the housewife who is already bent by the burden of meeting the cost of living. I want to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance. Therefore I move my other amendment namely—

That is what the Minister said. He said that housewives would not have to pay more than 20 cents. If he meant it, he must accept this amendment; if he does not accept this amendment, he did not mean it. It stands in Hansard, and I checked on it. He said that housewives would not be expected to pay more than the 20 cents which they are paying now.

Apart from the 20 cents she is paying now, she is also paying a labour bureau fee of 25 cents.

That is only a registration fee, which she pays the first time she employs a servant. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not need that 25 cents. It is only when a servant is employed the first time that the housewife has to pay that 25 cent registration fee.

That is right.

I would like to have the monthly fee limited to 20 cents, and I want to forget the 25 cents.

The two fees are combined in the Bill before the House.

Is the Minister now going to make housewives pay the 25 cents plus the 20 cents every month?

I never said that.

He does not say it but at the same time he says that the two fees are now going to be combined.

Of course, that is the purpose of this Bill.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister then accept the amendment that any contribution in respect of domestic servants shall not exceed 25 cents on registration and 20 cents per month thereafter?

I will consider it.

Mr. Chairman, the United Party is repeatedly making a political issue of this matter. We said this the other day, and I want to repeat it. The hon. the Deputy Minister said very clearly on a previous occasion that these fees, i.e. the registration fees, the labour bureau fees and the levies would now be consolidated into one contribution, and the hon. member for Durban Point is trying skilfully to make politics out of this matter. He does so with only one thought in mind, i.e. the elections that are in the offing. By those means he is trying to obtain votes for the United Party from the housewives. He did so, in the first place, with a view to the by-election at Brakpan on the 23rd, and in the second place with a view to the municipal election on the Witwatersrand, where the United Party is fighting on a political basis.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member may speak in a moment. He may then ask the question. I say that we must see this matter clearly. Nowhere in this draft legislation is mention made of greater levies to be imposed on the housewife than at the present moment.

That could be done.

As the Act stands today it could also be done.

How?

It could be amended and this Parliament decide that it could be done.

What did the Deputy Minister say?

Hon. members are now trying to put words in his mouth that he did not say. The other day the hon. the Deputy Minister said here that he could not forever give the undertaking that this levy would not be increased.

He can come and ask if he needs it.

He said that he could not do this forever; but for the present, at least, this levy will not be any higher. I just want hon. members to read the Hansard section dated 18th June, 1952; then they would see that today they are again dishing up the same old story they dished up at the time. When Dr. Verwoerd was Minister at the time he said very clearly that hon. members were only stirring up politics in connection with this matter. It is not realistic. It is not according to the provisions of this Act.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Jeppes. I regret that he is not present at the moment. The hon. member is endowed with the gift of a vocabulary that runs away with him and he uses a lot of words and phrases that have no content whatsoever. He spoke of all that Johannesburg must contribute to supplement this levy with additional contributions. However, I want to remind him that as a result of additional services and various projects the City Council undertakes in those areas, additional tax must be collected from the White taxpayer of Johannesburg to supplement that Bantu revenue account loss. I want the taxpayers, who have to conduct a municipal election in Johannesburg and on the Witwatersrand on 1st March, to take note that Johannesburg, under the United Party policy, is the only city council in South Africa in which the White taxpayer must pay out of his own pocket for Bantu administration in locations. This is the result of the rotten United Party which is at the helm there. We have experience of that, and the hon. member for Jeppes knows it as well as I do. We have flung it in his teeth on many occasions.

Adjoining Johannesburg lie the resettlement board areas. I challenge the hon. member for Jeppes to come here and show me where we do not furnish resettlement board areas similar services to those Johannesburg furnishes in its areas. We do so without asking one iota more of the White Johannesburg taxpayer. We do so from the revenue we obtain as a result of the levy. With that we administer those areas and still have an annual surplus on that account. But I need not only mention the Resettlement Board. I also want to mention other municipalities, for example that of Benoni. That municipality’s Bantu revenue account comes to a very favourable close every year with a surplus. The position is the same for Springs and Boksburg and all those areas.

How many inhabitants do they have?

What does it matter how many inhabitants they have? The per capita costs are carried there as they are in Johannesburg.

Tell us about Benoni.

I shall tell the hon. member everything about Benoni. I know much more about that than he does, but we are now dealing with quite a different subject. Today the United Party does not speak on behalf of the industrialist or the merchant. Neither does it speak on behalf of organized agriculture. Today the United Party speaks on its own behalf, as a political party, which is only interested in one thing and that is to try to make political capital out of this, with a view to the coming elections.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte has now told us of the municipal, Witwatersrand and other elections, such as the Brakpan election, and spoken very little about the clause under discussion. It seems to me he is nervous and afraid. He sees the spectre of Benoni in the elections that are going to take place.

This clause contains, as it were, two principles. Provision is being made for the determination of two amounts, one for the White employers of R2,50 per month and one for the Bantu worker of R1. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now moved an amendment in which he states that he will not increase an amount of R1,50 by more than 20 per cent unless he gives at least one year’s notice of that in the Gazette. Sir, that will not help at all, because he could increase that amount of R1,50 by 19,9 per cent without giving notice of it in the Gazette. If one regards that in the light of what the hon. member for Langlaagte said the other day, i.e. that “it is only a ceiling towards which we can move”, one realizes that moves of 19,9 per cent per annum could be made without notification in the Gazette. We consequently see a danger there.

Sir, here once again we have an ambiguous word-game by that side of the House. This ambiguous word-game always comes to the fore when they speak about race relations in South Africa. I have here the “Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal”. We are accused of playing politics if we call these amounts or levies or whatever a tax. But, Sir, the hon. member for Langlaagte himself used these words. He said it is not a tax; it is a levy. He and the hon. the Deputy Minister also used the word “fooi”. What does the Afrikaans dictionary say about that? Let us look first of all at the word “heffing”. According to the Afrikaans dictionary a “heffing” is “die handeling van belasting, boete, ens.”. That is what a “heffing” is according to the dictionary. What is stated in connection with the word “fooi”? According to hon. members opposite a “fooi” is paid by the housewife. This is what the dictionary states in this connection: “ ’n Fooi is ’n geskenkie in geld aan ’n bediende of ondergeskikte vir bewese ebenste of gedane moeite.” Then it states further: “ ’n Mens kan tog nie aan ’n mediese dokter of ’n prokureur ’n fooi betaal nie.” That is what the Afrikaans dictionary states. Now we come to the word “belasting”. The dictionary states: “ ’n Belasting is die verpligte betaling aan die Staat of ander Regeringsliggame om noodsaaklike idenste te verskaf.” What then is this amount other than a tax? It is a compulsory payment to the State for the purpose of supplying essential services. The entire debate is concerned with essential services. The Minister says he needs the money to furnish those services. Why does that side of the House not accept the fact that it is a tax? They must not use words such as “heffing” and “fooi”; they must accept the fact that it is a tax, and let the people of South Africa know as much. Let them know it even before this election which the hon. member for Langlaagte is so afraid of.

Sir, I merely wish to reply to the hon. member for Langlaagte, who suggests that the whole of this discussion has been prompted by municipal elections which are to take place within a few weeks’ time. Unfortunately the hon. member for Benoni, no, Langlaagte, lives in his own little world of municipal smalltime affairs. He talks about the Native Resettlement Board, but he does not tell us the whole history of the acquisition of land in Martindale and Sophiatown and of the tremendous assets of which the board has disposed and of the funds which have gone into its coffers; he does not tell you, Sir, that these funds have enabled them to run the so-called “model” township established by the Government. He does not tell you of the most important pioneering work done by the Johannesburg City Council in low-cost Bantu housing—pioneering work which received acclaim in Mauritius, which was rebuilt after the cyclone by Archibald, the housing engineer of Johannesburg, who rebuilt 5½ million houses, and who went up north in order to build houses in Tanzania (Tanganyika, as it was then known); he does not tell you, Sir, what the City of Johannesburg has done in the field of Native housing. He has the impertinence to come and compare the work done by the Johannesburg City Council with work done in his little small-time world. The hon. member referred to the deficit in the housing account of the Johannesburg City Council. I knew that he would come along with these unpleasant and unfair criticisms, because he has done it before. He tried to bolster up his hollow arguments with nebulous things, with unpleasant, unfair criticism. Let me tell the hon. member that the Estimates for the year 1971-’72 disclose a possible deficit of R1¼ million, which the ratepayers of Johannesburg are only too delighted to pay, because their objective is to provide important amenities in the field of health and recreation, which are important to the whole of the community, irrespective of colour. After all, health knows no barriers; disease knows no barriers, and the Council has to do what is necessary in the interests of the community. Previously, Sir, the deficits were low. In 1968 there was no deficit at all. Deficits only arose in the years 1968-’69, 1969-’70 and 1970-’71, the years which marked the decline of the Nationalist Party. In those years the deficits went sky high. Sir, I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention should be diverted from the important issue that we have placed before him. What does he intend to do with R23 million? That is all we want to know because it is quite clear from what his own colleagues have told us, that all the municipalities throughout the country are able to meet their budget. The very organized bodies which the board is going to take over, the very bodies for which the board is going to substitute its powers, are not running at a deficit at all. In other words, they do not need extra money. Does he need R23 million to make up the deficit in the Johannesburg account, where there are nearly 800 000 people to administer? If that is the reason, let him tell us. If on the other hand the R23 million is required for the public servants who are going to be engaged for the board, for the new personnel, then he must tell us. That is the issue; that is the simple issue. It does not matter whether there are municipal elections. We are not concerned with that; we are concerned with the interest of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are entitled to know why the money is being called for. But to come and tell us that it is a substitution for a levy is a lot of nonsense. This is a new tax and if the hon. the Deputy Minister wants it with the consent of the House he has to enlighten the House on what the money is to be used for, why he needs such a large sum of money, what he intends doing with it, what purpose is the board going to serve, what new avenues will it open, what new fields will it open in order to assist what he says was his objective.

We really had a display by the Opposition here this afternoon over a purely administrative matter, but one which is of real importance to the country. The Opposition tried to make the greatest measure of political gain one could possibly try to make from this measure. I do not think it is fair, and this in the Committee Stage of a measure! I just want to give one example. If we on this side also want to make political gain from this measure, here the hon. member for Durban Point rises to his feet and pokes fun in a manner we have seen and heard so many times from him here, to try to catch the votes of the housewives outside. How many times have we heard him discussing toilet-paper and toothpaste and commodities of that kind here, simply to try to catch the vote of the women outside. [Interjections.] He has also talked about hair-rollers and lavender. I cannot even remember all the things he has talked about here. Soap was another of the commodities he was always talking about. Now he comes here again this afternoon and wants to accuse this side of the House, as it were, of not looking after the interests of the housewife in regard to her Bantu domestic servant, and moves that amendment of his. Now I should just like to give members on that side an unequivocal reply, so that the housewives outside can also hear it. The reply is this: The United Party-controlled city councils, while we on this side are looking after the housewife and her interests, have a deficit on the Bantu Revenue Account, in the case of Johannesburg of more than R4 million, which is taken from the White Revenue Account, from the housewife’s pocket, to supplement the Bantu Revenue Account and in that way to deal with Bantu administration matters in Johannesburg. Surely that is not fair and for that reason I want to tell the hon. member at the very outset that although I, personally, and although the Government, and although we on this side of the House are extremely sympathetic towards the problems of the housewife, and also towards the problems of the domestic servant in the employ of the housewife, I have already said that the housewife will not pay any more, in so far as one can foresee in terms of this Bill, than what is being paid at present. I say to that hon. member now that I am not prepared to try to catch the housewives vote in a cheap way, and for that reason I find that that amendment of that hon. member, after having given it thorough consideration, is not acceptable to this side of the House.

Why not?

Because the housewives can take our word for it. [Interjections.] It is because the housewives can take our word for it that in respect of this Bill and in respect of their domestic servants they will not, for the present, pay more than they are paying now. That is fair and that is just. For me to write it into this Bill would only mean that I would be a party to the cheap politicking of that side of the House, and our housewives will not allow themselves to be caught so easily. As we know them, they have too much gumption for that. That is all I want to say in this connection. But I am now compelled to furnish hon. members with a rather detailed reply on another very important aspect which was raised here this afternoon and in the debate so far, because this matter has also been turned into a tremendous political issue, and we cannot keep the country in the dark about what the facts in regard to this question are. You will remember how that side of the Committee repeatedly alleged that there was an accumulated surplus of approximately R26 million—I can now inform them that when they are available the latest figures will be considerably more than R26 million—in respect of the service levy fees. They are creating the impression that there is a vast, accumulated surplus of, let us then say, R26 million and that this callous Government, in spite of that accumulated surplus, is determining a maximum amount or a ceiling of R2,50 in this Bill in respect of Bantu employees in the employ of White employers.

What are the facts in regard to this matter? I should like to refute in very simple language this statement which is either being made through great ignorance or simply in order to mislead the public. I shall do so under two headings, i.e. (1) how did these surpluses in the Bantu Levy Account, amounting to R26 million or more originate, and (2) the so-called covert acquisition and utilization of funds. I hope that the hon. member for Jeppes in particular, who asked many questions about this to which I now want to reply, will listen. First we must have a thorough understanding of what this so-called service levy is all about, and what it is being utilized for. The 1952 Act stipulates this very clearly. As hon. members opposite ought to know the utilization of these funds is extremely limited. They cannot be used for all kinds of services. They may be used to finance auxiliary services, or to build a road from the boundary of the White area to the boundary of the Bantu urban residential area, or to bring water from the boundary of the White town to the boundary of the Bantu urban area. They may also be utilized for the conveyance of electricity from one boundary to another and for the sewerage system from one boundary to another. That is why we have, in the course of these debates, spoken in general terms of “basic services”. Because the hon. gentlemen do not know any longer what basic services are …

No, we know what that means.

I say that that is why they are succeeding in misleading the country in the way they have been doing during the past few days in regard to this Bill. Within the Bantu urban residential area, for example, a bus road as well as storm-water pipes may be provided. What I have now mentioned is what may be done. These are therefore only basic services. Hon. members can go and consult the Act, and they will see that it is stipulated in this way there.

No, I have always said this; I never thought otherwise.

But what may not be done is, for example that you may not provide a library from those accumulated surpluses and one may not improve the water-supply system within Bantu urban residential area. You may not make electrical amenities available by means of those funds. You may not establish recreational facilities with that money. You may not improve the water-supply system of the Bantu urban residential areas, and you may not use those accumulated surpluses for maintenance. If the feeder roads or the bus road to the Bantu urban residential area falls into a state of disrepair, you may not finance the necessary repairs out of those funds. You may not build a clinic from those funds. You may not establish health facilities or make purchases in that regard by means of those funds. Nor may you finance Bantu education out of those funds. You may not finance housing out of those funds. In other words the purposes for which those accumulated funds may be applied are extremely limited. One therefore has these large accumulated surpluses, as in the case of Johannesburg where it amounts to R6 million, and in other places where the surpluses amount to a few million rand, in the Bantu urban residential areas where these basic services have already been made properly available. The total in the form of accumulated surpluses already amounts to more than R30 million. However, these accumulated surpluses may not be used for the purposes I have just mentioned.

Various attempts were made to free those accumulated funds and in that way alleviate the pressure on the general taxpayer, in other words, the pressure on the housewife mentioned by, inter alia, the hon. member for Durban Point. Strangely enough, it is in fact, as I have said, the large urban areas under United Party control which are always sitting with deficits in their Bantu Revenue Accounts and have to draw money from the White account in order to finance Bantu administration. And we on this side say it is not fair. Even in the case of Johannesburg they have to do this to an amount of millions of rands per year. The amount there is R4 million per annum. These housewives could give some thought to how much their husbands have to pay to the United Party city council of Johannesburg to balance the Bantu Revenue Account in Johannesburg, while there is no need for that.

Is that the figure you have officially received from the Johannesburg City Council?

Yes, it is more than R4 million.

I have the accounts of the City Council here. I can prove it.

Yes. Does the hon. member deny it?.

Yes, I deny it.

What is the amount according to the hon. member?

For the financial year ending June, 1971, it was R1¾ million.

Our information was that it was R4 million for the previous financial year. [Interjections.] Let it be R1¾ million now, or whatever amount you like, the fact remains that it was at least R4 million the previous year. That was the official figure, and the hon. member cannot deny that. The point I want to make is that instead of helping the Government to free these accumulated surpluses, they are opposing this step and they make up the deficit from the White Revenue Account and from the pockets of the White taxpayers. So they have watched these funds accumulating in the false hope that it would become a source of embarrassment to the Government. I want to tell them that it did not become a source of embarrassment to this Government, but that is becoming a source of embarrassment to the Opposition. It will become more and more of a source of embarrassment to them. They went and invested this accumulated surplus in a development fund and I would rather not say anything about what happens to the interest on that money. That they can ascertain for themselves, but I want to ask whether it is fair of them to invest this money, which was collected in the interests of the Bantu, in such a way that even the interest may be used for other purposes? I say it is not fair. I want to indicate how this surplus originated. My Department decided a long time ago that this service levy fund could be abolished. From what side did we then get the sharpest and the most vehement reaction? Last week I challenged the hon. member for Jeppes to tell us why these funds should not be freed. This was followed by a reaction on the part of commerce and industry, and even on the part of local authorities. It was alleged that if the levy in area A were abolished, their neighbours in areas B and C, adjoining area A, would be penalized because area A would then be paying higher wages and would attract the best labour. Hon. members know those arguments. In addition those in area A could afford to sell goods cheaper and therefore be in a more competitive position. It was even alleged that industries would prefer to go to area A because it would be more profitable for them. The representations were so strong that my Department abandoned the repeal of the provisions in individual areas because it was impossible. Consideration was then given to freeing the funds so that those funds, which are so-called surpluses in area A, could be utilized in area B and C so that the Act could be repealed sooner. Time and again, however, and hon. members know this, that Opposition reproached us and referred to the promise given by Dr. Verwoerd. Time and again they opposed this and conjured up spectres of how this Government would be able to utilize the money left, right and centre in the homelands, if those funds were freed. That is why I say that the people responsible for these accumulated funds, which are now in the region of approximately R30 million, are those sitting on the opposite side of the House. We have repeatedly advocated the freeing of those funds, but time and again they reproached us with the promise Dr. Verwoerd had given in this respect, and they did not therefore want to co-operate to free those funds. The fact of the matter is, and there is no doubt about this, that Dr. Verwoerd gave his word in that connection.

I can prove this to them from Hansard. But why are they so stubborn? Is it in the interests of South Africa that those vast accumulated funds should lie there, and that they should continue to oppose those funds being freed? Mr. Chairman, now you must excuse me: The infinite ambiguity of the Opposition has seldom been better exposed than it has been in regard to this matter, which they keep on opposing. Believe it or not, they come along in this debate and try to make the country believe that in spite of the fact that the Government has so much money in those accumulated funds, it still taxes the White employers to a maximum amount of R2,50. That, I say, is surely infinite ambiguity; it is absolute unfairness of the highest degree. It never occurred to the Opposition, or they refused to admit it, that there were still many services in the Bantu urban areas which had to be provided, and which would in future have to be provided. It is they who time and again reproach the Government so piously in regard to better facilities and conditions in the Bantu urban residential areas. Here we again have and example of their ambiguity. They level the reproach at the Government that there are not enough good amenities in the Bantu urban residential areas. But then they sit there in their sanctified piety and level accusations at us on this side of the House, while they are the people who cling to those accumulated surpluses of R30 million and more and refuse to free these to be utilized for effecting improvements in the Bantu urban residential areas. Did hon. members see how one speaker after another—and this afternoon again the hon. member for Jeppes— rose to their feet here during the past few days to ask us how these administration funds which are now going to be collected, are going to be spent? Why? It was done to create the impression on the general public that this Government is sitting with a vast sum of money and then wants to take more of the public’s money without indicating what it wants to use the money for. Now I want to tell hon. members quite simply and directly that the funds which are going to be collected in terms of this legislation now before the House, will very definitely not be added to the service levy funds. Hon. members must have no illusions about this. It will be a flexible fund which we will be able to utilize for various purposes, for example for a bursary for a Bantu scholar, for a library, for establishing a mobile labour bureau or for financing an aid centre. That is why I do not want to commit myself to giving any undertaking as to what this money will be utilized for. Hon. members must have no illusions whatsoever about this. I have no intention whatsoever of committing myself by giving one undertaking in regard to what these funds are going to be utilized for, except to say that it will be ensured to that no unnecessary surpluses are accumulated in the Bantu Revenue Account and that these funds will be utilized primarily for any purposes which will be in the interests of the sound administration of Bantu affairs in the White areas. Now hon. members opposite know what these funds will be used for.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

Before you ask the question, just give me a chance to finish my argument. Let me make it clear to them that I am no longer prepared to take any notice of an Opposition which is out of touch with the circumstances of the time, and serves no other purpose but to be a brake on progress and development in respect of the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas, and who then try in the most flagrant, ambiguous way, which is as false as you could not hope to read about in the Bible, to make the people outside believe those things that Opposition wants them to believe. I am sorry I have to speak so plainly about this in the Committee stage, but this were looking for trouble. As far as I am concerned, they can discuss this matter until the cows come home if they want to.

Until Japie resigns.

Yes, until Japie resigns. But that really seems to be very near at hand. They can keep on talking about this matter; I do not mind. But I can no longer remain seated here and watch them trying to do this kind of thing; I can no longer remain seated here and not react to what they are doing.

Because the United Party—as it has revealed itself in some of its city councils which utilize the White taxpayer’s money for the Bantu Revenue Account—themselves do this so covertly that it is often not discussed in public, the United Party are accusing us of doing the same thing. I want to tell them now that there are few laws which have received as much publicity as this Bill is receiving.

What about my eight housewives?

I am coming to that. To date, my Department and I have not received a single letter from White women in regard to this matter. Why not? Because they knew from the beginning, as I assured them again this afternoon, that they will not be expected to pay any more than they are paying at the moment, for we are looking after their interests. In other words, as far as the contents of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point are concerned, I am absolutely on his side.

Why is it not accepted then?

I shall tell the hon. member now. As far as the contents are concerned, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member, but I simply cannot write this into the legislation …

Why not?

For the simple reason that I would then be writing in a principle of discrimination into the Bill. On which grounds can one exempt one group of employers, even if these are the beautiful, attractive women of the Republic of South Africa, while none of the other employers in the Republic of South Africa are exempted? Surely that would be cheap! Surely it is too absurd to wander around loose in a responsible place such as this House! I do not see my way clear to doing that. That is why I say that I can give them the assurance that what they are asking for will be done, but we cannot write that discrimination into this legislation, because we do not think it would be fair.

What about my other amendment?

I shall come to that in a moment.

I just want to say one thing further about the levy fund. Hon. members on that side must have no illusions about this. We are now closing the old levy fund of 1952 with this Bill. After two decades that levy fund has served its purpose. In addition it is obsolete now, and is no longer suited to with the needs of the times. We have the courage of our convictions to create a new instrument now which will enable us to meet the needs of our times and our circumstances and also in this way to bring about progress and development in respect of Bantu administration in White areas as well.

A few questions were put to me, to which I should like to reply.

†The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of charwomen. The fact of the matter is that those European employers can form a club; if there are eight, seven, or whatever the case may be, employers employing one charwoman, they can for registration purposes select any one White employer who then pays the necessary fees in respect of that specific charwoman.

May I take that as official Government policy?

The point which the hon. member made was wrong.

That is why I shook my head. It is not necessary for all eight of the White women employing one charwoman to pay these fees. That is the point. I even object to the impression being created outside this House that, if there are eight White women employing one Bantu charwoman, all eight must pay the fees in respect of that one charwoman, because the point is that they need not all pay that fee. Only one of them need pay that fee.

*I do not want to charge the hon. member with anything, but I leave it to hon. members themselves to judge the fairness or unfairness of that matter. That is in any case my reply to his question.

†I think I have replied to the hon. member for Jeppes as to how these funds will be utilized.

Not satisfactorily.

The hon. member asked again how I am going to use R20 million. I explained to him in my reply during the Second Reading that, if the three levies which are now in operation are combined without any increase whatsoever in respect of the amount now being paid by employers, the amount accruing from the combined levy will be roughly R15 million. I have already said so. He can look at my Hansard. I also said that at the moment there is a R6 million shortfall on the various Bantu Revenue Accounts taken by the United Party city councils from the Consolidated Revenue Account. If you add this amount to the R15 million you get R21 million plus. This will be the case if there is no increase in payment in respect of any employer anywhere in the country. If there is no change in what they pay, this is what the revenue will be after the consolidation of these three fees. The United Party councils do not do it themselves, but we will step in and do it in order to save housewives from paying those extra taxes.

May I ask the Deputy Minister a question?

I would like to finish my argument first. We are therefore going to do everything in our power to see that in no instance will there be a shortfall in the Bantu Revenue Account. This will mean an amount of approximately R22 million even if there is no increase at all. Why does that hon. member then try to create the impression that this Government is now going to take taxes from the European taxpayers’ pockets in respect of their Bantu employees, which they will then use for purposes which he is trying to besmirch? That is not fair.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? What are you going to do with that R15 million? You have told us about the R6 million deficit which you will try to recover, but what about the R15 million?

But this is ridiculous. At the moment R15 million is being collected in the form of the three separate fees, i.e. the Bantu labour bureau fees, registration fees and the service levy fees. If no employer is expected to pay one cent more than he is paying at the moment, an amount of R15 million will be collected. This R15 million is being used for general administration purposes in various places throughout the Republic of South Africa. Or does the hon. member think that that money is being wasted?

You said yourself that you only needed R6 million; that there is a shortfall of only R6 million.

It seems to me that there is only one type of person who can deal with the Opposition, and that is an ex-schoolteacher. Unfortunately I suffer from the disability that I am not able to give lessons all that well. But I shall try to explain again. There is only one difference between the United Party and a gate. The difference is that one can open a gate, but not the minds of the United Party. I shall now try to open the mind of the hon. member. At present the revenue from these three separate fees is R15 million. This money is being utilized for general administration purposes in White areas. It is being spent, inter alia, on labour bureaux, aid centres, clinics and libraries.

At present, however, there are a few urban municipal areas such as Johannesburg for example which have a deficit of approximately R6 million. This R6 million had to be obtained by means of this revenue, but for other reasons, with which I do not want to accuse them now, it did not happen. They are taking that money from the pockets of the White housewives.

We say it is wrong. In our opinion that R6 million should also be taken from the Bantu, Revenue Account. That would just have covered the administration costs in Bantu areas. Does the hon. member understand it now? For the present, that will be the amount, i.e. approximately R22 million, up to a maximum of R23 million. We are doing this because we would not like to encourage inflation, and because we do not want the employers to have to pay more for their employees. That is my reply to the question of the hon. member.

Lastly I just want to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. He moved the deletion of the words “part of a month in” in line 20, clause 2 (2) (a) and to substitute the words “one-thirtieth thereof for every day on”. To prove that I am really trying to be very fair now, I can tell him that under the circumstances I accept the amendment. Because it is not such a terribly important matter from our point of view, I have suggested that we would like to try to facilitate the administration. I am therefore quite prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

†Subsection (2) (a) will therefore read—

Since his amendment is now acceptable to me, the amendment standing in my name in respect of clause (2) (4), falls away. I hope that is clear.

*It is a pleasure for me, now that I have taken them to task thoroughly and, I think, deservedly in regard to certain matters, to accept the hon. member’s amendment on this note.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister withdrawing his amendment now?

I am withdrawing the amendment in respect of clause (2) (a), as it appears in my name on the Order Paper, in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point in respect of clause 2 (2) (a).

Including the first part which relates to subsection (1)?

No, Sir, this must be very clear. All that I am withdrawing, is the part from “to insert the following new subsection …” up to “… bears to thirty”. Is that quite clear? In other words, I am withdrawing Only that amendment in my name which deals with the thirtieth part of the month.

Is the first section of the amendment not a consequential amendment to the other one? After all, it refers to subsection (4), which is now being deleted.

I see it refers to subsection (4), but what cannot be deleted, is the proviso “Provided that …” up to “… given at least one year’s notice … in the Gazette”. That must remain, because it deals with an entirely different matter.

No, I am referring now to the very first amendment, i.e. “In line 63, page 5, after ‘shall’ to insert ‘subject to the provisions of subsection (4)’; to add the following proviso at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (2)”.

That must also be deleted then.

First and third amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, on Friday, and again this afternoon, we have had what could best be described as a torrent of noisy words and irresponsible arguments from that hon. Deputy Minister. If ever we have seen a shabby example of somebody on that side of the House trying to play politics over something that is of grave importance, to the housewife particularly and also to the farmer, we have seen it this afternoon. I think he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. It is the sort of performance that we are more used to getting from the hon. the Minister, not from him. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether that hon. Deputy Minister was trying to baffle us with his verbosity, but he did tell us towards the end of his speech this afternoon that Dr. Verwoerd had indeed given a solemn undertaking that the original Bantu services levy would not be interfered with. He said Dr. Verwoerd gave his word on this, but he then made out a case that it was in the interests of South Africa that Dr. Verwoerd’s word should now be broken. I suggest that the very manner in which this Deputy Minister is setting out to break Dr. Verwoerd’s word shows that he is being more than irresponsible, and I trust he knows what I mean. In passing, he made a few quite remarkable claims. He suggested, for instance, that the Government, the Nationalist Party, is very unhappy about the way in which the United Party is governing Johannesburg …

And Natal.

I am glad to hear that that hon. gentleman agrees. I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sitting very silent, but he and the hon. member for Langlaagte made it quite clear that they are very unhappy about the United Party’s governing of Johannesburg. I want to ask them this: If they are so unhappy about it, why are they not doing something about trying to take over Johannesburg? They have 17 seats in the Johannesburg City Council at the moment. Why have they put up only 15 candidates? Why are they abdicating even before they start? So much, Sir, for that Deputy Minister’s criticism of the Johannesburg City Council; he is not prepared to do anything himself.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Let us look at what that Deputy Minister said about housewives. When the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking about housewives, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Germiston District making scathing remarks about the Housewives’ League. From our side, we shall do our very best to see that this is reported to the members of the Housewives’ League. That Deputy Minister had the effrontery to say: “We are looking after the interests of the housewife.”

We are; of course we are.

Sir, he said that on Friday; he had the effrontery to say that with the hon. member for Randburg sitting in the bench in front of him. If the hon. member for Randburg had fainted, he would have fallen right at the Deputy Minister’s feet. He says that the housewife and the farmer will not pay more in terms of this legislation for the present (“vir die huidige”). What exactly does that mean? We have had no indication from any speaker on that side of the House as to what “vir die huidige” means.

For the foreseeable future.

It means “net na Brakpan”.

I would suggest that it is meaningless and that the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it.

It means “N.B. (Na Brakpan)”.

That could well be so. Incidentally, Sir, I want to make mention of just one thing to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who regarded it as a joke on Friday that my amendment deals with farmers. He wanted to know what my interest was in farming. I want to tell him here and now that I will raise as many agricultural matters as I want to in this House, because agriculture is of vital interest to the townsman, and I am sorry to tell him further in reply to his point, that it is because hon. gentlemen on that side who represent farming areas and who laugh very loudly, as the Minister of Sport did, when we raise agricultural matters never take any interest in agriculture that we on this side all have to do it.

In the whole of this debate the hon. the Deputy Minister particularly has tended to try to draw red herrings over the basic argument, which in fact, I submit, revolves around my amendment, which is to exclude housewives and farmers from the application of this new tax. He has come along with a lot of nonsense; he says he wants differentiation; he does not want discrimination. He did not try to describe what he meant by differentiation or discrimination. As far as I can see, there is no difference in the application of a tax like this. He was again playing with words.

But different employers pay different fees; that is differentiation, and “no discrimination” means that all employers have to pay.

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not implement it in respect of housewives and farmers?

Because all employers have to pay.

Sir, I am sorry, I do not accept that argument at all. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to get up and speak, let him do so. Sir, what he has not done is to explain to us why he is not prepared to accept my amendment. After all, this is purely in terms of an undertaking which that hon. Deputy Minister gave to this Committee last week; he said that he was entitled to alter or to vary or to go back on Dr. Verwoerd’s undertaking, provided there had been consultation; and he came to us with the argument that he had had consultation. But the only consultation that he has had has been with industry, on his own admission; he agrees that he has had no consultation with organized agriculture, and he has had no consultation with housewives. It is all very well, Sir, for the hon. member for Langlaagte to come along and say, as he did in the debate on Friday morning, that mere publication in the Government Gazette was sufficient consultation with organized agriculture. I wonder if that hon. Deputy Minister would care to come with me to the South African Agricultural Union and ask them if that amounts to consultation.

Let me come back to this question of his refusal to exempt housewives and farmers. He tells us that for the present there will be no change in the actual amount of the tax paid; in other words, from his point of view there is no valid reason why the position should be altered in respect of the housewife and the farmer. Sir, I want some of the farmers here to listen carefully to this. At the moment there is no reason in his mind, why this tax should not be applied to housewives and farmers in a way that would make their position more burdensome than it is at present. I would suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument in this respect only reinforces the reason for my amendment. There is no reason, in his mind, why he should want to increase the tax on housewives and farmers. Well, I want to say to him: Why not leave it as it is? Let them carry on paying whatever they are paying in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act. Housewives, as we know, are exempted from the provisions of that Act in any case. Why not leave the position exactly as it is?

Sir, there are other points that we feel must be answered. The Deputy Minister says that this is purely an administrative measure. I ask him: “administrative” to do what? What he wants us to do in effect is to give him virtual carte blanche to move up taxes on the employment of Bantu labour up to a maximum of R2,50 at will, just in terms of his decision. In principle, of course, this is absolutely wrong. He has no right to try to by-pass this Parliament when it comes to imposing taxes of this nature.

It is not a tax.

We hear again that it is not a tax. What does this hon. gentleman thinks it is? Where has he been this afternoon?

Did he not hear the definition of “belasting” and “heffing” given by the hon. member for Albany? What nonsense! I am afraid that these hon. members are not even listening to our arguments. That hon. gentleman does not want to be bound to the application of this tax to housewives. I think that is a fair assumption to make. He wants to be able to impose it whenever he wants, whenever he likes. He wants to be able to push it up, perhaps by degrees and perhaps quite severely. But the other thing he does not want to be bound to, is any undertaking as to how it is to be spent. Here again I think we should join issue with him. We know that in terms of this Bill a Bantu Administration Board is able to divert moneys from urban areas where it is raised from employers. We know that in terms of this Bill it is able to donate these moneys to homeland authorities. [Time expired.]

I should like to say a few words about the hon. member for Kensington’s discourse on agriculture in the light of this respective Bill. The hon. member tried to sketch here how the farmers would see this Bill. I think it necessary for us just to explain today, in this House, how organized agriculture works in respect of such matters. I do not want to try to make politics out of this matter. Let me assure the hon. member of that. The South African Agricultural Union has its standing committees, and as acts are published, or anything else is published, they are referred for notification to those standing committees which then go into the matter, and if representations must be made, whatever the department to which this must be done, they are made by those committees. To come now and say that the hon. the Deputy Minister held no consultations whatever with organized agriculture, merely shows that the hon. member for Kensington does not know what this means. If organized agriculture had had any problem with regard to the Bill as published on 22nd December, I can assure you, Sir, that organized agriculture would have contacted the Minister. I can assure the hon. member that I know what I am speaking about. We ourselves have served on those committees—and we know exactly how things work, not like the hon. member for Kensington who worked on the Sunday Times and does not know how these aspects of organized agriculture work. I want to tell that hon. member today that there are two special committees in organized agriculture that work with Acts of this nature. These are the general council of the South African agricultural Union, and the general council of each provincial agricultural union. Each provincial agricultural union, just like the S.A. Agricultural Union, has its Bantu affairs committees which also deal, inter alia, with matters such as Bantu labour. I can assure the hon. member that as far as the farmers are concerned, the chairman of at least the Transvaal Bantu Affairs Committee, which has most certainly had this Act under review, is not a member of the National Party. I can also assure the hon. member that the chairman of the general council, not only of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, but also of the S.A. Agricultural Union, where this Act will receive specific attention, are not members of the National Party either. If the hon. member for Kensington now simply says that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not hold consultations, I want to tell him that he should preferably have a discussion with the hon. member for Newton Park so that the latter can give him some idea of how organized agriculture works. Then the hon. member would perhaps understand more about it. What it briefly amounts to is that this relevant provision as it stands very definitely came to the attention of organized agriculture. To try to say now that the farmer is specifically mentioned here as an employer, and to ask why the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to accept the hon. member for Kensington’s amendment that they specifically be excluded, is nonsense. Our people in the rural areas, our farmers in these areas, who make use of seasonal labour and recruit Bantu labourers in the homelands, are already paying this money. One is already paying R1 for each Bantu man or woman one recruits in the homelands to do one’s harvesting.

Do you want to pay more?

I do not want to speak to you now. I am speaking to the hon. member for Kensington. The point I want to bring home to those hon. members is that the farmers are already paying certain fees. They are paying R1 for the recruitment of those Bantu in the Bantu homelands. We are already paying this.

But not one of these levies.

Wait a minute, if the hon. member would give me a chance I would continue. Here it is merely being stated that a farmer is also an employer, just like the housewife is. It is registered in the Act that those people are also employers. For the hon. member for Albany’s information I say that according to the Afrikaans dictionary, “heffing” and “belasting” probably cover more or less the same concept, but the hon. member for Albany and all learned friends sitting there always have to look at the preamble to an Act in order to ascertain what a certain word determines in its context. The Bantu Services Levy Act is in no way repealed by this Bill. In other words, the provisions of that Act continue to function as they do at present. [Interjections.] Of course that is so. If the hon. member would consult the Act he would see that this is so. All that is happening is a consolidation, an administrative arrangement that these three amounts be included.

Hon. members are now trying to make out a case that we are engaged in in direct taxation. Hon. members know very well why they are using this argument. At the same time I want to tell the hon. member for Kensington, the interim shadow Minister of Agriculture …

More shadow than Minister!

… that in this Bill, where we have these matters as set out, we shall also have to think of the fact that in the future employers could be large farming companies, that other aspects of possible importance to us could crop up on the road ahead. It is therefore important for us to know even at this stage what is classified under “farming”. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District ought to know—after all, he made a tremendous fuss last year when the Egg Act came up for discussion.

The hon. member must also note that notwithstanding these dictionary quotations of the hon. member for Albany, there are many Acts and many bodies in our country which are statutory bodies today, functioning by way of levies. We have levies in all spheres. There are, for example, levies on slaughtering facilities in the case of those municipalities that do impose such a levy. Likewise there are also the levies of the Mealie Board, if I may again touch upon the subject of agriculture. Every statutory body has its levies that are imposed with a view to the administration of relevant matters.

Thinking in terms of the Bantu labour that must be made available, hon. members surely know that labour, like any other element, is one of the essentials of the overall development pattern; it is one of the elements on which the development pattern rests. There is surely nothing strange in the method the hon. the Minister is applying here in handling that administration just like the administration of any other matters where a statutory board functions by way of a levy. After all, we have that system by which levies are imposed, so that certain administrative functions can take place. There is surely no new principle contained in this entire matter. The hon. gentlemen have never in those cases said that it was taxation.

Let me delve further into this argument that it is a tax. If hon. gentlemen then say that these levies we are now requesting are a tax, the hon. member for Jeppes must tell us what that money is that the Johannesburg Municipality takes from the White taxpayer. Where do they get it? Is that not also taxation?

Yes, and we are not ashamed of paying it.

Oh, the hon. members are not ashamed of paying it, but neither are they ashamed of taking that money from the White taxpayers pocket and providing the services that must be provided under the Services Levy Act? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is a fantastic admission the hon. member is making … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member to speak, I want to point out that there has been a fair amount of repetition lately. Up till now I have been very lenient, but I now want to ask hon. members not to repeat themselves again.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we have heard from one hon. member on that side of the House that he claims to speak on behalf of the farmers. He gave us a long story about the representatives of the farmers in the South African Agricultural Union and the various committees which may have had a sight of this Bill. He gave us a long story saying that he was certain that these people were not supporters of the Nationalist Party. It is not at issue this afternoon whether they are members of the Nationalist Party or not; what is at issue is whether they have seen the Bill and whether they have indicated their approval of its provisions. That is what is at issue. That hon. member must not try to bluff the House that organized agriculture has given its approval to this Bill, because we on this side of the House know that agriculture has not …

You cannot even say that there has been consultation.

I want to go so far as to say that because this Government has not consulted organized agriculture, not 50 per cent of the farmers in this country know what is in this Bill. I am sure that not 50 per cent of the fanners know the implications of this Bill as far as they themselves are concerned. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that they have always paid this tax; the only tax they have paid up to now is 20 cents Registration Fee per month. What is the hon. the Deputy Minister doing in this clause? He is taking three taxes. Firstly there is the 25 cent initial registration fee which has to be paid to the labour bureau when you take a Bantu into your employ. Then there is a fee of 20 cents which is paid by certain people in certain areas and is also regarded as a labour bureau registration fee. In addition to that, another tax of 20 cents per week, as is being paid at the moment, is paid by certain employers. The Minister now wants to combine the three taxes into one. He wants to make everybody pay all three taxes and not just the one they have been paying before.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. Even if this point has been made over and over again, we must not have these inane arguments we have had from the hon. the Deputy Minister and from the hon. member for Christiana. They say that there has been a change. How can they argue that there has been a change? You, in your wisdom, Mr. Chairman, admit that this is exactly what is happening. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the amendments we have moved, we are only giving effect to what he has said and that is that these people will pay no more than they have paid in the past. However, that is not what is written in this clause. What is written in this clause is that those people who have paid only 20 cents per month can now be charged a maximum of R2,50. I accept that it is not going to be R2,50 immediately, but the Minister is creating an additional levy on those people. All the farmers have paid up to now is 20 cents per month.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Mr. Chairman, I must abide by your ruling.

Have you raised that argument before?

I do not know, but I must abide by the ruling. The hon. the Deputy Minister has at last conceded— I do not think that anybody has said this before—that he now has to go back on the undertaking given by the late Dr. Verwoerd. Did I understand him correctly?

I have always conceded that. Dr. Verwoerd gave an assurance …

Mr. Chairman, with respect …

It is in Hansard.

It is in Hansard that you have now conceded that you have to go back on Dr. Verwoerd’s word.

What word?

We have to get this clear. Is this what we are doing? Or is it not what we are doing?

Yes, he said it is.

He concedes now that he has been compelled by circumstances to go back on the word of Dr. Verwoerd. If this is the way in which this debate is going to be conducted, then there is no future in our carrying on any further, because under those circumstances it is impossible to carry on a reasonable debate or a reasoned debate. I think I shall resume my seat so that we can get clarity on this matter from the hon. the Deputy Minister before we go any further.

Mr. Chairman, in my belief, if the hon. the Deputy Minister had been franker with us from the start, this debate would have been much shorter. But I believe all the cards have not been put on the table. We had to drag them out one by one on to the table. I find this very unsatisfactory. The true position here is that this was presented as a consolidation measure of three imposts. I am not going to go into them, save to say that it is commonly agreed that the services levy, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his last speech, is now being closed. But the fact is that an equivalent amount is being retained and people will be taxed by an equivalent amount. This, therefore, represents a new amount of tax which the Government is taking from the people for the more general services. That was never made absolutely plain at the start. As I understood it now, the hon. the Deputy Minister concedes that he is virtually going back on Dr. Verwoerd’s undertaking, which was that once the services had been provided, there would be no need to enlarge them; (a lot of the demand for services was of a temporary nature), and that this levy would be taken off. It has now been dragged out that the actual sum of the tax is being retained and perpetuated.

The other smokescreen that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Langlaagte had been throwing up around this matter is of another kind. They made an attack on the city council of Johannesburg, and other what they call United Party councils, for spending a total amount of R6 million on amenities for the Bantu. They attempted to make political capital out of this and criticized these municipalities. They are now being completely won The Government is turning a complete somersault. The Government, having condemned these United Party city councils for providing these better amenities, now comes to this House to get a larger amount of tax from employers in order to supply the very amenities for which they previously criticized the United Party municipalities for providing. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they have completely gone back on their hard, rigorous supplying of amenities. They are now being completely won over to the United Party attitude that fair amenities should be supplied for these people. [Interjections.] This is what has happened. We welcome it again—that the Government has been brought round to see the sense of keeping all the citizens of your towns in a contented state. Where before we had it from hon. members opposite that the Johannesburg Municipality and these other municipalities were providing too many amenities, this measure and the speeches made on it are a clear concession by the Government that Johannesburg and the other United Party municipalities had been 100 per cent right, and in future the Government now want to take sufficient money from employers in order to be able to provide just those very amenities which are at present being provided from the Bantu Revenue Account of the municipalities mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what other municipalities there are, apart from Johannesburg, that show a deficit on their Bantu Revenue Account?

The Deputy Minister said there were four or five.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said there were several of them. He said that Johannesburg …

I am not asking what the Deputy Minister said. I am asking you a question.

But the hon. the Deputy Minister himself said that there were several.

But I am asking you now.

But he did not name the municipalities; he merely said there were several of them. He said that the Johannesburg municipality accounted for about R4 million and that the others accounted for R2 million. The hon. member should know that.

Let us get back to this matter. I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for the impatience of the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he had been franker with us when he initiated the debate on this Bill and on this clause, if he had put his cards on the table, and if he had come with greater humility and had said “Thank you” to the United Party for having shown them the way in regard to the sort of amenities that are proper for the urban Bantu, if he had had the decency to do that and other members had followed his line, we would have had a very amicable and useful debate. We have had to drag all this out from him. We have this improvement to this Bill, contributed by the hon. member for Durban Point, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize that it is his side of the House that has taken up the time in this debate.

If that hon. member, who has just sat down, expects me to show humility to the United Party on an issue such as this, I am afraid he will have to wait for a very long time. The hon. member, who is one of the leading speakers for the Opposition, has just advanced the argument that, had we put our cards on the table, this debate would have been shorter and so on and so forth. Then he made the point—an astounding point to my way of thinking—that it was never made clear to them that the Services levy account would come to an end once these fees were consolidated into one fee. Now, at the end of a long debate on this clause, the ignorance displayed by that hon. member, almost a front-bench member of the United Party, baffles me completely.

No, that is not what he said.

Oh, now that hon. member is trying to get him out of it. It is completely baffling to me.

I said you are retaining it in another guise.

The hon. member said that it was not made clear from the start that the Levy account would come to an end, as I stated, when I replied earlier on. I say that the ignorance of the hon. member is absolutely astounding. I will tell him why I find it astounding: One expects from a leading member of the Opposition that, when he debates as fervently as Opposition members have been doing on this particular Bill, he would at least know the contents of that Bill.

Of course we know that.

See how this hon. member is trying to save his friend! I want to read to hon. members on that side and specifically for the attention of the hon. member for Pinelands, clause 5 of this Bill. The hon. member for Transkei, who is laughing, knows very well what a faux pas the hon. leading member for the Opposition has just made. Clause 5 of the Bill, which is so clear that a child I could understand it, states—

*Surely it is crystal clear that it is written black on white in clause 5 of this Bill that the moment an employer pays such a consolidated fee, his payment in respect of the services levy account is terminated immediately. There were therefore no cards to put on the table in this respect. It is written in the Bill, but only the hon. member did not know it because apparently he has not read the Bill at all. Let me tell hon. members opposite again, because apparently they do not know it yet—except the hon. member for Transkei, who has studied the Bill—that the moment the single consolidated fee which will be published by the Minister by way of a Government Gazette notice, is paid, the services levy fee falls away.

We know that.

The hon. member must therefore not come with the argument that we did not put our cards on the table, because we, from the beginning, did not only put our cards on the table, but we put it in the Bill.

We conducted a long debate especially on clause 2 which is actually the crucial clause of this Bill. I think it is necessary for us to understand each other very well in connection with this crucial clause, and that we know where we are going. I just want to say a few words in connection with clause 2. I hope it will now be the end of the discussion on this clause, but if hon. members opposite want to continue discussing it, they are welcome. Three single fees that are payable at the moment are now being consolidated into one amount. In this Bill a maximum amount is mentioned and for this there are good reasons. For the present, however, it is not envisaged that any employer will need to pay that large amount. The Department will do everything in its power to see to it that employers will as far as possible not pay more than they have to pay at present by way of the three singly amounts. It is even possible that in some cases they may pay less. By doing so my department is maintaining its fine tradition, that is, not to come to this House every day to debate amounts in connection with Bantu fees. This debate once again underlined that we are justified in not doing so. It is in, the interests of the country not to do so. In 1923 their predecessors also determined an amount which was good enough for longer than I have lived. Today we are trying to do the same, and no employer, that is, farmer, industrialist or housewife, need in the least be afraid of, or run away from, this Bill. We will look after their interests. The maximum amount determined in this Bill is a ceiling amount which will be good for many years. It is for that very reason that we will see to it that employers will not pay the maximum amount, but that they will pay the absolute minimum in terms of the needs which may exist in a given area. We will do everything in our power to see that this measure is implemented in this way, and that as a result of this measure inflation will not be stimulated at all.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to certain points he has just made—and I hope the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration will listen—I would like to refer to his statement that he did not want to thank the United Party and that it would be a long time before he did so. I think I should set him an example. I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendment. He has started on the right road and he has seen a bit of light. I want to suggest to him that he should go a bit further, so that we can thank him again. That will be a record. If we can thank him twice on one clause he will have set an all-time record. I suggest that he follows the good example he has set with the amendment that he has already accepted, and accepts the other amendments as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that his only reason for not accepting our amendment in regard to farmers and housewives, or the one particularly in regard to domestic servants was that he did not want to discriminate and that he could not discriminate in this Bill.

Yes, because it is enforced on all employers.

Correct. But in the very next breath—in fact, he hardly took a breath—he said that he wanted to tell the housewives of Brakpan or wherever they may be, that they would not pay more than they were paying now. In other words, in one sentence he says “I am not going to discriminate, they must all be the same” and in the very next sentence he says “But I am going to discriminate against the other employers in favour of the housewife.”

I have already said that many other employers will also pay the same.

In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to have discrimination. He is prepared to differentiate and he has said that he will do so.

“Differentiate.”

All we are asking him to do now is to differentiate by putting one ceiling on general employers and another ceiling on domestic servant employers. It is then a differentiation and not a discrimination. He has one ceiling for general employers. He wants R2,50. We want R1. Now we ask him then not to discriminate, but to differentiate. I do not know what the difference is—I am sure that a dictionary might find a difference— but let us accept the word “differentiation”. All we ask is that he should differentiate so that, for a domestic servant, a registration fee of 25 cents and a monthly fee of 20 cents will be pegged. He has already said that was what he was going to do. Therefore he is prepared to accept the principle. Why then will he not accept the amendment? We cannot legislate on promises, hopes and expectations. We legislate by drawing up a Bill which becomes an Act; that is then what must happen. The hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted this principle. He has accepted the figures. He has accepted everything we have said. He has said he agrees with me 100 per cent. All we ask is that he now puts it into the Bill, so that he or his successor is bound.

This leads me to the point, the crux of the issue on which the hon. the Deputy Minister hangs his whole case against our amendments. He says he does not want to have to come to Parliament when he needs to change the levy. But this is a completely alien concept. Does he suggest then that the Minister of Finance should pass a law providing that he can tax South Africa as he likes so that he does not need to come back to Parliament? Must he be given the power to introduce a budget, provided it does not exceed, say, R5 000 million, so that he does not have to come to Parliament every year with a budget? That is the principle the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to introduce, a principle of a ceiling which leaves him free below that ceiling to do what he likes. In practice he will be completely free to do it. What chance do we have then to argue the matter? In practice there is no chance of arguing it, although in theory he is accountable. In theory these changes will be gazetted. In theory we will be able to raise these matters in the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that once this measure is through, his discretion becomes absolute. We are simply saying: “Let us put this ceiling at what is needed, not in the far distant future, not N.B. (‘na Brakpan’), but at what is needed now, and peg it there.” If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to come back and ask for more, he can come and tell us why more is necessary. He can then put his case and Parliament, being reasonable, will give him an extra amount. He has given us an assurance now in regard to domestic servants, but what I want to ask him pertinently is whether that assurance applies to farmers as well? He is opposed to our amendment which says “no tax, no levy on domestic servants or farmers”. I hope the farming representatives in this House will listen. I am asking whether he will give an assurance to the farming community that no farmer will be asked to pay more than he is paying now, in the same way as he has given an assurance regarding the domestic servants. If so, I can see no reason why he should not accept our amendments, one pegging the amount in respect of domestic servants and the other excluding the farmer. Sir, we are not impressed by all these words that we have heard from the hon. member for Langlaagte or by the mock anger of the hon. the Deputy Minister himself.

*This pontifical attitude of theirs—“Trust me; the people trust me; the housewife should trust me”—is of no avail whatsoever. We have here in front of us a Bill consisting of specific clauses, and here we are being asked to make it possible to impose a tax, one which is subject to a maximum, but one which the Minister may apply at his discretion below that ceiling.

†Sir, I do not want to drag out this debate, but I want to say that this is not playing politics. This is a simple, direct issue. We have responsibility. The Government says: “This is what we want.” We on this side want to write that into the law. Hon. members on that side are not prepared to back us. They are not interested in the welfare of ordinary people. They are becoming rubber-stamps for the Executive, and the Executive says: “Give me this power; I will use it as I like and people must simply trust me.” We are not rubber-stamps for that Cabinet, for that Minister, or for any Executive. We are Members of Parliament and we deal with a measure as it is worded. [Time expired.]

Sir, when that hon. member coos like a dove, as he has just been doing, then we all know that he has lost his case.

*I just want to reply very briefly to the one question put to me by the hon. member with regard to the farmers. He asked whether we could give the same assurance in respect of the farmers. I have already said that the position in respect of bona fide farmers will remain unchanged in the sense that for the present they will not have to pay.

For how long will that be?

I have said the same in respect of housewives. As far as industrialists are concerned, I have said they will have to pay a very reasonable and just levy according to the circumstances prevailing in the area concerned. This, in short, is the answer in respect of the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, I really rise in defence of the hon. member for Pinelands, who has had three turns and cannot defend himself. The hon. the Deputy Minister was most unfair, and I think he made a deliberate attack on the hon. member for Pinelands when he said that it was clear that the hon. member had not read the Bill because he had said that the levy was in fact being retained, whereas in fact the Bill makes provision for the levy to fall away once this new tax is imposed. The hon. member for Pinelands said that Dr. Verwoerd had made the promise that this levy would be abolished when it was no longer required, and he said that the Deputy Minister was maintaining this levy in a disguised form. That is what he said, and that is in fact what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing; he cannot deny it. That levy is going to remain. It is not going to be called a “levy” any more, but the levy is going to remain, and the Deputy Minister cannot deny it. It is going to remain in another guise, and I think it is most unfair on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister to try to score a small point at the expense of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Then, Sir, I want to refer to his attitude to the question of charwomen which was raised by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that housewives could form clubs and that the levy would then be paid only once for a charwoman. But, Sir, how can the housewives know who is paying the levy for the charwoman? The charwoman works for several housewives and she has to be registered. A notice sent out by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department says—

She has to be registered therefore—

If, therefore, a char works for two hours on three days for one person, she has to be registered because she is working for three days. Supposing she works for three different women for two hours a day for three days in the week and she then does that for the next three days for three other women, it means that each of those six women would have to pay this levy.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to that point; he misunderstood or tried to confuse the whole position. I ask him to tell us how housewives are going to know which one has to pay for the charwoman. He has not answered that question. I would like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has attacked the United Party, that it is because of the criticism that we have raised in this debate and in the Second Reading debate that this Bill has become more acceptable. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself has accepted certain suggestions. True, he gave credit to the Chamber of Industries for two of the amendments, but it is because of our attitude to this Bill that the Deputy Minister has altered the provision with regard to the number of days of employment in respect of which the levy must, be paid. He has also altered the provision with regard to the R2,50 and the way in which it is going to be applied, and I submit that it is because of our attitude on his side of the House that he has now given the housewives and the farmers this assurance. But I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban Point and ask him how he can say to us that it is immoral for him to discriminate in legislation and for that reason he cannot discriminate in favour of the housewives by legislation.

Sir, if it is immoral to do it by legislation, then it is just as immoral to do it by way of a promise, and our objection is that although it may be the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention to carry out that promise with regard to the housewives and the farmers, we do not know what his successor is going to do, or who his successor might be. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in fairness now to accept my explanation with regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, and I ask him also to reply to the hon. member for Green Point.

As regards the hon. member for Pinelands, I am quite prepared to accept the position as it has just been stated by the hon. member for Transkei, although I still think that the hon. member did make the mistake which I pointed out here. That is how I understood him, and at a later stage I shall have another look at his Hansard.

As regards the hon. member for Green Point, the position is as I have explained it to the hon. member. If a Bantu woman —a so-called charwoman or casual labourer as defined in the Act, is registered in terms of section 22 of the Labour Regulations, the position is that her employer need not pay one cent. I want to put this very clearly here. If she is registered as a casual labourer, in other words as a charwoman, in terms of section 22 of the Labour Regulations, her employer or employers do not pay one cent, but the charwoman, as the position is at present, pays 20 cents.

Yes.

Now the hon. member for Green Point agrees one hundred per cent. But the other position to which I referred some minutes ago, applies as well, i.e. that if such a charwoman wants to go and work for five or eight different persons she may be registered in their names; in that case she is not registered in terms of section 22; in that case she is registered in the names of those five or eight White women for whom she works. I just want to point out, in order to remove any misunderstanding, that this sort of situation is regulated by means of regulation. These regulations differ from area to area. I have been told that it is not the practice here in the Cape Peninsula for five or eight women to club together and for only one of them to pay, as it is not possible for them to do so. I have been told, however, that the position in the Pretoria-Johannesburg area is such that the regulations do make it possible for five or eight White women to club together. It is not expected of each of those five or eight women to pay in respect of their Bantu employee; only one need pay. This is my answer, and now the hon. member may put his question.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite right when it is a casual employee not working for more than one day a week for any particular individual …

In terms of section 22.

That is in terms of section 22. But if the employee works for A on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, then that employee, according to law, is no longer a casual worker; she becomes a full-time employee and must be registered as such. If that is so, then I take it each of the five employers will have to register as an employer of a full-time employee. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to take steps to ensure that this rule of registration will no longer apply and that we are not going to have five employers registering the same employee?

I have already explained that in the Transvaal the regulation provides that the five can club together and that only the one pays. I will undertake to take it up with my senior officials in the Western Cape and see whether we cannot change that specific regulation so as to regularize the position in the same way as we have it in the other parts of the country. I am prepared to give that undertaking to the hon. member.

Question put: That the words “two rand and fifty cents” in lines 19 and 20, page 7, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. J. O. N. Thompson dropped.

First amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. D. G. Oliver put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

This clause lays down to whom the contributions shall be paid. One of the objections this side of the House has had all along to many of the charges levied by this Government and particularly those which are levied on employers in respect of Bantu employees, has been that the funds which are collected as a result of these levies, are not utilized solely for the benefit of the Bantu in the areas where they are collected. We find that there are going to be three different authorities which will collect the funds or the contributions which we have just voted in terms of clause 2. The first of these is a Bantu Affairs Administration Board. In terms of the Bantu Administration Act which was passed last year, this board will administer the funds it collects, including the funds which it is going to collect in terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act. This board has the power in terms of section 13 (7) of that Act, to channel a portion of these funds to the homelands. Is that not correct? The hon. the Deputy Minister looks awfully surprised. In terms of the Act, the Bantu Affairs Administration Board may channel to the homelands certain funds approved by the hon. the Minister. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an assurance that that amount of money, which is collected in lieu of the Bantu services levy, which is now going to be done away with, will be retained for use in the urban areas, i.e. in those areas where it is collected?

The second body which will collect these contributions is the urban local authority which must, of course, place these to the credit of the Bantu Revenue Account and, specifically, to the special fund in that account, namely the Bantu Services Levy Fund. I know that I will not be allowed to deal with other subsequent clauses which we will discuss later in this Committee stage, but those funds, if other provisions made in this Bill are approved, may also be taken away and used in the homelands for purposes other than those for which that fund was specifically designed in 1952 when it was passed in this House.

The third body is the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The farmers who are now going to be taxed probably more than they have been taxed in the past, will have to pay their contributions to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner in whose area of jurisdiction such Bantu employees are employed. What is going to happen to that money? That money is going into a special fund which is going to be created and over which the Secretary of Bantu Administration and the Minister will have sole control. Once again we are establishing a new fund. Before the hon. the Deputy Minister tells me like he did tell the hon. member for Pinelands that I did not read the Bill, I want to tell him that I have read clause 4 and particularly subsection (3) which deals with this fund. It reads as follows: “Contributions received by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner shall be transferred to the Secretary and may be utilized by the Secretary for any service, expenditure or grant in respect of which the Minister certifies in writing that it is in the interests of Bantu”. As I said during the Second Reading, this money can be taken to buy a Jumbo Jet if the hon. the Minister thinks that it is in the interests of Bantu. Would it, however, truly be in the interests of Bantu? What we want from the hon. the Deputy Minister is an undertaking that the money which is going to be paid into this Fund and which forms part of this contribution as he now calls it, and which is to replace the Bantu Services Levy Fund, will be retained for the purposes for which the fund was created.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to deal with the third possibility mentioned by the hon. member, namely contributions received by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. As soon as a Bantu Administration Board has been established, the possibility of contributions being received by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner disappears. Thus this third possibility is only a temporary measure. As long as contributions are paid to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and are then paid over to the Secretary to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the position will be that the Secretary to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will utilize that money in the interests of the Administration in the area of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. That is the first point. Secondly, section 13 (7) of the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, 1971, provides very explicitly that the funds in the Bantu Levy Fund may be utilized in terms of the provisions of the Act concerned, i.e. in terms of the provisions of the Bantu Services Levy Act, 1952. Is that clear? I gave this assurance last year and can give it again today. In fact, I did so in my Second Reading speech.

Furthermore, I want to say a few words in regard to the money which is paid over to the Bantu Administration Board. The position in respect of this is very clear. In the first place, the administration funds will be utilized by the Bantu Administration Boards in the interests of the Bantu and Bantu Administration needs in those Bantu administration areas where the money is raised. This is the purpose for which these administration fees are being levied. This money provides for the needs of a specific administration area.

Lastly, if there are surpluses, i.e. when the needs of the local administration area have been provided for—this is a point we shall debate again when the hon. member for Jeppes moves his amendment on clause 9—these funds may be utilized as determined by the Minister in consultation with the interested parties. In other words, a position which has existed for 12 or 18 months or longer already, is merely being legalized now. Many local authorities ask of their own accord that those surplus funds should be utilized in the interests of Bantu working in their areas and whose families are settled in the homelands. This, then, will be the position, and I hope the hon. member is satisfied with my explanation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to my queries. There are two points that arise. He says that the provision in paragraph (c), namely that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner will collect the money and pay it into a revenue fund, is merely temporary until such time as the Bantu Administration Board is established. That is fine and I accept it, but the hon. the Deputy Minister implied that it is going to apply to the whole country. Is that correct? Is it his intention to establish Bantu Administration Boards which will cover every magisterial district in the country and every Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s district? I did not understand that it was the intention at the time when we discussed this Bill.

What did you say?

Is it the intention of the Government to establish Bantu Administration Boards which will cover the whole of the country, namely all the districts which are controlled at the moment by Bantu Affairs Commissioners or by magistrates? The hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head. I do not know if he means “yes, it is” or “yes, I understand the question”. Perhaps he will tell us; because this was not the impression which was given at the time when we debated this other Bill last year.

Now I want to deal with the second question that arises from his speech. I must say I was very glad to get this assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I did not think we were going to get it.

What assurance?

That the money which is now going to form part of this contribution, which replaces the old Bantu services levy contribution, is going to be kept in a separate fund and is only going to be used for the purposes for which provision was made in the 1952 Act.

You are making inferences which have never even been considered.

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister not say that the moneys were still going to be used for the same purposes designed in the 1952 Act?

Can I reply to you now?

Yes, please.

I refer to section 13 (7) of the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, which deals with only one fund, namely the Bantu Services Levy Fund in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act of 1952.

Now you are running away from the question.

I am not running away; you have not listened. Let us have it very clear. With regard to the Bantu Services Levy Fund by the Bantu Services Levy Act of 1952, the surpluses in that fund will be utilized in terms of the relevant Act of 1952. It has appeared in Hansard ever so often. I stated it last year during that particular debate. Now that hon. member is putting words into my mouth which I am not willing to accept at all, very important words which I have never said. We are dealing here with a completely different set-up now, namely three different levies, the labour bureau fee, the registration fee and the Bantu services levy, which are now going to be combined into one. I have said that the utilization of those moneys will, in the first place, be in the interests of Bantu affairs in the administrative area of the relevant Administration Board. Is that clear? If there are surpluses from these different fees, which are now being combined into one, then Clause 9 is very clear on that aspect: those surpluses can then be used anywhere for any purpose with the approval of the Minister, in collaboration with the specific administration board or the specific local council, as the case may be. Is that clear to hon. members? Sir, there must be no misunderstanding on this very important issue, and if that hon. member does not understand the position now that I have explained it once again, then he must please get up so that any misunderstanding can be cleared up here and now.

Tell us about the Bantu Administration Board before you sit down.

The position there is that we have a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Langlaagte, which is going through the country at the moment and trying, in co-operation with all the relevant representative bodies in the given areas, to establish administrative boards. How many administrative boards there are going to be, will depend on the reaction that this committee gets in the various centres. That is the attitude that we adopted during the debates here last year and that is still my attitude today. It is not possible to say at this stage whether you are going to have administrative areas and administrative boards covering the entire South Africa. It will depend on the co-operation of the different local authorities in the country whether that will be the position or not. I cannot therefore give any assurance on the question as to whether the entire South Africa will be covered by such administrative areas and administrative boards. I do not know at this stage what part of South Africa will be covered. All I can say is that the Van Vuuren Committee has been on this job for quite a while and that they have had nothing but wholehearted support and excellent co-operation in all parts of the country that they have visited hitherto, and we hope that that will be the position right to the very end.

Sir, I am glad that we are getting clarity on this matter, but at the same time I do believe that something is being hidden here. Let us just deal first with the question of Bantu boards, which is the one of lesser importance. It would appear that what could happen is that a fund, to be administered by the Secretary for Bantu Administration, could be built up out of the fees, not exceeding R2,50, to be paid by the farmers for their farm employees.

I have already said in the Second Reading debate that it will be a small amount.

Sir, this is what can happen; as Clause 2, which has been accepted, reads now, it is a possibility that a fund can come into being, a fund to be adminiistered by the Secretary for Bantu Administration, into which the farmers will pay for their farm labour a fee which may rise to R2,50 per employee. That is the position; I have stated it quite correctly.

Now let us come back to the question of the Bantu Administration Boards. I must concede that subsection 7 of Clause 13 clearly provides that the money which is contributed to the Bantu Services Levy Fund, which is going to be administered by the Bantu Administration Boards, must be administered in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act as long as it is a Bantu services levy, but we are now being asked to pass a Bill in terms of which the Deputy Minister will now substitute for that levy another levy, another tax, and he is not going to use it for those purposes, in spite of the statement which he made in this House last year when we raised this very question here on 10th March, 1971. Let me quote the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister (Hansard, Column 2425)—

I have said so.

He moved an amendment last year to retain the provisions of the Bantu Services Levy Act. We were opposing the provision which he had in that Bill that they did not have to use the funds in that way.

And I gave that assurance again this afternoon.

Wait a minute. He went further—

Now, what did he lay down? That the funds which were collected in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act shall be used for those purposes which are laid down in that Act. Now in terms of this Bill he is subverting that Act because he is substituting another tax for it, but he is not going to use the money which he collects from that tax for the purposes of that Act. That is what he is doing, and this is the whole point of what I have been saying, that he is subverting the intention of that Act, and all his assurances of last year are worth nothing. All the assurances that he gave, that the money which would be collected from the employers in respect of Bantu services would be used for the purposes of that Act, now mean nothing whatsoever.

In my opinion the hon. member is now really being a little obstreperous. Firstly I just want to reply to the question of the fees that have to be paid over to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner in the rural areas, and in respect of which this Bill provides that this should be transferred to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. If he looks at my Second Reading speech he will see that I stated there that it is a small amount involved and that this is a temporary set-up. Why does the hon. member now want to wrench the whole matter out of context by implying that what is happening here is now something of tremendous consequence?

This is an extremely trifling matter. If in the rural areas, where this Bantu Affairs Commissioner is involved, there were a way of not having to pay this to him, so that it will then not be paid to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development, we would have liked to adopt it. But since there is no way, until such time as there is an administration board, and because this does not fall under the local authority, we do not have a choice. And now I say again that it is an extremely trifling matter and the hon. member’s interpretation is an altogether wrong one.

Is my interpretation wrong?

Yes, it is altogether wrong, because I have said so many times in the House this afternoon, and also last week, that bona fide farmers will not be expected to pay this levy, let alone R2,50, at least for the present. [Interjection.] Therefore, on that point the hon. member is altogether wrong, as is his interpretation, and I hope he now understands this.

Then the hon. member comes along with a second point. He refers to an amendment passed in this House last year about the Bantu services levy, when the hon. member also had doubts about how that Bantu services levy would be used and spent by these administration boards. An amendment was then passed that is embodied in that clause 13 (7), i.e. that the Bantu services levies as well as any surpluses in the fund will be applied in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act of 1952. This afternoon I gave the hon. member for Jeppes a detailed reply about that. To put it briefly, that Act provides that it will only be employed for basic services. It is a whole complicated set-up because there are places such as Pretoria, for example, where service levies are utilized in the Bantu homeland, and those hon. members are always afraid that we shall use levies in the Bantu homelands, and they are always objecting to this. One has the same position in Durban and East London, where service levies are used in the homeland because basic services are involved, because it is in the interests of the employers’ employees in that specific area and because in those three areas the Bantu employees of those employers live in the Bantu homeland. Does the hon. member understand it now? That is, therefore, the position, and in section 13 (7) it was provided last year that those levies would be used without change in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act, 1952. We now have this Bill combining these three fees, one of which is the service levy, and in clause 5 the Bill expressly provides that when this new fee is introduced the 1952 Act’s service levy lapses. Then those fees are to be used as this Bill provides. Where a complete change comes in, I do not know, and as far as I am concerned the hon. member is also completely wrong on that point, because he wants to sow a lot of doubt about this matter, and that is absolutely unnecessary. Indeed, I have said that this new fee also includes the service levy. The levy will cease to exist the moment this new fee is introduced by way of regulation and notice in the Gazette, and then the position will be such that the funds from the new fee will, in the first place, be applied for Bantu administration in the Bantu administration area, and if there is no Bantu administration board yet, then in the area of the local authority, but in the interests of Bantu administration in that area, according to the area’s needs. What could be clearer than that?

Why is the hon. member then so full of dark motives, charging me with things which I regard as absolutely unnecessary and incorrect? Let us once and for all get it clear that there are two aspects here: The fees necessary for this are needed, in the first place, for Bantu administration in those areas; in other words, in White areas, and in the second place we say that if there are surpluses the Minister should have the power to use these as he thinks fit, but in co-operation with the authority involved, whether a local authority or an administration board. That is the position that has obtained for two years and it is not necessary to hunt for any dark motives there. I honestly take it slightly amiss the hon. member sees such dark motives at work in this matter. Surely it cannot be clearer than this.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In lines 29 and 30, to omit “other urban local authority has in the opinion of the Minister rendered any services in respect of Bantu” and to substitute “services in respect of Bantu employed in its area have in the opinion of the Minister been rendered by any other urban local authority”.

I just want to say that the reason why I proposed this amendment is that the representatives of bodies of employers asked me, after we had made that addition by way of clause 4 (2), to insert this amendment. This was quite acceptable to us, and I therefore move the relevant amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that where this tax is levied, the contributions in terms of the services levy and the others fall away. In terms of the existing law provision is made for those employers who house their own Bantu employees to be exempted from paying the services levy tax. I think that is the position, but the hon. the Deputy Minister can correct me if I am wrong. I should like to know from him whether he will still give those employers who fall in that category protection, probably under clause 2, where provision is made for exemptions. He did refer to the Minister of Transport, but I should like to know whether he will give that assurance to all other employers who are receiving that concession now, that they will be treated in the same way when the tax is applied.

Mr. Chairman, generally speaking the position is as the hon. member for Transkei has just put it. Generally speaking those employers who house their employees will be exempted. However, I do not want to give quite such a carte blanche assurance on this, because it is possible that in time in a given area there may be such other administrative needs that a small contribution from even those employers will be expected. Generally speaking the position is that they will be exempted, but I do not want to give a carte blanche assurance because it has happened in the past, in cases where such an assurance was given, that after a lapse of ten years a man was held to an assurance he had given. I can say, however, that generally speaking there will be this exemption where they house their own employees. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand that the hon. the Minister does not want to give a blanket assurance now. I would like to ask him, however, to give this House another assurance. He must give us the assurance that private employers will be treated in the same way as the Government. For example, if he gives the hon. the Minister of Transport the exemption, he must give us the assurance that he will give the same exemption to private employers. In other words, I would like an assurance that the private employers will not be at a disadvantage with the Government.

The only reason why I did not want to give the blanket assurance was that there could be other aspects which could have an effect on this, aspects such as services which do not have anything to do with housing itself. That is why I do not want to give that assurance and I think it would be wrong to give such an assurance despite the fact that the position will be generally speaking that they will be exempted, as I have airead said. With regard to the other question of the hon. member, namely, that I must give the assurance that all employers would be treated in the same way as the Railways, for example, I would say that it would be the case generally speaking.

It is immoral to discriminate.

However, I would be very careful and hesitant to give an assurance from the shoulder that from “persketyd to ewigheid”, for ever and ever, the position will be that all employers would get the same exemption as the Rallways. There are so many different categories of employers and so many different possibilities which have to be taken into account that I just cannot give that assurance. On the other hand, generally speaking, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the employers will be dealt with in the same way, as far as it is humanly possible, as the Rallways.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

With the deletion of those words section 19 (2) (c) of the Urban Areas Act would read:

With regard to the Native services levy, I would like to point out, and the hon. Minister can correct me if I am wrong, that a special committee existed for the allocation of the funds and the approval of the projects. It was a committee consisting of employers, the hon. Minister’s department and the municipalities. In view of the fact that the tax is being imposed on the employer we believe he should at least have some say with regard to the expenditure of these funds. That is why we have been busy pressing the hon. Deputy Minister all day to give us some indication of the manner in which the money will be used. We are doing that because one must not ignore seme of the remarks the hon. the Minister has made in his Second Reading speech. He did try to give an aura of benevolence to the whole project and we were very pleased to hear that, namely because of the many facilities that exist. I would also like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that at the moment most municipalities do provide a considerable number of the amenities that he deals with. This money comes out of the Bantu Revenue Fund and there are very few municipalities, as he says, who are in the red—and that has only been of recent days—continuing to maintain some of those amenities which have been commenced. Now, with the funds that will be available and at the disposal of the Bantu Revenue Fund, it obviously would be of great interest to those who are the contributors to the fund, the people on whom the entire burden falls to have some say in the matter. The hon. Minister knows the history of the Bantu Services Levy Fund and he knows that the employers were particularly concerned that the finance was expended in the urban areas where their labour came from and where the labour had to have the necessary amenities to make it reasonably stable.

In terms of the Bill the Minister has the power to be able to call upon a municipality to provide money from that fund to pay for the services which another municipality, another urban area, may render by virtue of the fact that an employee may work in one urban area and live or reside or receive certain services in another urban area. One can understand the reasonableness of that request. However, this blanket authority, where money can be spent on certification in writing by the Minister that it is in the interests of Bantu, irrespective of whether or not it relates to the area of an urban Bantu local authority, could envisage, as he says, donations to the homelands or other areas further afield. In giving those donations it would mean that any rights which the employer had of playing some part in directing the purpose and destiny of that money, are completely taken away. I am sure that although he has maintained that he is seeking to maintain happy relations between employers and his Department, the employers will be most unhappy if large sums of money are, as he says, “donated”, because it will then be in the power of a board of which none of us know the colour at the moment. None of us know what the politics of such a board will be. It may well be politically orientated by virtue of the combination of authorities from which it will draw its representation. The employer will be entirely baulked of the inherent right which he should have, because he represents a specific section of the community who is called upon to pay for the amenities of the employee whom he takes into employment.

This could quite naturally and quite logically lead to calling upon the employer to provide all the facilities if he wants labour. That would be a very severe imposition on the employer. The hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to go to some lengths in regard to the principle of restriction. We want to limit him even further, but we go along with the principle of the restriction, namely, not to increase the burden of the employer. To complete the picture, the employer should continue to play the same part as he has hitherto, because the principle was that as he provided the funds, he should have the right to express his approval or otherwise of the destiny of the funds. This clause is far too wide; I do not think it is fair of the hon. the Deputy Minister to call for it, because it puts virtually all the discretion in the hands of a board and himself. We do not know how the funds will be moved.

This is one of the main objections; this is why one of the persistent thoughts that has been prevalent throughout the whole discussion has been in connection with the detailed purpose for which the money will be used by the Minister. There is no question that this money will far exceed administrative requirements. I foretell that, and the Minister knows it. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt about that fact. It will far exceed it; there will be quite large surpluses. While surpluses should be used for the benefit of the people for whom the money is provided, those who pay should also know for what purpose it will be used. If it came from the entire community, if it came from the Consolidated Revenue Account of the country, then obviously it would be in the hands of the Minister. He holds that position and it is difficult to interfere with what the Minister is doing except to express one’s disapproval in Parliament. However, here it is not a case of money coming from the Consolidated Revenue Account; here it is a case of money coming from a specific source. A specific section of the community is singled out to bear this burden. Therefore I say that if they have to bear it they must at least have the opportunity of calling part of the tune. At least, that is the accepted practice in all democracies. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should observe and honour that outlook. He should honour that principle which was established at the time of the Native Services Levy Act.

I am awfully sorry, but I must say right at the outset that the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes is not acceptable to us on this side of the House. If it were acceptable to us, why would we have come with this amendment in any event? I have explained many times, and at length, that the reason for my amendment was, in the first instance, to regularize a position which has existed over the last two years, namely that many local councils have wanted to use, and in fact do use, those surpluses of approximately R2 million plus in the interests of their employees’ families in the Bantu homelands.

From the Native Services Levy Fund, from the Bantu Revenue Account?

Yes, also from the Native Services Levy Fund. I have stated that I have a request at present from the Johannesburg City Council that they want to use the Bantu Services Levy Fund —not Bantu beer profits, because they have given a donation of approximately R50 000 from the Bantu Beer Fund—for certain employees’ families in the Bantu homelands.

No strings attached?

No strings attached!

Sure?

Sure!

*Hon. members must be quite clear in their minds about this position so that we can proceed to deal with a very important matter in this House. I want to make a very serious statement here, and I hope the hon. member will listen to it. We in this country must realize that we have reached the stage where, from the viewpoint of the Bantu, those Bantu who live and work in the White area, it is quite rightly argued that it should, with justification, be possible for certain moneys his employer pays on his behalf to be utilized in the interests of his family in the homelands. Really, that hon. members opposite still cannot appreciate this after all these years, is absolutely beyond me! Although I do not want to make political capital out of it, it proves …

The Bantu themselves are asking for this.

Yes, the Bantu leaders and their legislative assemblies are one after the other asking for this to be done. The Opposition’s own local authorities have realized that, from a practical point of view, this is essential. Really, how hon. members opposite can survive and keep on arguing in an unreal vacuum such as this, is beyond me. I say this in all seriousness. I am not trying to make political capital out of the matter. I just want to quote the following example to point out the peculiar way in which hon. members opposite argue. Hon. members opposite are the people who are always raising a hue and cry about Bantu education, and so on. For example, if there were quite a brilliant Bantu student somewhere in the White areas, who could study at any of the Bantu universities in the Bantu homelands he would, in spite of the vast accumulated surplus in the Bantu Levy Fund, not be able to get one single cent from that surplus by way of bursary to go to the Bantu homelands. What an absurdity!

Why does he not ask the industrialists for permission?

I quite understand the position of the industrialists. If the Opposition would only stop championing their cause they would also be able to understand it better. Also from the point of view of the industrialist it is important that, in the interests of their own employees in Cape Town, Johannesburg, or wherever it may be, funds should be appropriated and utilized in the homelands where their families are.

Does the industrialist concede that?

There are an increasing number of industrialists who really concede that.

After all, they will serve on those boards.

Yes, they will of course serve on those boards. I want to explain to the hon. member for Transkei that industry and commerce will have very good representation on these administration boards. They will be able to participate in discussions on these matters. I now want to quote a second example of how untenable the standpoint of the hon. the Opposition is on this matter. There is a waiting list in almost every Bantu urban residential area in White areas, particularly in the large cities. Do hon. members opposite now want to tell me that they do not know this? If they do not know this, they simply have to ask the Bantu who get the short end of the stick, how long these waiting lists are.

What are the waiting lists there for?

For housing. One of the most important ways in which this housing position can be solved from the point of view of the Bantu employer and from the point of view of the White employer is that the economically non-active Bantu, who have houses in Soweto or in any other township and while there are endless waiting lists, should be provided with alternative housing in the homelands by local authorities at those places where the kin of those Bantu are living. If they receive the necessary housing there by means of the levies providing such services and by means of the other moneys providing in those needs, more houses will become available for economically active Bantu in urban residential areas. Let us take the Johannesburg City Council for example. If this City Council succeeds in providing such housing at Ga Rankuwa for the economically nonactive Bantu in the Johannesburg area, housing will again, to that extent, become available for the economically active Bantu in the Johannesburg municipal area. Surely it is in the interests of those White employers that the Johannesburg City Council should assist in erecting houses at Ga Rankuwa, Olifantshoek, or anywhere else in the homelands, where it affects its employers. Surely it is also in the interests of the Bantu that this should be done.

In the interests of the country.

Yes, I fail to understand why hon. members opposite cannot understand these basic facts.

†I want to plead with hon. members, in the interests of the country and in the interests of Bantu affairs, to read what I have just said and to ponder over it, because it is wrong, not only politically wrong, but basically wrong, to argue on these issues in the fashion that the United Party is arguing and all along trying to besmirch this side of the House …

Why?

Because they do not trust this side of the House as to how those moneys are going to be utilized in the Bantu homelands or wherever the case may be. I want to plead with them to think deeply about this situation, because it is in the interests of the Bantu and in the interests of the Bantu employers to do it in this fashion. For these reasons it is unfortunately not possible for me to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes.

Mr. Chairman, last year we discussed this principle at length in this House. The hon. the Deputy Minister then amended the law to suit his case. We were then told that it was to suit municipalities like Johannesburg and others that wished to use their surpluses out of their own areas. Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister not then amend the law last year as he intends doing now? Why does he have to come with something else every year? If it is so immoral of us to oppose a measure of this nature and so right for him to propose it, why did he not do it last year? What about the assurances he gave to employers and to this House last year? He is now going back on that assurance by this amendment.

The assurances I gave with regard to the Services Levy Act are still standing; you do not understand me.

The Deputy Minister in introducing the measure told us that the employer, the industrialist, had certain objections to this measure. They objected to their money being used for Bantu living outside the area in which they paid. That is why he has introduced an amendment today to provide that the money which is paid can be used in the interests of the Bantu whom they employ. He did that to satisfy the employers who objected.

Of course.

He says “of course”. Yes, I know. But now he is going past that with this clause, which entitles him to use the surpluses paid by these employers completely outside the area altogether in the reserves far away. If the employers objected to money being used in the urban area, because they are not getting any benefit from it, they surely are going to object to it being used in the reserves.

Now I am going to interrupt by saying that up to now the provision has been all along that that was only in the case of free, voluntary donations.

How will the donations be made? They will be made out of surpluses. Who is going to provide the surpluses? The employers are going to provide them. Now we know that there is a surplus of over R30 million in the Services Levy Fund according to what the Deputy Minister has said today.

Had it not been for your actions, it would not have been there.

Had it not been for the restrictions “imposed” by Dr. Verwoerd, there would not have been this surplus.

I challenge you again to prove that.

Dr. Verwoerd introduced that levy, and he imposed restrictions. We did not. He promised that if there was a surplus they would get rid of it; they would abolish the levy.

But you opposed every attempt by us …

We have never opposed any attempt to abolish the levy. When did we oppose it? This Deputy Minister and the Government sat there and watched the surplus growing year after year and not being utilized, and they did not abolish it. They allowed this money to accumulate unnecessarily. These employers had to pay into this fund. The amount has shot up to R30 million and they do not know what to do with the money. The Deputy Minister must not blame us for that. The fact is that, as far as the employers are concerned, they had no control. They will go on paying taxes and another surplus may result; the Deputy Minister is going to watch surpluses growing because he wants that money to be donated for use outside of the urban areas. He wants surpluses to grow so that he can use them in the reserves. That is our objection.

It is all very well saying that the employers will be represented on the boards. How is the employer going to be represented on the boards? The Minister chooses the representatives of the employers.

They submit their names.

They submit names, but the Minister himself choose from those names whom he wants.

I explained the position.

He can insist that they give him a list of people from whom he can choose. He will appoint all the other members of the board. The employers in fact are going to be in the minority on that board. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. Are the employers going to be in the majority on the board?

I said we could argue that point. In many cases there will be more employers on the board than anybody else, and you know it better than I do.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.