Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the final stage of this Bill dealing with the subsidy for Bantu transport services. We find the Bill before us now to be in exactly the same form as it was when it was introduced. We shall therefore oppose the Bill at this stage, as we opposed it at Second Reading and in Committee. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which have been used in the debate. I shall content myself by simply summarizing the attitude of this side of the House, which is that we accept the principle of a subsidy; we accept the need for an increase in the subsidy, but we place the blame squarely on the Government, on the deliberate economic policy of the Government, on the example set in its wage policy and its administration of wage machinery, for allowing the mass of Bantu workers of South Africa to live at a level where they are unable to afford basic necessities, such as transport. We agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior that the right way to deal with this problem would be to close the wage gap. We recognize, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior said, that this is an historic matter, a part of the industrial revolution. But by now, as a stable, industrial State, we should not be in a position where an emergency measure like this should be necessary. As the numbers of Bantu increase in our industry, as they have to live further from their places of work, so they become more dependent on public transport. We believe that the responsibility rests on the Government to meet whatever subsidy may be necessary out of Consolidated Revenue, to vote what is necessary openly in this House for the people of South Africa to see and for the conscience of the people of South Africa, the conscience of the nation, to understand why it is necessary to pay this subsidy.

The hon. the Deputy Minister accused us on this side of the House of two things. He accused us of being afraid to criticize the employer, of being afraid to press for wage increases. I want to say that not only is that untrue now, but it was untrue when the United Party was the Government and had to face exactly the same problem which this Government faces at the moment. The United Party has been consistent throughout, despite what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say. Secondly, Sir, the Deputy Minister accused the United Party Government of having, from 1944 onwards, placed a levy upon employers to subsidize transport. I want to quote the hon. the Deputy Minister, speaking in this House during the Second Reading of the Bill. He said—

That was to me—

I replied that I could not tell him. After other interjections the hon. the Deputy Minister continued—

Now I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Does he still stand by that accusation?

He does.

He nods his head, Sir. He stands by that accusation. The hon. the Deputy Minister went further and, in the Committee Stage, when we challenged him, as I challenge him again now, he quoted certain regulations. I quote the hon. the Deputy Minister (Hansard, 29/2, page E4)—

He then quoted three other Government Gazettes, and continued—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again: Does he claim that these regulations provided for a levy on employers to subsidize PUTCO, as he stated in the Second Reading?

Yes.

The hon. gentleman nods his head and says: “Yes”. I want to examine the facts. The hon. the Minister was not talking off the cuff; he was quoting from Government Gazettes. He was quoting official Gazettes. He now confirms that he has studied his authorities and that this is the evidence that the United Party subsidized PUTCO in 1946.

And he stands by it.

And he stands by it. He says that we subsidized PUTCO in 1946 …

You passed the regulations.

… and he quoted the regulations. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he read the regulations which he quoted, because I have here Government Notice No. 1914 published in Government Gazette No. 3414 of 10th November, 1944. This is the Government Notice which put into effect the proclamation to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. Sir, that was an empowering proclamation. This is the proclamation which put that into effect, and this is how it reads, the heading is: “Payment of employees’ increased travelling expenses”—

It then deals with where he resides and the question of habitual use of transport and it goes on to say—

What is wrong with that?

Sir, is that the proclamation of 1944 which applied a levy to Pretoria?

I will answer.

No, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not answer now. I will help him out of his trouble. He does not know, but it did not. This applied War Measure No. 89 to certain towns on the Reef. Sir, I now want to test the fact of this proclamation, which is a wage measure and which made an allowance payable as part of his wages to an employee, against the hon. the Deputy Minister’s allegation, made originally and confirmed in this debate, that the United Party was subsidizing PUTCO.

It was the same thing.

Sir, here we have a wage regulation dealing with the question of wages, and I say that it is untrue that the United Party subsidized PUTCO or any other transport organization, and I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to show how, under a measure where workers had to be paid by regulation an allowance on top of their wages, PUTCO could have got that money.

It is the same thing.

Sir, the money went to the workers. PUTCO received the full fare from every passenger that travelled on PUTCO, and not one cent was levied on an employer and paid over to PUTCO—-not one single cent. Sir, this was part of the wage structure of the United Party, with which I will deal in a moment. My point is that the first allegation of the hon. the Deputy Minister is totally untrue. The United Party did not subsidize PUTCO. There was no levy placed on employers to subsidize PUTCO, and in fact no money was taken from employers and paid over to PUTCO. What happened was that the United Party believed, as we believe now, that every worker in South Africa should be able to live at a decent standard of living and receive wages accordingly; therefore we had a basic wage. In addition, we had a cost-of-living allowance which, as the cost of living went up, was increased, and in addition we said that any worker who earned less than 41s. a week was, in our opinion, unable to pay economic transport rates. We did not then go to the employer and say to him: “We are going to place a tax on you; we are going to take money from you and give it to the bus companies”; we said to him: “You must pay a decent wage and put into the pay packet of the worker an additional allowance to bring his pay up to an economic level.” Sir, that is not a subsidy. That was a wage measure. The level which we then laid down was 41s. a week. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that it is reasonable to say that 41s. a week then was equivalent to R9 a week today; that is taking the rand of 1944-’47 as being worth 45 cents today. The hon. the Deputy Minister nods. He accepts that R9 would be a reasonable equivalent of 41s. That was the level at which we believed the worker could not afford to pay for transport. Sir, let us look at some current—not past—wage determinations. I have a wage determination, for instance, for local authorities, showing the following wages fixed by the Government Wage Board, not by the employers, on 3rd September last year: For an employee other than watchman: Female, R5,20; watchman, R7,50; male workers, R6,60 per week, in other words, R3 below what this proclamation laid down as the minimum at which a person could afford to pay for transport. Then I have wage determination No. 335 of 24th September last year. Sir, the wages fixed here vary from R3,80 for a female labourer—fixed by the Government Wage Board and rising to R9,10. Here the wages are fixed for a whole range of different occupations: R5,10, R5,35, etc. Then I have one here which should be of great interest to the Government today, and that is wage determination No. 326 of 28th April last year for the coffin-manufacturing industry. They ought to be interested in that, Sir. The wages are from R4,90, R7,50, R8, and the highest is R9,20 for a vehicle driver. Sir, of even greater interest to the Government is the undertakers’ wage determination No. 325 of last year.

Order! What has this to do with the Bill?

Sir, I have shown that the United Party Government in Proclamation No. 3414 laid down 41s. per week as the minimum wage at which a worker could afford to pay for transport; it laid down that any increase in transport costs for any worker earning less than that wage should be paid in the form of an allowance on his wages. Sir, today, 28 years later, we are now asking the employers to pay a levy to subsidize PUTCO because the wage rates fixed by this Government by wage determinations vary from a half to two-thirds of the amount which we in 1944 believed to be a minimum economic wage. After 28 years this Government fixes wages …

That is quite untrue, and you know it.

Sir, it is not untrue. Here are the wage determinations.

Order!

Sir, I withdraw the statement that he knows it is untrue.

Sir, I have quoted the wage determination numbers, the dates and the amounts.

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

Sir, I say that this proves that the duty should rest on the Government to see that the workers receive a living wage. They should not tax the employer in order to subsidize transport companies. That is the basis of our argument. So we have the situation where the hon. the Deputy Minister made two charges against this side of the house. One was that we were afraid to tackle the employers about wages. I have just shown how the United Party by proclamation forced the employers to contribute towards the cost, in the form of an additional allowance to workers, where the worker earned below 41s. a week. So we were not only willing to criticize but by law, by proclamation, we forced the employers to pay more. Secondly, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that we had subsidized PUTCO. I have proved that to be totally untrue. I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he stated, as I quoted here, and when he confirmed it this afternoon, and stated that this proclamation proved that we had paid a subsidy to PUTCO—that is what he said, that the United Party had paid a subsidy to PUTCO—he had either not read his regulations and therefore was misleading the House by quoting regulations which he had not read, or he had read them, which makes it far more serious. Or else he read them and did not understand them. And if that is the situation, then he has no right to be a Deputy Minister. He should resign or the hon. the Prime Minister should sack him. If a Deputy Minister cannot interpret a regulation and can make allegations in this House against this side of the House, allegations which are based on a complete untruth, then I do not believe he is qualified to hold the position which he holds in this House. We will vote against this measure.

I do not want to intervene in the dispute between the hon. member for Durban Point and the Deputy Minister of Transport. However, he tried to make out a case here to the effect that the wages determined in the time of the United Party were higher than the wages which are being determined today by the Wage Board. The fact of the matter is that wages in the Government sector have increased 72,8 per cent in a period of 10 years from 1960 to 1970. Now I ask you, how is it possible that these wages, as determined, or the wages which are being paid by employers, can be lower than the wages in 1948. But what happened, what the true facts of the matter are, is that the Wage Board lays down minimum wages and no employer is in any way prevented from paying wages higher than the minimum. If the hon. member is really in earnest about this, why does he not make a plea to or an appeal to the employers of South Africa to pay higher wages. What the hon. members’ allegation amounts to is that this legislation resulted from the fact that wages are too low. If that is true, i.e. that wages are too low, then it means that the employer is paying wages which are not economical. In other words, then it is also correct that this levy should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the employers, that they should pay it. Therefore this side of the House cannot accept that argument of the United Party.

The United Party adopted this standpoint in 1957 as well as in 1952. In 1965 the Marais Commission was appointed and representations supporting this standpoint of the United Party, i.e. that this levy should come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, were made to that commission. After the Marais Commission had considered this matter, that Commission found that this standpoint of the Government, i.e. that the employer is liable for this levy, was the correct standpoint. That is why this side of the House supports this principle, and will continue to support this principle, as long as it is necessary that it should be made possible for the Bantu to pay an economic transport tariff.

The Opposition also opposed this legislation because it was supposedly discriminatory. They maintain that it is discriminatory because certain employers are paying their employees wages which are too low, while others are not, and those employers who are paying their employees a living wage are therefore being penalized because other employers are not paying enough. In other words, the Opposition has the facts on what an economic wage for non-Whites is, the wage which ought to be paid by employers. In the first place, I want to ask them why they do not mention examples here of employers who are paying an economic wage. If they were to mention these examples, other employers who are not paying an economic wage could decide whether or not they are able to increase their wages. In 1957 these hon. members advocated the appointment of a commission of enquiry into the economic conditions of the Bantu in the urban areas, but here the hon. members are alleging that they have the facts on what an economic wage is. If they are in earnest about this, they could make an appeal to the employers in this country and mention examples of the wages which should be paid to their employees.

I get the impression that the Opposition wants to have it both ways with this legislation. On the one hand, they want to take the employers by the hand and protect the employers, and on the other hand they want to make out a very strong case, as I said in the Second Reading debate, for consumption by whomsoever it may concern, that the conditions of the Bantu in this country are critical. I want to state that they cannot succeed with any of these allegations because the Opposition did not prove one of these allegations in this debate. That is why this side of the House supports this legislation and we believe that this legislation is, in the first place, in the interests of the employee, but that it is also in the interests of the employer and, in that way, in the interests of the country as a whole.

The hon. member who has just sat down pursued the question of whether a reasonable wage was being paid or not and whether the Wage Board was doing its duty. I say that the attitude of this side of the House is that it is the Government’s duty to see that proper services are instituted and it is for them to see that the Bantu can afford to pay a fare which is demanded, and it is not for them to force any one section of the population to pay this amount. We object to this Bill because it amounts to a sectional tax. I should like to remind hon. members that in 1954, when the question of transport was discussed in this House, Mr. Sauer, who was then the Minister of Transport, said that housing and transport go together and that housing was the responsibility of the Government and as they go together it was the Government’s duty to supply the transport. Mr. Sauer then said that it was no good discussing a housing complex and giving these people houses if you cannot get the occupants to their work. I therefore say that it is the responsibility of this Government.

Throughout these debates hon. members on the Government side have tried to prove that there has been a change in the attitude of this side of the House, of the United Party, towards this question. I submit that we have proved beyond doubt that that is not so. It is no good referring us to 1957; they must go back to 1952 when this levy was first instituted and then it was made clear by United Party spokesmen that we were opposed to it. In fact, our leading speaker during that debate, Dr. Gluckman, said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to 1957 and asked what happened in 1957. I do not know how often we have to repeat the fact that we supported the 1957 Bill, which provided for an increase in the levy, because of the fact that there was a crisis and the present Minister of Transport introduced a punitive measure against the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. He said so quite clearly; it cannot be disputed. He went on to say that he was against subsidization and that he did not agree with this form of levy. I just want to remind hon. members again what he said—

That was because there was a crisis. Our spokesman at the time, the hon. member for Yeoville, made it quite clear that we were not in agreement with that form of taxation, but as a responsible Opposition, we were going to help the Government to tide us over that temporary crisis, but on the understanding that the hon. the Minister of Transport would find some other solution.

What has happened? We had the Second Reading debate, we had the Committee Stage and towards the end of the Committee Stage the hon. the Deputy Minister, like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of the hat, produced a 1942 proclamation by General Smuts. [Interjections.]

Order!

When he cross-questioned me across the floor of the House, I thought there was something wrong with it, because had there been anything to it, I was certain that that astute politician over there, the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is much more astute than the hon. the Deputy Minister, would have produced that long ago. He would have produced it in 1957 and he would have produced it in 1952.

But was that not 1944?

When the hon. the Deputy Minister was questioning me about 1944 and what our attitude was at that time, I put certain questions to him and I wanted to know who were the employers who were called upon to pay the levy; he said that there was a levy at the time. He then said that that was for the subsidization of the transport system in Pretoria in 1944. I went on to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who paid it in 1944. Did Iscor pay and did the Pretoria municipality or the provincial council pay? Those public bodies did it of their own accord. These three examples are all the hon. the Deputy Minister can produce. I asked him who paid the levy but he would not tell me. At the time I did not know the details and he brought it out as a flash of inspiration. I then asked him: „Was dit nie deel van sy lone nie?” And he said: „Dit was ’n spesiale heffing vir vervoerdienste.” He ran away from the suggestion that it may have been part of their wages. He was very proud of the fact that General Smuts himself had issued this proclamation. What did that proclamation say in 1944? It said that it was done to finance increased travelling expenses which had to be paid by the employers to their own staff and not as a levy to PUTCO or anybody else. It was to be paid to their own staff and to be added to their wages. The increased travelling expenses meant so much of the cost to the employee, to the man who is travelling. It was not a general levy. The proclamation said that increased travelling expenses meant so much of the cost to the employee of a return journey over the most direct route between the employee’s place of residence and his place of employment, by the form or forms of public transport service habitually used by him, as exceeded the cost of the same journey, by the same form of public transport service, on the 30th day of September, 1944. It was fixed from a particular date. If from that date the travelling costs went up, a certain amount had to be added to the wages of employees. The hon. the Minister will know, just as everybody else in the House will know, that a cost of living allowance was paid to employees at that time. It was during the war and although hon. members opposite did not regard the war as a crisis, it was a crisis, a crisis very efficiently handled by the United Party at the time. To pretend here that this notice by General Smuts in 1944 had the same effect as a general levy on all employers for the same amount, irrespective of the distance their employees had to travel and irrespective of the fact whether the employer is fetching the employee and bringing him to work as many employers have to do, especially in the hotel business, is wrong. The hon. the Deputy Minister has the audacity to pretend that this is the same kind of levy. Talking about this levy I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how General Smuts enforced an addition to the wage paid to each employee, the difference in his cost of transport …

I will give you the information.

What I want to know is how the Deputy Minister is going to subsidize these bus companies. One would have thought after listening to hon. members opposite, and especially the Deputy Minister, that this was the only solution to the problem and that it is only just and right that the employer should have to pay. If this is so, why was the principle adopted that the Railways would be subsidized by the Government for transporting non-Europeans? When the hon. the Minister of Transport increased that levy in 1957, he did not say that he was doing it because it was only right that employers should pay for the transport of their employees; that was not the reason he gave for it. He said, in fact, that he was against subsidization, but that he was only doing it because he had to find a way out of the crisis that was facing us at the time. I say it is quite wrong that the Government and hon. members opposite should expect the United Party to support a measure which their own Minister admits he does not agree with, or to ask us to accept a measure which the Minister said was going to be temporary 15 years ago. I submit that they have a cheek to ask us to do something like that. The only thing they can do is to find a solution to the problem. They have had long enough time and it is their duty to find a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I only want to deal with one matter, namely the allegation that has repeatedly been made by hon. members on that side that the Government determines the wages of Bantu in outside employment.

The Wage Board.

I said by way of interjection that it is quite untrue, and I repeat it now. They talk about the Government Wage Board. I do not know whether the hon. member knows that the Wage Act was originally passed by the United Party in the 1940s, many years ago. When I became Minister of Labour in 1948, there was a Wage Board existing at that time, the chairman of which was Dr. Botha, who is a Railway Commissioner today still. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever read the Wage Act. I doubt whether he has. If he had, he would not talk so much foolishness. He would not get rid of so many stupidities and make unfounded allegations which he cannot support at all if he had read the Act. I am going to read some of the provisions of the Wage Act for him. Then the hon. member will probably know better the next time. The Wage Board is appointed by the Government, but the Government does not give instructions to the Wage Board as to how it should determine wages. Does the hon. member not know that? It is a completely independent body. After due investigation, it makes a recommendation. That is what happens. No Government or Minister—I was Minister of Labour for 6½ years— and no United Party Minister ever instructed the Wage Board to make recommendations in regard to certain wages. It never happened.

May I ask a question?

Wait a minute. When I have finished with this, you can ask as many as you like. That is, if the hon. member will still have questions to ask. I should like to have his attention now. I want to read section 7 of the Wage Act. Section 7 deals with matters to be considered by the board before it makes a recommendation and reads as follows:

1. (a) any representations made to it in terms of section 9;

That means any interested body can make representations. The employees of that particular undertaking and the employers can make representations.

And the Government.

No, the Government does not make representations. Where does the hon. member get that from?

It could.

No, it does not do it, not in practice. It has never made representations, not even when the United Party was in power. It will be extremely foolish if a Minister instructs the Wage Board to make a recommendation and the Minister must then make representations. I cannot understand that the hon. member makes such foolish interjections. Section 7 reads—

1. (a) any representations made to it in terms of section 9;
2. (b) any report and reservation submitted to it in terms of subsection (2) of section 11, in relation to the trade concerned;

I will read those sections for the hon. member in a short while—

1. (c) any information made available to it in relation to the trade concerned, by the Board of Trade and Industries, the Industrial Tribunal established under the Industrial Conciliation Act, any department of State or any similar authority;

Paragraph (d) is the qualifying paragraph and reads as follows—

1. (d) the ability of employers in the trade concerned to carry on their business successfully should any recommendation proposed to be made by the board, be carried into effect, regard being had to distance from markets, cost of transport and any other relevant circumstances.

That means that when the Wage Board makes an investigation, it has to take this into consideration. It cannot recommend wages that will result in the insolvency or closing down of that business. That is why it was laid down in the original Act that the board must take into consideration the ability of the employers in the trade concerned to carry on their business. Then they also take into consideration—

1. (e) the cost of living in any area in which the trade concerned is being carried on;
2. (f) the value of any board, rations, lodging or other benefits supplied by employers to employees in the trade concerned or to the class or classes of employees concerned; and
3. (g) every other prescribed matter.

Those are the matters to be considered by the board.

Would you read the objective of the board?

These are the functions of the board. The board has functions and not objectives. You do not put objectives in a law; you put functions in the law.

What has it been appointed to do?

The function of the board is that they must make a recommendation in regard to wages. They receive the instruction from the Minister to investigate a certain undertaking, and after they have investigated it and complied with the requirements, they make a recommendation. That recommendation is submitted to the Minister and, if published, the recommendation has the force of law. That is how it works. It is quite elementary and the hon. member should learn that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes, you may ask a question.

I want to ask whether the purpose of the Wage Board is not to prevent the exploitation of labour by sub-economic wages.

No. The purpose of the Wage Board is to fix wages, minimum wages for employees in a particular industry. That is the function of the board.

What is the difference?

If the hon. members make their interjections one at a time, I can reply to them. What did the hon. member say?

What is the difference?

Surely the hon. member understands English. I say the function of the Wage Board is to make recommendations in regard to minimum wages for employees in a certain undertaking. It does not say whether those minimum wages must be high or low. It determines the minimum wages after taking into consideration all these matters I have read just now. That recommendation goes to the Minister, who publishes it and then it has the force of law. That is the purpose and the function of the Wage Board. It is quite elementary.

Can I ask the hon. the Minister another question?

You may.

Order! This is not a school. [Interjections.] Order! Is the hon. the Minister going to resume his seat? Then I shall put the question.

No, Mr. Speaker, I have not finished yet. The hon. member wanted to ask me a question.

No, I want to appeal to the Speaker.

Pardon?

I want to appeal to the Speaker.

For … ?

For a member to put a question if the Minister is prepared to answer it. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker …

The law is there for everybody to read. Hon. members must not waste the time of the House to be informed as to the provisions of the law.

With due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is parliamentary procedure. It is accepted procedure that …

Order! I know what parliamentary procedure is. The hon. the Minister must come back to the Bill.

If the hon. the Minister is prepared to answer the question, do you say that you will prevent the Minister from answering a question which has been asked by the hon. member?

Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat?

But, Sir, I am appealing to you to let the Minister answer the question if he is prepared to do it. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker; will you allow the Minister to answer the question?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I suggest that the hon. member ask me the question after the Bill has been through the House. Then I shall reply to it. I have to submit to the ruling of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have explained in very elementary terms to the hon. member what the functions of the Wage Board are, and how it works. I have explained how the board is appointed by the Government but also that it is a completely autonomous and independent board that makes the investigations. I hope that the hon. member will bear that in mind before he again makes such allegations as he made a short time ago.

Does the Minister of Labour approve of the sub-economic wages that have been recommended?

The Minister of Labour has no option. He can either accept the recommendation or reject it, and I think it will be silly to reject their recommendations because then there is no protection at all for the workers in that undertaking. Then there will be no wages determined. Then there is one other thing in regard to the Bill. I said in 19 …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Mr. Speaker just ruled that hon. members cannot ask questions.

It depends on whether the question is relevant.

After I have sat down the hon. member can see whether his question is relevant or not. When this Bill was originally before this House, I said that it was a temporary measure. I repeat that—whether it is 10 years or 15 years, or 20 years, it will remain a temporary measure until such time as the employers pay their Bantu workers sufficient wages so that they can pay economic rates of transport.

When did you say that part you added now for the first time?

I am saying it now.

You did not say that in 1957.

In 1957 I said it was a temporary measure and that the Bantu could not pay their bus fares because their wages were not sufficient. I have not read my speech again—good heavens, I cannot remember what precisely I said 13 to 14 years ago—but that is the general gist of what I said. I say today, even if I did not say it then, that it remains a temporary measure until such time as the Bantu receive sufficient wages so that they can pay their fares without subsidization. Now we are faced with the position that we as practical people must realize that the Bantu workers do not receive sufficient wages. They have to have transport. The bus companies cannot run that transport at a loss, and consequently they have to be subsidized. The Bantu workers are there in the employment of the employers and if the employers do not pay them higher wages, apart from the minimum laid down by the Wage Board, they have to be subsidized and therefore we place this levy on them.

What about those who make use of the Railways?

But the Railways are subsidized. If the hon. member looks at the Additional Estimates this year, he will see that the treasury is subsidizing Bantu travelling by train to the amount of R18 million.

What about the employers who pay a living wage?

Don’t shout across to me. Stand up and ask the question, if you want to ask a question.

What about the employers who do pay a living wage?

Well, you cannot single out certain employers. There are certain employers who do pay good wages. I agree with that. I said the other day that there were many employers who pay higher wages than the minimum laid down according to either the wage determination or the industrial agreement. That is so; but you cannot exclude certain employers. You have to make it a blanket. All the employers have to pay.

That is what is so unfair.

No, it is not unfair.

Of course it is.

No. Then 300 taxpayers in this country will pay income tax for the benefit of the whole of the country. Is that unfair?

They comply with your condition and you still tax them?

Yes, of course. They have to pay for the benefits they receive. I see nothing wrong with this. I think, as I have said in 1957, it is absolutely essential that these bus companies should be subsidized to be able to transport these Bantu workers from their places of employment to their homes and vice versa.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the Department of Bantu Administration and Development not appear before the Wage Board in the interest of the Bantu?

The hon. member will remember that I introduced what is called the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Bill when I was Minister of Labour. I made provision there for a Bantu labour board and regional committees. The organization is there and they have to look after the interests of Native workers. They not only make representations to the Wage Board, but they are also present when an industrial agreement is being negotiated by the employers and employees. That Act has functioned excellently for over 18 years, since I introduced it. I think it was in 1954. So that is the body which protects the interests of the Bantu worker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that the hon. the Minister of Transport has come into this debate because his Deputy is in trouble. It is quite apparent that he has come in here to try and create a smoke screen to get away from the true intentions of this Bill. What are we really after? What are we dealing with? We are dealing with an amendment to an Act, to allow for a levy to be raised against the employers of Bantu women in industry and in certain other employment. Now the hon. the Minister starts talking about wages. I want to reply to the hon. the Minister. What is the intention of the Wage Board? For what reason is this Wage Board appointed? I want to point out that that Wage Board is appointed by this Government, by the hon. the Minister of Labour. The intention was to fix a real minimum wage, not a sub-standard minimum wage such as has been fixed. It is no good this hon. Minister trying to run away and taking the responsibility away from the Government for the low wages which are paid in certain sectors; because they are paid in terms of the laws of this Government. It is the laws of this Government which permit those low wages to be paid. If this Government, both that Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, are sincere in what they had been saying these last few days, I challenge them to see that the minimum wage is increased, so that these people can afford to pay their own bus fares and so that they will no longer have to be subsidized, as they are being subsidized at the moment. Let us ask further, why is it necessary that they have to be subsidized? Once again because of Government policy. These people are not being transported a matter of one, two or three miles to their employment; it is nearer 13, 14, 15 and sometimes 30 miles. It is so because of Government Policy, not because of the choice of the Bantu workers themselves.

While we are talking about the subsidization of transport because of the low wages which are paid, what is the position in the border areas? I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister again, who yesterday again failed to answer my question, having given an incorrect answer the day before with regard to the workers at Hammarsdale and other border areas. On Monday, during the Second Reading debate he said he could subsidize them, and I am still waiting to hear that he will subsidize them. It is because he cannot. What is the position in regard to those Bantu workers? Some are being transported eight and ten miles; the nearest ones are five miles away. What is their minimum wage, fixed by this Government? It is R3,50 a week in certain sectors and R4.20 in others. Do you wonder, Sir, that we have to subsidize their transport when this Government allows the employers to pay those miserable pittances in the border areas in pursuance of their ideological policy?

In the border areas they are paid R12 a week.

Sir, some hon. member on my left here says that in the border areas they are paid R12 per week. Is that the minimum wage?

Who said “minimum wage”? Do not be stupid.

Sir, I shall concede that there are industrialists paying R12 per week. Some of the industrialists at Hammarsdale are paying some employees R12 per week. I am prepared to concede that, but what is this Government doing about those who are permitted by Government decree to pay R3.50 per week? That is the question. Let us forget about the employers who are paying a reasonable wage, those who are paying R12 and more per week. I know that some of them are paying R24 per week; the highest I know of is R27 per week, which is being paid to an individual Bantu employed in the border areas. But I am not interested in those; I am interested in those whom this Government is allowing to be exploited. I am interested in those whom the Government is allowing to be employed at R3.50 and R4.20 per week. It is no good the Minister trying to shield his Deputy, and it is no good the Deputy Minister speaking platitudes, sanctimonious or otherwise, and saying that it is time we should introduce an amendment to compel or request employers to pay more. We have always done so, but the power is in their hands. The power is in the hands of that Government, that inefficient and heartless Government, who can talk this way about minimum wages and about paying a living wage, but who can, by their own laws, allow people to pay R3,50 and R4,20 a week.

Mr. Speaker, you ruled a moment ago that this House is not a school and that one cannot play the part of teacher here, but it is very clear, listening to that hon. member, that no school would be able to teach him anything; he does not have the intelligence to learn. The hon. the Minister explained the Wage Act and the functions of the Wage Board very clearly. He explained how the Wage Board is composed, what its work is and how it carries out its functions. But that hon. member nevertheless wants to burden the Government with the responsibility of prescribing to the Wage Board, which has to advise the Government, what advice they should give the Government. That is the kind of speech he makes and the kind of intelligence he displays.

The hon. member made two other statements. The first statement was that as a result of this Government’s policy these Bantu will have to be transported an additional 13 or 14 miles.

That is right.

He says that is right, but when the hon. member for Yeoville moved his amendment, he said that that side of the House agreed with this Side of the House that there should be separate residential areas.

Yes, that is right.

He is again saving that that is right. If that side is also in favour of separate residential areas in South Africa, then I ask them and any practically-minded person: Can one have separate residential areas in the Witwatersrand complex, or in the Durban complex, or in any of the other complexes, which are only a mile from the places of employment? Surely it is only a stupid person who can argue in that way; surely it is only a person seeking to make cheap propaganda, who argues in that way. The true fact of the matter is that that member, together with his Party, wants to tell the electorate that they advocate separate residential areas. But now he is saying that these people do not stay where they prefer to stay, and that we are compelling them to travel 13 or 14 miles. Again he wants to sit on two stools at the same time. He wants to use this opportunity to make propaganda among two different kinds of voters with this duality of his.

The second statement the hon. member made was that I had given the House incorrect information. The Bill provides that we can determine and proclaim certain areas where a levy is going to be imposed. The labourers coming to those areas, even if they come from outside that specific municipal area, as in the case of Mdantsane and as in the case of Hammarsdale for example, may quality for this subsidy.

May I ask a question?

No, I am busy now; you have made enough noise. I mentioned these two facts to refute his statements.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban Point. Firstly, I want to inform the House that I specifically furnished the hon. member for Durban Point, at his request, with the various proclamations in writing yesterday evening.

I read them all.

I furnished him with the various proclamations in writing so that he need not have waited until my Hansard became available today. He could therefore have made the necessary preparation, but what did he do today? He used only one proclamation.

The others are extensions of that one.

No, wait; he used only the one proclamation. I shall return to that in a moment, but first I want to deal with another statement he made. He said to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, just like that, that we should have equal salaries in South Africa. Did the hon. member say that?

He said “close the wage gap”.

No, he did not put it like that. The hon. member stated that we should listen to this Minister, who said that we should have equal salaries.

I was speaking English, and said “close the wage gap”.

If you close it, then it is equal. If you diminish it, you are bringing them closer together. What other interpretation is there? The hon. member says in this House, and he wants the whole world to believe it, that the Minister said that there should be equal salaries for Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. But that is not the truth. We know this hon. member, who is always making such statements which may be misinterpreted, or which are not the truth. The hon. the Minister stated very clearly that it is necessary in South Africa, and this falls within the terms of the policy of this Government, to bring the salaries closer together. Nowhere did he say anything about equal salaries. That is in fact the United Party’s statement, which it now wants to put into the mouth of this Minister. They must not make such incorrect statements.

Sir, I come now to the proclamation behind which that hon. member wants to hide. I made it very clear to him yesterday: Gazette 3412 provided—and I am reading it as I read it then—that the then Minister of Native Affairs could proclaim regulations with effect from 30th September, 1942, in terms of which employers of certain categories of employees in certain areas were compelled, in cases of increased travelling expenses, to pay such travelling expenses to such employees in full.

Why did you not read that?

I read it yesterday evening. The hon. member for Durban Point is nodding his head; he is saying “yes”, but today he said something else. Today he brought the House under the impression that I had read out the wrong proclamation. But at the time I also read further, and this is important. I said that in that proclamation provision had even been made for the dismissal of employees with a view to evading this obligation to be liable to punishment. In other words, those employers who did not want to pay these increased fares and who dismissed their employees could be liable to punishment. Then I went further and I read out to him Government Notice 1914 of 10th November, i.e. 3414, and I quoted from Government Notice in Gazette 3772, and 747 of 11th April. I told him that this was a corollary to Proclamation 228/1944. Said notice dealt with the extension of the areas which were initially determined by Government Notice 1914 of 10th November, 1944. The hon. member then referred to PUTCO. This provision was withdrawn on 30th June, 1948, and when it terminated on that date, certain employers, including Iscor and the Pretoria City Council, continued to make voluntary contributions to the subsidization of PUTCO, and if they continued to make voluntary contributions to the subsidization of PUTCO the logical conclusion is that PUTCO had been receiving that subsidy prior to that time as well. But let us consider the practical administrative problem; this would also furnish a reply to the question put by the hon. member for Transkei. The only difference between that proclamation and this Bill lies in the administrative implementation. In terms of that proclamation the employer was required, as the hon. member there said, to put the additional bus fare into the employees wage packet.

Only those who received less than 41s. per week.

It makes no difference to me who was receiving less. The point I am making is that here the United Party laid down the principle by way of proclamation that the employer had to pay a subsidy to enable his employees to reach their place of employment by bus. How is it going to be any different under this measure? If the National Transport Commission consents to the ticket for a certain route costing 10 cents as against 8 cents in the past, and the National Transport Commission finds that the wages of these employees are such that they cannot pay 10 cents, then the National Transport Commission pays the extra two cents. The employee then receives a 10 cent ticket for which he only pays 8 cents. This is only another way of the money going to the bus company. [Laughter.] It is precisely the same. It is no use laughing about it. The fact remains that this Bill, just as the 1957 Act, provides that certain areas may be proclaimed in which the employers have to pay a levy, based on the cost structure of bus transportation in that area as determined by the National Transport Commission; secondly, that the employees making use of buses on certain routes within that proclaimed area of employment will not pay the full amount for the ticket but will be subsidized to that extent to which the ticket now costs more than it cost previously. It amounts to the same thing. The principle of subsidizing bus transportation therefore remains the same as it was in 1944, in 1946 and up to and including 1948.

The only difference is that the administrative application is slightly different. The principle remains the same and that is why I adhere to the allegation I made that hon. members on the opposite side, and the United Party Government at that time, was in principle not opposed to the subsidization of transport, and that if they are opposed to it now, they are not being logical or consistent.

How are you going to pay out the subsidy?

I have just explained.

How?

The hon. member is not listening. Once you have proclaimed an area, then all the employers in that area pay the levy. There are certain routes where the ticket may now cost more; I mentioned an example of this. On this route a ticket perhaps cost eight cents; the bus company is now allowed to charge ten cents. The employee continues to pay eight cents per ticket, and the other two cents come out of this levy fund. It is administered by the National Transport Commission.

Irrespective of whether the passenger is an employee or not?

It applies to the entire bus service.

Do all the Bantu passengers benefit from that?

Of course.

Irrespective of whether he is a worker or not? He may not be an employee. Every Bantu living in that area and using the bus will get the advantage of this subsidy.

I explained yesterday evening. I said that if an industrialist employs a person and his wife and children have to make use of that same route because he is employed there, then they will also get the advantage of that subsidy.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill contains exactly the same principles with regard to Indians and Coloured persons as those contained in the previous Bill with regard to Bantu. Consequently I do not intend repeating the arguments against the Bill or dwelling on them at length. The principle remains the same. It is simply another class of persons who are being affected now. There are certain differences. In the administrative application of the Act it will be much more difficult to deal with Coloured persons and Indians than it will be in the case of the Bantu, because the application of the subsidy in respect of the Bantu is dealt with by the department’s agents, the local authorities’ departments of Bantu affairs. They sell the tickets and the subsidy is paid to the firm. Here we do not have a similar arrangement and we are afraid that now the transport commission will have to obtain additional staff and build up an entire organization for handling these monies. As in the case of the previous Bill, we are opposed to the principle of all employers having to pay and of the levy then being used for a social service. Consequently we shall vote against this Bill. We are opposed to the principle of a levy. Judging by the performance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister he himself is unable to understand the difference between wages and a levy, and consequently there will be no point in having further arguments with him. We shall oppose the Bill.

On the question of subsidies, there is no difference between that side of the House and this side. It has always been accepted that under the existing conditions in South Africa bus subsidies are not only necessary, but are in fact essential. Where we have differed is in the method of obtaining these amounts. We have made our position quite clear in this respect, but we have also made it very clear that we are not opposed to subsidies as such. I should like to warn the Government that they are making a very grave mistake indeed if they believe that the granting of a bus subsidy will solve the problems of a place like Gelvandale or anywhere else in South Africa. The problems of Gelvandale and other areas in South Africa where these subsidies become necessary are not quite so easily solved as the Government may think, because this does not in any way diminish the hardships and the heartaches caused in these areas. I have always maintained that if race relations stand to be damaged in South Africa, they will be damaged by the implementation of the Government’s policy of group areas.

But do you not support it?

The Group Areas Act has made bus subsidies inevitable, but it would be fatal for us and for the Government to believe that by granting bus subsidies we have solved all the problems, because “out of sight” in South Africa does not necessarily mean “out of mind”.

Bus subsidies are just one of the costs of the Government’s policy. The Gelvandales, the District Sixes and the other areas in South Africa cannot be so easily disposed of by simply granting a subsidy. We are going to pay for these things for a very long time to come. Separate buses are part of the reason for bus subsidies.

That is nonsense!

Separate amenities are part of the reason for bus subsidies. The hon. member over there who says it is nonsense, just does not understand the facts of life in South Africa today. [Interjections.]

Bus subsidies and separate amenities do not simply mean that there will not be only one Nico Malan Theatre. This Bill has another aspect too which can be disturbing to the South African way of life. It places the private bus operator very squarely into the hands of this Government, because it will be a simple matter either to grant to or withdraw a subsidy from a private bus operator. The time is probably not in the far distance when there will be no private bus operators in South Africa at all for the simple reason that they will not be able to supply the services without the subsidies and if the subsidies are not granted, they will go out of existence.

It has more than this effect. The principle behind subsidies can, in fact, be very demoralizing to a community. People are the same the whole world over. They should and they prefer to stand on their own feet. As our populations grow, it is going to be necessary to declare more and more group areas. These group areas are of necessity going to be further and further away from the centre point and from the work points and as a result it seems to me that bus subsidies, subsidies of this sort, are now going to be a permanent way of life in South Africa. As I have said before, if we begin to accept that subsidies are going to be a permanent way of life, we are not helping to build up a community; we are helping to destroy it.

In his second reading speech an hon. member said that bus subsidies were merely the cost of apartheid and the Government had a mandate to carry out this philosophy. I believe that they are making a mistake, because they are now discovering the public are not, in fact, prepared to pay the cost of apartheid, the cost that they now have to meet. They will realize this in Johannesburg today, as they realized it in Brakpan last week. The electorate is simply not prepared to go along and to pay this extreme cost. [Interjections.] The bus subsidies, like other subsidies, like subsidies on housing, are all coupled with the fact that we do not pay the people concerned sufficient to meet their own living costs. The cost of transport is after all merely one of the items of living costs that they have to meet. In other parts of the world the poorer communities live near the centre of the cities near their places of work. In South Africa just the opposite applies and the poorer communities live further away from their places of work.

Whose fault is that?

The hon. member wants to know whose fault it is. I would like to remind him that that Government has been in power for 24 years. Whose fault can it be but the fault of the Government? It is obvious to any intelligent person whose fault this must be, but if one would suggest to hon. members opposite that bus subsidies are symptoms of a welfare state they would be horrified; they would be shocked if one would suggest that South Africa is becoming a welfare state. But after all, what is it becoming if we are beginning to depend on the subsidization of our poorer sections of the community rather than ensuring that they earn enough to make ends meet and to pay for their transport. One can also say that if one is to accept the principle of subsidizing public transport that the White people of South Africa are no less entitled to public transport subsidies. It is true that the White people of South Africa have, to a degree, a choice as to where they may live, but with the high cost of land and housing today the poorer White people too are living further from their work points and from the cities.

Order! That is not under consideration now. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

They too have to pay for their transport and I submit …

Order! I have ruled that that is not under consideration now.

Then I would like to remind hon. members opposite, who seem to feel that they have solved all their problems by granting subsidies to the Indian and Coloured groups as they are doing in this Bill, that the problems are not so simply solved that they can sit back so smugly. After 24 years they should not pass such inane remarks at a time like this when the non-Whites are in fact having a battle to make ends meet. That is also why the hon. the Deputy Minister has to come with a measure of this nature. The way to solve our problems, as they are solved anywhere else in the world, is to ensure that fewer people need to be subsidized in regard to the public transport costs. But in this country the numbers grow steadily each year. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister of Health asks how do we do that, but in 24 years he should surely have found the answer.

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

In conclusion I would like to warn the Government that they have not solved any problem by the granting of these subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, the Third Reading of which we are taking today, is not unlike the one introduced in 1957 in that it is a temporary measure which will become a permanent one. I want to place a great deal of emphasis on the fact that this temporary measure which is called for today is the result of the policy of the National Government. Unless some change comes about in the wage and salary structure of the non-Whites, this is bound to remain a permanent phenomenon.

Order! That point has been mentioned here repeatedly and I hope the hon. member will raise new points now.

I am very pleased that the plea I made to the hon. the Deputy Minister in the debate on the Transport Vote last year has exercised such a strong influence on him that he has in fact recommended to the Cabinet that this subsidy be granted. In that debate we dealt with the principle whether or not the transport of Coloureds should be subsidized. I pleaded for the principle. If the hon. gentlemen do not know the meaning of the Afrikaans word “beginsel” I can only say the English word for that is “principle”. I pleaded for the principle. [Interjections.]

Order!

The modus operandi according to which this had to happen was never raised. In other words, it is not correct to say that I advocated that this subsidy to Coloureds and Indians should be the same as that in respect of the Bantu, which is a sectional tax. I also quoted the hon. the Minister of Community Development who had made a speech in Port Elizabeth shortly before that time. I just want to repeat what I said at that time (Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 5223)—

The hon. member for Tygervallei also quoted me correctly when he said I had said—

It is quite correct that I said that. It appears in Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 5223. I stand by that.

Now I should like to raise a very important principle. If a member of the House of Assembly rises in this hon. House and pleads for some less privileged group —whether White or non-White, and he calls attention to bottlenecks, to possible dangers which lie ahead, or he calls attention to a policy which can lead to many major difficulties in South Africa, is that hon. member then reputed to be an agitator? Mr. Speaker, in Die Burger of 13th March, 1971, Dawie wrote as follows about the bus tariffs which had caused the disturbances in Gelvandale—this is very interesting (translation)—

Order! That matter is not relevant now. What this House has before it, is this Bill. The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I shall return to the Bill.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted me out of context in the previous debate. But his credibility was questioned in that debate. I am sure that he has convinced very few people in this House that his credibility has been restored. Therefore I dismiss with contempt his allegation that I ought to have voted with that side of the House.

*Mr. Speaker, in conclusion and by way of reiteration I should just like to put the case once again.

No you must not reiterate it.

This type of legislation is necessary because the wage structure of the non-Whites is too low to enable them to pay the higher bus tariffs. It is the duty of this Government to determine the minimum wage in such a way that they will be able to do so.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I had indicated that this side of the House would support the Second Reading and welcomed the fact that this measure was going to a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister indicated that we had now had five years in which to test and apply the national service system which was introduced in 1967. We are pleased that this review has taken place, because as the Minister himself acknowledges, there are snags which have cropped up. The original intention had been that commando service would extend over 20 years. We felt that this was too long, and the Select Committee reduced that period to 16 years. We have felt that the 16 years was too long and we are now reducing that period in this Bill to 10 years. But I feel that this is only nibbling at the problem. This is not the final answer. During this last recess, more than any other recess, I had approaches from many dozens of young men, and I spoke to many hundreds of young men who are doing or have done national service. I want to say immediately that in not one single case did I find a young man who was trying to evade or was not willing to perform national service. They accept the sacrifice and they accept the need to do national service.

It is not a sacrifice at all.

Everyone accepts it. I did not find one who did not say “I am willing and happy to serve”. But the present system in practice is creating resentment. Those resentments are not against the full-time nine months’ camp. There are criticisms, as the Minister himself said, about the last three months but that is an administrative matter and is not affected by the Bill. We can deal with that under the Vote. There are criticisms, but generally speaking, everyone accepts the nine months’ and the twelve months’ service. They say they feel that that was time well given and well spent. But the subsequent camps, the spread over ten years in particular, and the non-continuous parades, are the matters that are creating resentment. I asked a question earlier this session as to how many prosecutions there had been for non-attendance of parades. The figure given only in respect of those tried by military courts, which is a small fraction, since all the normal Citizen Force men are not under military law at the time when they do non-continuous parades, ran into 1 400-odd during the past year. These boys are deliberately staying away from parades, and many times it is for something as simple as a haircut.

How many cases were there which related to haircuts?

I think there were nine under military trials.

Nine out of 1400?

I am saying that these people stay away for apparently as stupid a reason as a haircut. But I have had people who have come to see me who, for instance, are members of an orchestra, a band. It is their occupation, and to them it is not simply a matter of hairstyles. It is not simply a question of being with it; it is their job, their occupation. They say: “What must we do? Must we wear a wig?" I have come across others who have said that they would sooner pay the R10 because they would lose more by having their hair cut. I am indicating how these things, which we sometimes do not consider, can create resentment. Sometimes it is a question of sport clashing with a Saturday afternoon parade. These are things which one does not think about, or which one does not regard as being important. One thinks of these considerations as being minor to the issue of giving service to your country —to defending your country—but these things affect people and create resentment. That is why we suggested last year that we would like to see the period of 10 years, which has now been suggested for both commandos and the Citizen Force, compressed into four years, so that a chap gets his military service behind him by the age of 22 or 23, if he leaves school at the age of 18. This means that by the time such a person is holding a responsible job, by the time he has married and has a child or children, a flat, hire-purchase and motorcar payments, he will have finished his commitment. I believe that this Bill, perhaps unintentionally, offers a solution to two of the problems which face the services.

The one is this question of the spread. Most officers commanding Citizen Force units I have spoken to are agreed that the spread is too long, that the leadership group is losing contact with their men because they only see them once every three years at a camp. They also feel that there is resistance on the part of people who would be potential voluntary officers because they cannot afford the 26 days plus the intermediate camps. And so, this affects the volunteer officer corps, whish is the heart of the Citizen Force. The volunteer officer is the core of the force, the core, really, of our security. From the weakening of that core because of the long period demanded, to the morale of the individual, to the contact between leadership and men through camps being held only every three years—from all these things, problems are arising. Against this, the hon. the Minister referred to the possibility of a permanent brigade. He pointed out the difficulties about that.

Sir, we are amending the Act to provide for a possible four months’ special service over and above the normal service. I want to suggest that the Select Committee should consider whether that four months, after the initial nine or 12 months, should not then count towards the subsequent parades and subsequent camp commitments, so that if a lad is called up for four months and sent to the border, he will then not be required to do subsequent 26-day camps and the intermittent monthly parades. If that were done, I can promise the hon. the Minister that he would not have to force anyone; he would have more volunteers than he could handle. I am convinced that the vast majority of young men would happily volunteer for four months on the border, for four months’ continuous service, rather than three camps of 26 days, spread over 10 years. You would have men, with their basic training completed, doing their continuous spell of four months as trained men. There would be a force ready for any emergency, and they would be able to be used. But you would get them voluntarily. You would have people wanting to do this because it would exclude them from 10 years of commitments which, however small they may be, and however little sacrifice it may be, constitute a sword of Damocles hanging over them in all their planning. If they want to go overseas, if they want to go away on holiday, or if they want to do anything, they have to fit it in with their parades and their camps. I am sure that you would get such a response if the four-month period, for which we provide in clause 2, were made a part of the commitment, that you would have no problem at all in creating a brigade or two brigades immediately. I am sure, too, that after that four-month period, you would have volunteers who would be prepared to go again and again. Mr. Speaker, the necessary amendment to clause 2 would be to make this service “in lieu of subsequent commitments”. I have heard many commanding officers say that they themselves do not regard the monthly parades as being of any real value. If four months’ continuous service could be done in lieu of those parades, that alone would make a difference in the mental approach, which we are all agreed is so necessary and so important. I can assure the hon. the Minister that appeals, speeches in Parliament and speeches from public platforms are not going to create that approach. It is going to come from the men themselves, feeling that this is worth while and that what they are doing is justified. They will do that far more happily for a continuous period of service than they will in the case of intermittent service.

Let us take the average parade. Half-an-hour to three-quarters of an hour is spent calling the roll. Then there is a hair inspection, and then perhaps there is a lecture. You do not really get anything done. One long week-end bivouac would be worth any 12 monthly parades. Then, if you replaced the spread-out camps with four months’ service, you would have a force which would be of far greater value for our security than the sort of force we are building up. I believe we can look at this now because we have had five years of the new system.

By now your “in-between” years are filled. You started with one group being called up every third year for the camp; the second year you had two out of three years called up and the third year you had all three years called up for camps. As it escalates, we will have ample men for our needs because every year another 20 000 men are placed under arms and on regimental strength. Once they have done this period of four months they can be kept on unit strength; they are not finished then; they are kept on unit strength but they are not liable to attend camps. They could perhaps do a long week-end bivouac, as I have suggested—an odd roll-call where they do not have to have their hair cut simply to be looked at for half an hour and then not be seen again for a month. You could do away with all those petty annoyances but you would have them on strength; you would have them available for call up if they are wanted. If you do this, Sir, for both the Citizen Force and the commandos I believe that you will have a more willing approach, a healthier approach and a healthier morale.

I mentioned yesterday, Sir, that there were some aspects about which we were not happy. One is the compulsory minimum sentence. As the Minister knows, we as a party have always been opposed in principle to a minimum sentence except in very rare cases. In the case of certain very rare types of crime we have accepted it. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that clause 1 again offers us a possible way out of another of our difficulties, unwittingly though it may be as it stands here. We are making provision in clause 1 for certain professional groups and certain other groups of men to be posted to Government service or to Armscor’s factories. I suggest that the solution to the problem of your conscientious objector, the person who for reasons of conscience does not want to serve, would be to offer him double the length of time which the Citizen Force man does but to allow him to serve in a civilian government service, such as a hospital, a fire station or some similar service. Then if he is sincere in his belief he will be prepared to make the additional sacrifice that will be called for. If he refuses, then nobody can have any sympathy for him. But I believe that at the moment there is no point, as things are now, in creating martyrs who get sympathy because people say, “here is a man who has the courage of his convictions”. Because we are not offering him any alternative he wins sympathy which I do not believe he deserves. But he wins it because there is no alternative made available to him. I hope that we can consider the proposition, in terms of clause 1, that not only professional groups, not only those attached to Armscor but those who for conscientious reasons would fall under the penalty provision which is here being amended, could be attached to a fire station or a hospital or a similar service for a period of two years in lieu of military service. I believe that It would be better for the image of the Defence Force; it would be more humane and more just. Then they would appear before the selection board, like any other man who is called up; they would put their case to a selection board and say, “this is my case; I ask for attachment to a civilian service”, and the selection board, in the same way as they would draft a man to the Navy, the Air Force, the Army or the Commandos, would then say, ’’very well, we accept your case; we will draft you to the fire brigade or to such and such a hospital or ambulance”. I believe that this does not go as far as the tribunal system in other countries or the exemption system in some countries. I do not believe that we can have an exemption system to exempt people completely from national service, but I believe that national service could include service in an essential service of State, not necessarily within the army itself. That would still be a national service; it would still require sacrifice and be of value to the country and it would ensure, under the proposal I have made, that people did not use that simply as an excuse or as an avenue to escape doing their duty to their country, because they would then be called upon, if they make use of this, to make a greater sacrifice in time than those who served the normal way.

I want to come back to this penalty clause. As I say, we are opposed to a minimum sentence but we accept the principle and welcome the proposal of a single sentence to be imposed. We obviously accept the period of 15 months as the maximum. We hope that we can reach agreement that there will be a maximum period and that we will express our confidence in the courts to impose the appropriate sentence up to that maximum, because obviously if a man has done six months’ service and then absconds, there is no reason why he should have to get a minimum sentence of 12 months if he refuses duty; or if for some reason or other he had earned a certain remission, as some do, by serving in the police, in the prison service, etc., and he then refused to do duty, he would still in terms of this be subject to the minimum sentence. We do not like that and that is one of the issues we will raise in the Select Committee.

The technical clauses in regard to messes, etc., contain no problem, although we naturally do not like the sales duty. But in practice we cannot oppose it. However, I want to use the opportunity to ask the Minister to raise with the hon. the Minister of Finance the terms of clause 12, which makes provision for taxes to be paid. It provides for the exclusion of licence fees, etc., but exempts from the exclusion customs, excise and sales duties. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to plead with his colleague who sits in the same bench with him, and I appeal directly to the hon. the Minister of Finance as well, that in certain circumstances—firstly on active service and, secondly, on ships when they go overseas to represent South Africa—these messes should be exempt from excise duty. It has always been the practice, and it has been the practice in all defence forces in the world. I believe that our boys are serving their country and if they are away on the borders or on a ship at sea outside our territorial waters, they are living under abnormal conditions and I think the least South Africa can do for them is to exempt their messes, their ward rooms and their canteens from the excise duty which the normal citizen pays. Particularly when our ships go overseas, the personnel are entertained very generously, for instance in Australia and the Argentine, by the local people, and they want to reciprocate. So they give a dance or a cocktail party on board. How many of us have not been on board the British, French and other ships that have been here and have enjoyed their hospitality. When our ships are overseas they want to reciprocate the hospitality they have received in the same way, and the least we can do is to give them this small concession which is prevented by this clause which says that they shall not be exempt from customs, excise and sales tax.

My time is nearly up, so I will not deal with the other matters of detail. I want to say again that I believe this Bill offers the opportunity, with some very small amendments, to create improvements which can radically strengthen the whole picture of the national service system. After all, that is what both sides of the House want. We want to have the strongest possible force. Finally I want to say that I believe that our youth today is not only willing, but is also able to give a service which other generations have given when it was necessary. I have complete confidence in our youth as a whole but it is up to us to draw from them, to extract from them, voluntarily, the spirit, the approach and the morale necessary to make a strong force. We cannot force it on them; we cannot impose it on them. We must draw it from them. So, if we can adjust the system to eliminate friction and unnecessary irritation I believe we should do that. We support the Bill and I hope that in the Select Committee we can look at some of the issues to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, very grateful that the hon. members of the Opposition support the principle of this legislation. I believe that this is as it should be when so important a matter as the defence of our country is involved. I regret, however, that the hon. member for Point began his speech yesterday with certain undertones that one dislikes, some of the undertones also having cropped up here today. I do not think that this fits in with a debate about so important a matter which virtually affects every family in our country.

Such as what?

The hon. member need not think I would level an allegation at him and then not substantiate it. I shall come to that. The hon. member swung into action and made certain allegations, but it must be remembered, as is proper to defence matters, that hon. members on the other side of the House and on this side ought always to be properly informed. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence even met with the defence study group on that side to inform them about the objects of this Bill. However, the hon. member for Durban Point came along yesterday with an entire argument trying to create the impression amongst the general public that every national serviceman would now be liable to 56 months of national service.

No, read my Hansard speech.

I not only read the hon. member’s Hansard speech, but I also listened to him. The argument he used yesterday was an absolute absurdity because such a thing cannot happen and the hon. member had the opportunity to speak to the hon. the Minister when they discussed matters privately. He knows what the intention is; why does he then give such an interpretation to a measure that does not embody that objective? The interpretation he attached to this he furnished in Parliament; it is now being conveyed to the general public and it will allow many people who do not want to understand, or who do not understand correctly, to gain a wrong impression. I therefore say that in spite of the support, I did not like the undertone that was discernible in the hon. member’s speech, particularly with respect to that absurd statement he made yesterday about the question of the 56 months.

Were my facts correct?

The hon. member knows how wrong he is, and as far as his arithmetic is concerned I just want to say that I think it was the hon. member himself who was reminded by the Chair in the course of another debate earlier this afternoon that this is not a school.

The hon. member also said certain things this afternoon. I refer to that in a positive spirit knowing that he, like ourselves, is sincerely interested in the defence of our country and in the creation of a harmonious attitude in the younger generation for the defence of our country. The hon. member must not listen to gossip and present in the House of Assembly every story he picks up as though it were the alpha and the omega with respect to the defence of our country. The hon. member intimated here that commanders of Citizen Force units allegedly told him that these three-yearly follow-up camps of three weeks were not worth the trouble. The hon. member said that numerous national servicemen came to him and said they were a waste of time. During the past recess I had the privilege of spending a few days at a training camp of a citizen force regiment. The members of that regiment are, on the average, persons of high intelligence and university students, and one person after another who had attended that camp told not only myself or their officers, but also stated in a report that was given promience in the press subsequently, that their experience of that camp was one of the highlights of their lives and that it afforded them such insight and experience as they had never before gained, not even during their basic training. A moment ago the hon. member referred to a few cases, and when the Minister asked him how many there were he said nine. If a few people come along and tell him certain negative things, he should at least give them a bit of thought and consider whether they really do tip the scales and whether it is worth his while to exaggerate them to such an extent here in the House. Is it not perhaps worth the trouble to first weigh them up against other opinions? About the legislation before us I want to say that we still have to learn a great deal about the dispensation of a national defence force that was established by the 1967 legislation. And we have been learning. We knew that this to be a field one had to venture into before knowledge can be acquired about it, and that amendments to the Act would be necessary in the course of time. What we can be very thankful for today is this new idea that is going to affect virtually every family in South Africa, i.e. that there will be uniformity of training so that one young man need not feel that he is being treated worse than another. Had the hon. member for Durban Point used this argument, I would have gone a long way with him. Under the new dispensation that is envisaged, no distinction is being made between the commandos and the Citizen Force. I think this is one of the best things that could have happened. Members of the commandos will now basically obtain the same training as members of the Citizen Force. In practice, and this is also envisaged by this legislation, members of commandos can be transferred from the one to the other after their basic training, according to their particular circumstances. What I find to be such a fine characteristic of this legislation is the measure of adaptibility to provide for the various categories of our young people who are being trained. Earlier there were many complaints to the effect that the establishment of a national defence force, a national service system, would have an appalling effect on the manpower position. What is now being envisaged, after the experience of the past five years, is that there will be the least possible effect on our manpower position by Defence Force training. On the contrary, it could be greatly benefited by it. Provision is also being made for the use of national servicemen in a professional context. In general, since this legislation envisages the introduction of greater uniformity, but at the same time also better training and not a slackening of training—that was one of the undertones I detected in the hon. member for Durban Point’s speech—we cannot but praise it. In the circumstances our country finds itself in, and with our system of a national service defence force, good training is of the utmost importance. The Six Day War between Israel and Egypt proved to us what smaller numbers of well-trained people can do against much greater numbers of lesser trained people. I believe we owe it to our young people, who must report for national service and defend their country, to give them the best possible training in defence that we can afford and they can get. To use a half-trained man to brave dangers and oppose well-trained attackers, is not only to place his own life in danger, but also to place in danger the security of this country which they must defend. We not only owe it to our country, but also to every individual national serviceman to give him the best possible training, and this legislation is making provision for that. I therefore think that the entire country is also grateful for this legislation. If this be our approach, I believe that in the Select Committee we can work out the best possible practical implementation of this legislation which would redound to the good of our country and its security.

Mr. Speaker, in his introductory speech the hon. the Minister informed us that this legislation will be referred to a Select Committee. We are, of course, very grateful for that fact, and we are sure that this step will produce legislation that will be a great improvement even on what is proposed here.

My colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point more or less stated the standpoint of this side of the House as far as the training system is concerned. I just have a few remarks I want to make in this connection. The hon. the Minister agreed about the first of these, because he told us that during the period in which this scheme has been operative we have learned certain lessons. There is no doubt that even with all our good intentions when we passed this legislation at the time, this training scheme has not been the success we hoped it would be. The amendments before us are an endeavour to put those matters right. I think that even in its present form the legislation will be a great improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point to two aspects of the difficulties we experience and about which people complained. The one great bottleneck is the 10 and 16 years of national service for members of the commandos. It is something that is not popular with the people. It is something that gives rise to more complaints, more opposition than even the 9 or 12 months’ training period. People do not mind a young man doing that uninterrupted service, but this continual call-up for 10 years afterwards becomes very tiresome. It also has a profound effect on the unfortunate manpower position we have in the country today. It discriminates to a certain extent against the person who still has to do his national service when that person goes to an employer. That is one of the unpopular aspects. Whatever we do, whatever system we introduce for the training of our Citizen Force, we must ensure that the persons being trained do not regard this training as a burden. One gets much better service from a person who willingly undergoes his national service than when someone is forced to do it. We must therefore find a method whereby we shall be able to attract individuals and not force them to do their service.

There is also something else we must not lose sight of. This scheme, even as it exists today, does not have as its only value the fact that people are trained for military service, but also has a wonderfully good educational value as far as the young people of our country are concerned. I think there are very few people who are not better people after they have undergone this training—and I am not speaking about soldiers—than they were when they began their national service. Under no circumstances must we lose this aspect of our Citizen Force training.

Mr. Speaker, there was all kinds of criticism and there were questions about what we should do and what the alternative is. I think the hon. the Minister referred to that yesterday when he made his speech. I personality am of the opinion that the alternative is a strong Permanent Force, but that is not the only answer. It is no use our having a large, strong, trained and efficient Permanent Force if we do not have a reserve to support that Permanent Force. Naturally the reserve in South Africa must be the Citizen Force. In other words, even if we one day decided, when we could afford it, to establish a strong Permanent Force that can defend our country, we would not, even then, be able to do away with the training of our Citizen Force. When I speak of the Citizen Force, I include the commandos. Although we must now make the best of the measures before us, and although we must approve the existing scheme, we really must, with the experience at our disposal, consider taking a new look at the entire structure of our Defence Force, i.e. our Permanent Force, our Citizen Force and our commandos, with a view to our present and future needs and obligations. We must try to see whether we cannot arrive at a situation where we could have the ideal of a strong Permanent Force unit and a reduced scheme of Citizen Force training. I remember the days, and that was not so very long ago, when we had a very happy Citizen Force in South Africa.

Who says it is not still a happy one?

We had a very happy Citizen Force and I can remember very well that the overall majority of the officers in our Citizen Force at that time were people who had joined voluntarily. They were people who did so with the greatest of pride and pleasure. They remained there for a long time.

That is still the case today.

I do not say that there are no longer such people, and the position today is probably the same. In the past, however it was particularly so. I say again that if we could have these men we would have people with the experience, people with enthusiasm and people who could build up a spirit of unity. I definitely think that one point we must remember is that we should try, in one way or another, to shorten this long period of 10 years, the period for which a national serviceman is subject to military service. If we could find a method of doing this we would come a very long way towards making our Defence Force a popular body.

I should just like to express one thought about those who are not prepared to undergo their national service. The majority of them refuse on religious grounds. We have the utmost respect for religious considerations, but I want to ask those people one question. Supposing we all have religious objections to training and consequently do not want to defend our country. What is going to become of us then? Must we just sit and do nothing, let anyone come along who wants to come and we must be satisfied? If we reach that stage we must exempt everyone from national service and tell them they no longer have to serve. We cannot allow that. I think the ideal the hon. member for Durban Point suggested is perhaps a step in the right direction. Those people must realize their duty to their fatherland to the same degree as all our other people and they must not merely look to other people to honour their obligations. If they have religious objections to national service, they cannot say they are unable to undergo training at a fire-station or a hospital. One could perhaps make a concession by saying that he does not have to wear a uniform, but we cannot allow a person to receive better and more favourable treatment, merely because he has objections on religious grounds, than a man who is prepared to defend his country and to do his duty. I hope that when this matter comes before the Select Committee we shall have a chance to make inquiries and investigate whether this is not perhaps our answer in dealing with these people. It has become a very ticklish matter in South Africa today because we cannot get away from the fact that there is always a sector of the public that is very sympathetic to these people. As my Durban Point friend said, if he is given the choice of doing his national service in another capacity, and he still refuses, he can expect no sympathy at all from the public

It was truly refreshing to listen to the hon. member for North Rand, who discussed this amendment Bill in a calm, level-headed and constructive manner. We probably agree with a great deal of what he said, and probably disagree with other points, but at least he stated the matter in a level-headed and calm manner, in contrast to his colleague, who from the start yesterday simply wanted to instill in the public an antagonistic attitude to this Bill. I refer again to the ridiculous allegation he made yesterday that the Minister allegedly now has the power to call up national servicemen for a period of 58 months during their national service.

What does the Bill state?

The hon. member is intentionally drawing a wrong conclusion. He knows very well that this Bill defines the circumstances in which the Minister can exercise those powers and that we live in a period when it is not in the public interest to broadcast these matters. The hon. member is aware of the fact that at such times a Minister must have certain discretionary powers. The Minister told him very clearly under what circumstances and for what reason he wanted those powers. But he intentionally comes along and creates a climate antagonistic to the Bill and purposely draws incorrect conclusions.

In the course of my speech I also want to deal with him in connection with certain remarks he made about the so-called “conscientious objectors”. I think the time has come for us to orientate ourselves and adopt a definite standpoint concerning people with conscientious objections or religious objections to military services. This problem is being experienced to an increasing extent throughout the world. In Germany, for example, there were only 4 489 conscientious objectors in 1962. In 1967 this number had increased to 5 963. In 1969 there were 14 420 of these people.

Where is that?

That is in Germany. Earlier, as at present, persons with conscientious objections to military training as a result of their religious convictions were treated very sympathetically by the authorities throughout the world and provision was always made for their training and service in a non-combatant capacity. That was the standpoint of most of the Western countries. In South Africa this was also, and still is, the case. In terms of section 67 (3) of the Defence Act the registration officer of the Defence Force can, where possible, allocate to a unit a person who is a bona fide member of a recognized denomination which accepts as a principle that they do not want to be actively involved in a war, where such a person can do service for the defence of his country in a non-combatant capacity. The national serviceman also has the right, prior to his period of training, to turn to the Exemption Board for this concession. Such national servicemen are always still employed as clerks, storemen, firemen, chefs, waiters, etc., but within the military context. This is important. In South Africa there is consequently no question of our having an inflexible or unsympathetic attitude in respect of those refusing military service where bona fide religious conviction plays a role. This attitude is also unanimously endorsed by all the churches who have chaplains in the Defence Force, and I shall mention them: The N.G. Kerk, the Gereformeerde Kerk, the Hervormde Kerk, the Free Churches, i.e. the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational Churches; the Apostolic Faith Mission, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church. This attitude on the part of the Defence Force is endorsed and supported by all these churches. But the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not satisfied even with these concessions. They just flatly refuse to accept or undergo national service, even though the national service be conducted in a non-combatant capacity. They refuse to obey commands or to do anything having any connection with the Defence Force. They are so dogmatic in their standpoint—here I want to reply to what the hon. member for Durban Point said—that they even refuse to serve in a non-military context, because the liability for that service is derived from the Defence Act. Such an attitude is, of course, totally intolerable and can simply not be tolerated in any ordered community. As in any ordered community, the individual must subject himself to the authority of the State or else pay the penalty for his insistent defiance of any State authority. Under the system which has thus far prevailed, it was possible for these people, when they broke the law, to be sent to detention barracks time and again, and when they are released they are again charged and sent back. This was a process that could continue theoretically until such a person reached the age of 65 years. The result of this system is that these young men now regard themselves as martyrs and crusaders for their misplaced faith. It is therefore to be welcomed that an end is now being made to this unhealthy situation and that the Amendment Bill makes provision for a single punishment, after which the national serviceman and his conscience are left to their own devices.

The hon. member for Durban Point went further. I shall try to reply to that argument of his concerning people with ordinary conscientious objections. In this liberal era in which we live, and in which all manner of forces are breaking down and destroying the ordered authority, the existing moral and social norms, a new element has begun to claim recognition. I refer here to a plea from certain organizations, one of which is the Civil Rights League. I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he associates himself with the standpoint adopted by the Civil Rights League, because there is surprising agreement between what he said here a while ago and what the Civil Rights League advocates. They advocate that in the implementation of national service alternative provision must also be made for individuals with strongly held moral and ethical views, without these views being supported by religious convictions. In this connection it is interesting to take note of a decision that was taken at a conference called the “Conference on Conscientious Objection to Military Training,” which was held on 3rd October, 1970. It is quite interesting to see who was present at this meeting. Dr. O. D. Wolheim was the chairman of the meeting. Other bodies present at this meeting were, inter alia, the Civil Rights League, the University Christian Movement, the Black Sash, the National Council of Women, Nusas, National Youth Action and the South African Institute of Race Relations. I shall be coming to an allegation which, in my opinion, agrees surprisingly with an attitude that hon. member adopted here a while ago. The report of the meeting begins as follows—

But, Sir, they call themselves the Civil Rights League. They want to claim rights without any responsibilities. The report continues—

Those were the introductory words of the chairman. At the end of its proceedings this conference adopted the following resolution—

What threatens us and the strategic interests of the country simply do not play any role at all as far as these people are concerned—

If we, like the Civil Rights League, also want to make provision for “basic human rights of freedom of conscience” we are most certainly heading for a situation that borders on anarchy. We cannot allow those who do not want to serve the country to hide behind such smokescreens as conscientious objections. In many cases, and in the cases of certain individuals in this country, some of which were also present at this specific conference, their consciences are as transparent as the motives behind which they constantly hide themselves. People who want to enjoy the hospitality and the privileges, and above all the security of a State, also naturally have specific responsibilities, and one of these concerns the defence of that particular country against the forces of the aggressor and the terrorist.

It has been said time and again that our Defence Force is not aggressively orientated. Our Defence Force does not have any aggressive plans up its sleeve. Our Defence Force is continually defence orientated. But we also know that the forces of evil that threaten us are basically and essentially communist inspired. We know that the communists are employing all their forces to destroy the Christian faith. Those who therefore withhold themselves from action against these forces, and this also applies to the military context, where the threat is a real one, are indeed forsaking their Christian duty. It is a scriptural truth that the State, whatever government may be in power, is invested with the power to decide how, where and when it must protect its fellow citizens against agression or subversion. The State is indeed invested with the power of the sword. Here the church plays a subservient role. It therefore follows very logically that if the State exempts groups of people or the adherents of various sects when it comes to the defence of their country, the State is making its duty to protect its people subservient to the interests of private groups. The security and the survival of the whole is therefore sacrificed and surrendered to a portion of the whole, which is most certainly in conflict with our Christian norms and ethical principles. Conscience is not, nor was it ever, the highest authority. Conscience is also fallible, and can never be accepted as a norm in determining the merits of statutory principles, as laid down here. To speak of “basic human rights” or of “freedom of conscience” in times such as these, in which we are being threatened by the aggressive communism of both the Peking and Moscow varieties, where our security and survival are virtually being threatened every day, displays a recklessness in the face of reality which is not only astounding, but also extremely reprehensible. I trust that this Amendment Bill, when it appears on the Statute Book, will be seen to be a true instrument which will do further justice to the general national service system established in 1968 and that it will largely contribute towards the further inspiration of our youth in the service of our fine country and the way of life we adhere to.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up very much of the time of the House in replying to this debate; I do not think it is necessary; but there are nevertheless a few matters in respect of which I think I should provide some clarity.

I want to start with the hon. member for North Rand by just saying that I was somewhat surprised that the hon. member could come here and ask that we should re-examine the entire structure of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos in order to intro duce shorter periods. I do not see why one has to examine the entire structure to be able to do this. We have a definite objective. We have said that we want to be able to place a certain force under arms upon mobilization, and in order to be able to do this, you must train a certain number of people annually in leader groups, specialist groups, in the infantry, in the artillery, etc. You have to train a particular number of people in order to achieve a particular objective; the hon. member knows this much better than I do, in other words, you cannot deviate from that. If you want to shorten your periods in this way, you simply have to abandon your objective of building up and maintaining a particular establishment, and under the present circumstances it is absolutely essential for South Africa to maintain the establishment we have set as our objective.

But you are maintaining it.

You cannot maintain it if you act in this way. Let me give the hon. member the other side of the picture. Take a comparable country such as Portugal. In Portugal the training periods vary from a minimum of 18 months to 48 months. Our periods vary from 9 to 15 months.

It was changed last year.

It was changed in certain categories. In the second place, in the United States of America, which has a large permanent force—hon. members know what a large permanent force America has —the initial training period is 24 months, almost twice as long as in South Africa. Take Israel, which is also a threatened country. There the initial training period is 30 months, followed by a further period of 19 years. In Switzerland, which has had no war for 700 to 800 years and regards its Defence Force only as a means of preventing war and of guaranteeing its neutrality, the initial training period is 4 months, but there is 7 years’ further training. Yesterday I spoke to a Swiss who happens to be in the country and he told me that he was 53 years old now and that he still had to go back to his unit. But, Sir, in those countries they do not have so many Jeremiahs who raise with so many lamentations. This is my reply to the hon. member. I know he will appreciate it. We cannot have the entire structure of our Defence Force tampered with now. We have set a particular establishment as our objective and we must maintain that establishment. The hon. member again referred to the question of a Permanent Force—in essence a brigade group or two brigade groups. Let me tell the hon. member that in principle there is no objection to that, but does he see his way clear to our taking 5 000 or 6 000 people from South Africa’s national life and maintaining them in the Permanent Force as professional soldiers—not specialist groups—under the present circumstances? I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is not practicable, however desirable it may be that this should be done. The only alternative is that one must maintain a force under arms in essence and that one must be able to have a definite number of people under arms from January to January without mobilization. This is the practical way in which we are doing it. You cannot train your specialist groups for shorter periods. You could make out a case for reducing the period for infantrymen by perhaps a month or six weeks if you did not have this problem of having to look after expensive equipment and of having to have a force under arms in essence; then you would perhaps have been able to do so, but under the present circumstances this is the best course.

The hon. member for Durban Point raided a few matters to which I just want to reply briefly. He referred to the question of excise duty which has to be paid on the ships.

When they go to other countries on active service.

I Can assure the hon. member that our ships are already enjoying those privileges.

And on the border?

I am not sure what the position is as far as the border is concerned. I can make enquiries. I shall make the necessary representations if it is not being done there, but we already have the privilege on the ships.

Yesterday evening the hon. member started off in a tone I did not like. I want to tell him straight out that I did not like it at all. The hon. member started off by saying that, as the Bill reads at present, i.e. with the request that the two months for which the Minister may call up a member for six years’ service, should be extended to four months, we are in fact increasing the period of national service to 56 months. These are the words the hon. member used.

They can be interpreted in that way.

Sir, section 22 (7) of the exsiting legislation provides—

Of a category or kind specified by him, not all of them—

In other words, the principle is already contained in the Act. [Interjections.] Oh, give me a chance. The principle is already contained in the Act and all we are requesting now is that instead of these two months for which the Act provides, it should be extended to four months. And I told hon. members why, as far as I could do so in public. But what is more, I took the hon. member into my confidence in my office. He did not hear of it for the first time here across the floor of this House. He was taken into my confidence and I told him for what purpose we wanted this instrument at our disposal and that we were not intending to use it indiscriminately. But I told him that we should not allow the Act to pin us down in such a way that eventually we would not be able to do our duty towards our country. Yesterday I went so far as to say that we have revolutionary methods of warfare to contend with and that the situation can change from day to day. Surely the hon. member is not a total stranger in Jerusalem as far as these circumstances are concerned? Why did the hon. member make this preposterious statement last night? No, I have introduced no new principle. The principle is already contained in the Act, and it is clearly defined, he other reason is that if you want to use people for these special purposes, for specific tasks, and certain categories of people for those specific tasks, and you have to transport the people by air, hon. members know that it places a terrible burden on your air force if you have to transport people to and fro every six or seven weeks. All the arguments are in favour of our extending this period.

Annually?

Oh no, please, the hon. member knows as well as I do that you have so many regiments and commandos and that you will not expect all of them to make this sacrifice annually. Most probably they will have to do it once in 10 years. No, when we are in agreement about defence matters, we must be more careful about the points on which we want to differ.

The hon. member said it was originally felt that this commando service was too long. Of course, but I explicitly said in my speech why we could not do this before, i.e. because we did not have the facilities or the capacity to train the people in the way in which we want to train them now. To start with, we did not have a military school. We could not train the officers as we can train them at the military school today. We did not have the training-ground we have now. Today we have an ideal military school with facilities for the officers and an excellent training-ground which lends itself to the type of warfare for which we want to train them. In other words, in the meantime the facilities have become available to us.

The hon. member said that the young men who stay away are complaining about this sort of triviality; they are not complaining about the principle. No, I do not think that is the reason. There are two main reasons why people are rebelling against compulsory national service. The first is that is is a world tendency that, under the leadership of certain leftist organizations throughout the world, an onslaught is being made on compulsory national service, and not only in South Africa. It is being done in Austria, Germany, France,

Switzerland and wherever there are systems of compulsory national service. There is a combined, calculated attempt on the part of certain leftist organizations and the communists to make an onslaught on compulsory national service because they know that if this is taken away from a nation, that nation collapses, because compulsory national service is not concerned with military training alone. Compulsory national service is concerned with character building, with the spiritual aspect of people and with the spiritual strength of a nation. These onslaughts are being made under the leadership of the leftists in order to discredit compulsory national service. In South Africa this Civil Rights League and others who pretend to be so pious are the most hypocritical people and come to us, in the name of justice and Christianity, with all sorts of stories because they have only one object in view, and that is, to undermine the existence of this stable nation. Sir, we have to counteract this, otherwise we will not survive in this country. I know there are thousands and tens of thousands of people who are not supporters of this side of the House, but of the opposite side, and who feel exactly the same. I know there are English-speaking officers and United Party supporters who tell me, when I come into contact with them in the Defence Force, that we must not yield on this point. If the hon. member adopts the attitude he is adopting here in always wanting to put in a plea for these people who want to avoid compulsory national service, he is not representing that section of the responsible people of South Africa.

The second reason why people are opposed to compulsory national service is that there is a lack of motivation in this regard on the part of certain parents, because they listen to every lamentation. I think I have already told the House about the case of a boy who wrote to his mother saying that he had fractured a leg because he was forced to jump out of helicopters onto the backs of terrorists and then kill them by hand. The mother did not investigate the matter, but wrote a letter to the Chief of the Army in which she addressed him in language which cannot be mentioned in decent company. When the Chief of the Army made inquiries he found that the boy had not fractured a leg. He had never been in a helicopter and had never been near one. But with his rich imagination he decided one evening to tell his mother these stories and she kicked up a fuss almost to ministerial level. Sir, we have numerous such cases. We must help to motivate the parents. The hon. member must help me to motivate the parents. I cannot motivate the United Party parents; I shall motivate the National Party parents, but he must motivate the United Party parents.

I now come to the question of the conscientious objectors. I have given my personal attention to this question of the conscientious objectors, because it is in my own nature to have strong convictions and consequently I do not want to destroy other people’s strong convictions if I can help it. I went out of my way to discuss the question of conscientious objectors with other Ministers of Defence and with heads of other defence forces. I went so far as to ask the opinions of all the chaplains of all church denominations in the Defence Force, and I have them here in writing. I do not come across people who adopt the attitude that is adopted by my hon. friend there. I know of the arrangement existing in France and in a few countries, namely that you may do alternative service if you have conscientious objections. The arrangement in France was introduced by General De Gaulle personally. Because they had problems with Jehovah’s Witnesses, they introduced the arrangement in the French Defence Force that you were forced to work double the time if you refused to do national service. But this provided no solution, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses adopt a completely different standpoint, as they do throughout the world. I have here a report of an interview conducted with one of our newspapers in South Africa by one of the most prominent leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It took place in Pretoria towards the end of last year. He was asked (translation)—

His reply to this was—

But then nobody can …

But it is no use. We are not dealing with little angels. The Jehovah’s Witnesses may look like little angels to the hon. member, but they are not. He went on to say that if the Jehovah’s Witnesses were sentenced to go and work in one of the institutions for six or nine months because they had refused to undergo military training, they would have to do so because it would be a sentence. But they would not do so as an alternative. In other words, these people do not even want to do anything which is an alternative to compulsory national service. This is the position throughout the world. I am telling that hon. member that I have discussed the matter with people who have much more experience of it than he or I. Those people told me they could give me only one piece of advice. That advice is that I should deal with them firmly.

I have another example here. In Germany they created special posts for persons who have to do alternative service, either in the Public Service or in the service of the country. In October, 1971, the ombudsman in Germany reported that the number of German citizens in the German Defence Force who had refused to do military service because of religious objections, had risen to 22 000, while only 8 000 posts were available for alternative service. If you accept the principle of alternative service, you force them to do it. Then they come to the light, and this reminds me of the story of the fellow who blew out the lamp when the doctor had delivered the third baby. When he was asked why he had put out the light, he said: “But, Sir, they are coming to the light like moths”. If you give these people half a chance, they will increase in number, because you will then have given them an excuse to have a conscience.

Why can we not follow the simple method of saying: There are other conscientious objectors who belong to well-known denominations—the names of which I do not want to mention—and who give us the most cordial co-operation? These are people who say: Very well, you have made this possible for us. We need not be trained in a fighting capacity. We are prepared to work in hospitals, become cooks, perform clerical work or be trained as firemen. These church denominations and sects co-operate with us and there is a good relationship. In Vietnam and Korea there have been numerous examples of deeds of the greatest heroism that were performed by people who were religious objectors or conscientious objectors. Books have been written about them. A book entitled No Arms on Their Shoulders has already been published. Hon. members can read that book. It is a gripping work which tells what great sacrifices people made in the field although their consciences did not allow them to carry a gun. Those persons acted like heroes in Vietnam and Korea. Why is the hon. member laughing? If the hon. member would make his comments more loudly, I would reply to him.

Go on with your speech. Why are you so sensitive?

We are dealing with a very serious matter now. I shall tell you why; your face repels me. If I look at the hon. member for Durban Point I see the hon. member.

We are having a private conversation. You carry on with your speech.

The hon. member must give me a chance to make my speech and should not try to be funny. I want to repeat that we should not play into the hands of these people. There are forces to which the hon. member for Durban Point lends his ears. He should not listen to them, but should resist them.

There are many decent organizations …

The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not mean well.

I am not referring to them.

Very well. The other people co-operate with us.

But they are all unhappy.

They are not unhappy. They are all happy. I want to tell the hon. member that I have considered this matter very carefully and even if the Select Committee should leave South Africa in the lurch on this point, I am not prepared to do so. I am not prepared to yield any further to these people than we are doing; what I am in fact prepared to do, and what the Select Committee can consider, is that when that sentence has been imposed on a man and he changes his views while serving his sentence, another concession should be made even if he has not served the full 12 months. But we should not go further than that. I want to warn that if we opened new doors here, we would undermine the national service system. There are enough enemies in South Africa who want to destroy this system.

I think I have replied to most of the points to which I had to reply. However, I want to add that I hope the Select Committee will make use of the opportunity to hear not only the chiefs of the Defence Force, but also the heads of the sections concerned with the utilization of free time, the Chaplain-General, the sectional head concerned with psychological warfare, the section head concerned with welfare in the Defence Force and the sectional head concerned with sporting activities. I think the Select Committee will then be the best witnesses ever in favour of our system of compulsory national service.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

As hon. members know, a measure such as this one, i.e. an Additional Appropriation Bill, is introduced every year. I should like to move—

The reason why it is introduced every year, is that it is simply impossible to draw up estimates of expenditure which will preclude an application for additional funds from having to be made towards the end of the year. In fact, this is once again the case with the present financial year, and in the Bill under discussion Parliament is requested to vote an additional amount totalling R103 440 387 for the services of the Republic for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1972. The said amount is required on the various accounts as follows—

These amounts come to R103 440 387 in all.

Although this additional amount that is being requested, sounds large, it is only 3 per cent of the total original estimate of R3 415 666 000. My colleagues and I will explain in detail, when asked to do so, the increased expenditure in respect of every service or expenditure or any new service on the Votes falling under our respective departments. However, I want to give the House the assurance right now that every possible step has been taken to keep Government expenditure within the amount voted originally but that this has simply been found to be impossible. I am satisfied, however, that the additional amount requested is the minimum required, and that it is fully justified.

Mr. Speaker, this is basically a Committee Stage Bill and we will therefore deal with the details and get the explanations for the new items when we come to the Committee. Mr. Speaker, a considerable amount of money is being asked for by the hon. the Minister, a matter of R103 million. That, of course, is not all the additional expenditure, because in addition to the R103 million, there still is additional expenditure which the Minister has asked for and which represents the excesses that will be met from savings. In the case of Revenue, these amount to R25 million, in the case of the Loan Account to R6 million, in the case of the Bantu Education Account to R669 000 and in the case of the South-West Africa Account to R1 800 000 —a total of R34 million. If you take the R103 million which the hon. the Minister is asking us to vote plus his savings which will now be utilized, there is provision in this Bill actually for additional expenditure of R137 739 336. It is true that against this the hon. the Minister has savings which he cannot use. This amounts to R17 million— R2 000 900 on Revenue, R12 000 900 on Loan Account, R60 000 on the Bantu Education Account and just over R1 million on the South-West Africa Account. Therefore, basically the hon. the Minister requires from us R120 000 600. What is interesting is that last year when the hon. the Minister introduced his Additional Appropriation Bill he told the House (Hansard, Vol. 32, col. 2226)—

This might well be, but this year with an avowed policy of the Government to cut expenditure—this has been said by the hon. the Minister himself and by other Ministers—we find that instead of Additional Estimates being presented to us of R60 million, we have Additional Estimates of R103 million. The country gets more perplexed every day. It cannot follow the policy trends of the Government. On the one hand we are told, and quite rightly, that the Government is endeavouring to and is going to cut Government spending. This is the objective of the hon. the Minister, an objective with which we all agree, provided he selects the correct priorities. But on the other hand, he almost doubles the amount that he is asking for additional expenditure this year in comparison with the additional expenditure last year. What is causing concern is that we have these contradictions constantly before us.

We come to the second aspect. It would appear that the hon. the Minister’s Budget has been a little inaccurate. The hon. the Minister cannot budget to an exact figure 3 per cent. Three per cent of the Budget is a large amount. It is R103 million. One would have hoped that in budgeting one would not have these Additional Estimates of 3 per cent. We know that the hon. the Minister cannot budget to an exact figure and this we accept. We know that things are going to happen during the year so that the hon. the Minister has to come back to the House and ask for further funds. However, we do believe that 3 per cent, or in fact R103-odd million, is too high.

There is a third and a very important aspect, and that is how is the hon. the Minister going to pay for this additional expenditure. Last year the hon. the Minister budgeted for an almost balanced Budget. He budgeted for a surplus of R6,9 million. From the figures that are available so far, there is a considerable body of opinion that believes that the hon. the Minister will not achieve his R6,9 million surplus, but may well have to come to this House on 29th March and show a deficit. I sincerely hope that that is not going to be the case. However, some of the figures do seem to indicate that this would possibly be the case. In any case, it does not look as if the hon. the Minister is going to have money to play with. Assuming that his Budget turns out as he hopes it would, he will have a surplus of R6,9 million. If he does not achieve that, he may have a deficit. Let us take the best position—that he is going to have a surplus of R6,9 million. How then is he going to provide the additional R86 million on a cash-flow basis required to meet these additional estimates he has put before the House this afternoon? Those are the things that are concerning us.

Firstly, we are concerned about the fact that we have these large Additional Estimates presented to the House. Secondly, we are concerned about the fact that we have a 3 per cent differential in budgeting and, thirdly, we are concerned about where the hon. the Minister is going to get these moneys.

As far as the detail is concerned, as the hon. Minister has said, we shall put our questions to the Ministers responsible. We would like the hon. Minister to give us some information on the points that I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling, and I want to know whether it is in order …

Order! No, it is not in order. I put the question.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Parktown is probably not quite serious as regards his statement that the expenditure asked for, is much more than the amount for which I asked. I think the hon. member’s calculations are not quite correct, though. When one has in certain respects a saving of R20 million, for example, and one has to spend R20 million more in another sphere, then surely the one cancels out the other, not so? I think the hon. member himself is not very serious about that argument. The hon. member also wants to take me to task for our wanting to spend such a large additional amount this year. I wonder whether the hon. member can mention to me examples from the business world of business concerns which can predict in advance, within 3 per cent, what their profits or their losses are going to be for the next year, especially where large amounts such as these are at stake.

They should.

The hon. member says that they should. I have read many reports in recent days of chairmen’s speeches and I read about cases where they expected a profit of R2 million for the year, but where the company eventually showed a loss of R1 million. You read that every day or you find that they have expected a profit of R½ million and they were surprised to find a profit of R2½ million. You find that often. It is impossible in business life to forecast exactly within 3 per cent what your losses and what your profits are going to be for the next year. In a Budget of over R3½ billion the hon. member requires me to be more accurate in my calculations than 3 per cent. I think he really expects the impossible. The hon. member alleges that I have promised to cut State expenditure and that we are now going back on our word. I must agree with the hon. gentleman, however, that the percentage of extra expenditure this year, 3 per cent, is larger than that of last year. Last year the percentage of additional expenditure was 2¼ per cent. It was one of the lowest we have ever had. This year it is 3 per cent. Last year, a percentage of 2¼ per cent was an exception. If I go back to previous years I find that in 1966-’67 the percentage was 6½ per cent, in 1967-’68 it was 4,38 per cent, in 1968-’69 it was 3,58 per cent and in 1969-’70 it was 5,39 per cent. Therefore this 3 per cent is very much below the average. I do not think the hon. gentleman can rebuke me for that. His last question was, how am I going to finance it? Mr. Speaker, I think that question I shall answer on 29th March. I think he is too much in a hurry if he wants me to reply to that question now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Revenue Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, R24 000:

I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister could tell us the reason for the increase of R22 000 in salaries, wages and allowances.

Mr. Chairman, the R22 000 is made up of that part of my salary that was increased after the resolution of 1st April of last year. Secondly, the post of scientific adviser was vacant until October. Provision has now to be made for the new scientific adviser, Dr. Naude, who was appointed as from that date. As for the rest, one official has been seconded to my department on a part-time basis and an additional typist has been employed.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister why there was such a large increase in the item “printing”, i.e. almost 50 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R2 000, which represents the printing costs of the Potgieter Report that was tabled here, has been included under sub-head D.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5.—“Transport”, R3 743 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 1.— “Transport”, R116 000:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please give the House an indication of how this additional amount of R3 743 000 is arrived at in the light of the fact, as I understand it, that no mileage costs on individual Bantu transport are kept?

The reason is of course, that the Railways suffered a greater loss than was anticipated on the transport of Bantu passengers from their homes to their places of employment. In addition to that, a service to Chatsworth was introduced, and a considerable loss was suffered. So the total loss is more than was anticipated. As the hon. member knows, there is an agreement with the Treasury that they have to reimburse the Railways for all the losses.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is then the policy that Consolidated Revenue is to carry the losses on the transport of non-Whites on the railways?

That has been the policy for many years. If the hon. member will throw his mind back, he will realize that it was first introduced in, I think, 1959-’60; it is nothing new but, of course, the amount of the loss has been increasing every year, and the subsidy that the Treasury has to pay is also much higher.

If the hon. the Minister will turn to the South-West Africa Vote, he will see that the additional amount to be voted is R116 000. The original estimate of R419 800 is being revised to R888 400. Part of the excess has been met by a saving on other subheads of R352 600. Could the hon. the Minister tell us something about this?

The railway line to Grootfontein and to Tsumeb was widened from a narrow gauge to a 3′ 6½″ gauge, and an agreement was entered into with the South-West Africa Administration that they would be responsible for all the additional losses that would be incurred on that line. Of course, since then the Government has taken over the finances of South-West Africa, and the Treasury is now responsible for those losses. These are the additional losses which have been incurred on that line.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 7.—“Public Debt”, R3 643 000, 8.—“Provincial Administrations”, R150, 9—“South African Mint”, R63 400, 10.—“Inland Revenue”, R35 607, 11.—“Customs and Excise”, R143 977, and 12.—“Audit”, R87 800, and Loan Vote A. —“Miscellaneous Loans and Services”, R12 900 000:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance would be good enough to give us the reason for this very large increase of R3 305 000 in “Management expenses” under Public Debt.

The reason is that the rand has devalued and other currencies have revalued and that we had to repay and redeem certain overseas loans. It is the difference between the rand and the other currencies that brought about the change.

Are these the revaluation losses up to the end of this year?

For this year.

On Vote No. 8 there are two items, C and D, where an additional amount of R50 is to be voted. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us an explanation of these two items? They deal with arrear contributions to Natal and the Transvaal.

The position is that during 1970-’71, in addition to the basic subsidies paid to the Provinces, subsidies were paid in terms of section 2 (e) of Act 38 of 1957 in respect of certain specific expenditure the Provinces had to incur. When the final statements in respect of 1970-71 were drawn up it was found, however, that the amounts of R631 000 and R436 000 were still due to Natal and Transvaal, respectively, and approval was given for such arrear amounts to be paid to the Provinces concerned during the current financial year. Only a nominal provision of R50 in respect of each of the Provinces is being made for this.

I would like to have some information from the hon. the Minister under Vote No. 10 with regard to this new item, where provision is made for certain refunds and remissions of grace or favour to three very fortunate firms, namely Helios Holdings Limited, R13 157, Jonem Holdings (Pty.) Limited, R16 200, and Strykpak Beleggings Beperk, R6 250. What does the ordinary citizen have to do to qualify for these refunds and remissions of grace and favour?

The circumstances in respect of all three of these fortunate firms, as the hon. member called them, are more or less similar. Consequently I shall deal with one case only, i.e. the case of Jonem. In brief the explanation here is this: The tax on undistributed profits, assessed at R66 940 at a rate of 25 cents for each R1, amounted to R16 735. The dividend of R64 800 distributed on 30th July, 1969—technically this is too early to be taken into account in respect of the 1970 year of assessment —is regarded to have been distributed during 1970 for the particular period from 1st September, 1969, to 31st August, 1971, the prescribed period. This will result in the company’s liability for the 1969 financial year increasing by R103 and its liability for the 1970 tax year decreasing by R16 200. It only means that where he obtains remission in the one year, he is assessed in respect of the other year. The circumstances of the other two companies are virtually identical. If the hon. member wants me to explain them, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Chairman, we are having ex gratia payments of this nature every single year. I understand the problem, but I really believe that it is time the hon. the Minister and his tax Department particularly took a look at the Act in respect of this particular provision to see if we cannot avoid coming to Parliament year after year for approval of these ex gratia payments. I do not think the hon. the Minister likes these ex gratia payments in these Additional Estimates; none of us do. There are problems, as I said, but I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would take a look at this and see if in the future we can avoid having to come to Parliament every year for approval of ex gratia payments.

The hon. member for Parktown has asked the hon. the Minister of finance the reason for this tremendous increase of R3 305 000 in the management expenses under Public Debt in Vote No. 10. If I heard correctly, the hon. the Minister of Finance replied that this was on account of devaluation. Sir, I am afraid this just does not add up as far as I am concerned.

Nothing adds up as far as you are concerned.

Sir, these noisy members do not worry me in the least. We will hear what they have to say when the Minister of Finance replies. We have here an original estimate of R1059 000 for management expenses, but now we have an increase of R3 305 000 to a total of R4 364 000 in respect of management expenses under Public Debt. When the hon. member for Parktown asked the hon. the Minister of Finance for the reason for this increase, he said the reason was the cost of devaluation. But devaluation was only a little more than 12 per cent, not quite 13 per cent, and that does not amount to R3 305 000, which is the increase in costs here. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can perhaps give us further details and tell us where this extra R3 million has been expended.

Sir, I would like to raise an item under Loan Vote A, which has also been put, There has been an increase of R10 million in the loan to the Postal Administration for capital expenditure. It is a comparatively small increase, but before I put a question or two to the hon. the Minister, will he please give us an explanation of the increase itself?

This is due to capital requirements of the Post Office administration. As the hon. member knows the Post Office finances its capital outlay partly from its own profits and partly through loans from the State. In this particular year both the receipts of the Post Office were lower than expected and, as will be shown later, the expenses were higher. There was shortfall in the money the Post Office required for its capital expenses. The Post Office then came back to the Treasury and asked for an additional R10 million loan in order to complete its most important tasks.

I assume that the hon. the Minister of Finance discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in order to establish this additional amount. Has he laid down any criteria in this respect as to the percentage of capital expenditure that he expects the Post Office to pay from revenue and the portion that he expects it to pay from loans such as these? Has there been an agreement between him and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, or is it just a case of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs having asked for a bit more, and having been refused …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss policy now.

I shall not discuss policy, but might I just ask whether in working out this sum, he decided what percentage the Post Office should pay?

The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

Then why is it increased by R10 million and not by R8 million or R15 million?

Order!

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, for the sake of those in this House who did not follow his explanation in regard to Vote No. 7, to further explain the reason for that increase of R3 305 000.

I will try to explain as much as I can. We always make provision in the Budget for possible parity changes in paying back external debts. We have made provision for about R1 million for parity changes in external debts. That falls under the heading of “Managment”. This year we have devalued and other currencies have revalued, resulting in a position that where we borrowed, say 10 million marks from Germany, we now have to pay 10 million marks plus about 16 per cent. We lost there. The same applies in cases where we paid back loans in countries vis-à-vis which we have devalued and they have revalued. In such cases we had to pay more, and that accounts for the increase of R3 million.

Will the Minister please tell the House why the budget for stores, material, plant and equipment has had to be increased by as much as 84 per cent? That is Vote No. 9.

Here it is mainly a case of, in the first instance, late deliveries, deliveries which were expected last year in respect of certain stores which had to be supplied at that time and which were delivered in this particular financial year. These stores were delivered in 1971-’72 and consequently provision had to be made for them again. There were late deliveries in a variety of cases and in addition it was a question of revaluation and devaluation something which also brought about these increases. If the hon. member wants to have a full explanation, I can give that to him, but in essence these are the three causes, i.e. late deliveries, revaluations and devaluations.

There are ex gratia refunds of duties to the Shell Company and BP (S.A.) of R41 977 as ex gratia payments. This is a new item. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us why there are these two ex gratia payments and whether perhaps he would not also consider making an ex gratia payment to the public, the users of the petrol. That is Vote No. 11.

There is a fairly comprehensive explanation of the position here. Does the hon. member refer to sub-head A or G?

I refer to sub-head G.

There the position is as follows.

†I do not want to give the entire explanation. I wonder whether this will satisfy the hon. member. The Government gave an assurance to Shell BP that applications for an ex gratia refund on the duty paid on imported material, etc., used for the erection of the mooring buoy at Durban would be submitted to Parliament for approval provided that the refund would be made to the extent consistent with the Republic’s international treaty obligations. Furthermore, the materials in respect of which a refund of duty is claimed, are not economically and readily obtainable in the Republic at competitive prices. Thirdly, the Board of Trade and Industries recommends a refund of duty on the materials in question. All the conditions have been complied with and the amount of R41 977 represents a customs duty which may be refunded to the company. In pursuance of the assurance given, application for an ex gratia refund of the amount is submitted for approval.

So the Government has committed Parliament to accepting that.

Two aspects of this item concern me. The one is the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast, that this Vote is brought to us simply to rubber-stamp it. An assurance was given and this is put on the Additional Estimates simply to be rubber-stamped. If not rubber-stamped it becomes a breach of faith. But the Government has given an assurance to this firm and in exchange it has received certain assurances from the firm and it is now giving a refund, ex gratia, of duties in regard to the mooring. I should like to ask the Minister whether the quality of the products used in that mooring was such that it led to any oil pollution from it and whether in fact some of those products on which a remission of duty is now being given, have in fact already had to be replaced and whether this has in any way influenced the Government in regard to the remission of the duty. They are in fact giving back duty here on an oil mooring which has created pollution. Have they got the quid pro quo that whilst this assurance has been kept and Parliament is now going to give the money, their assurance in regard to pullotion of oil from that mooring will also be kept?

According to the information I have the hon. member’s suspicions are not well-founded. I am not aware of all the details mentioned by the hon. member and the hon. member did not advance one argument to prove that this undertaking was not justified.

I am sorry but I cannot be satisfied with the reply of the Deputy Minister. With respect, Sir, he is here to answer these questions and it is no good saying he does not have the answers. The hon. member for Durban Point has raised a very valid point here and has asked a very valid question. Certain pollution has arisen out of the operations of this company at that off-shore terminus. Now, Sir, as a result of that certain damage has been done and certain expenditure has been incurred by the Government. Public money is expended as a result of that. We are being asked to rubberstamp an undertaking to refund certain moneys to this company. But, what about the quid pro quo? What about the moneys that have been spent by this Government on mopping up this pollution? Is there any such agreement? It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that he has not got the answers.

I should like some explanation in relation to Loan Vote A, subhead 1. Could the hon. the Minister explain the reason for the large additional amount of R2 900 000 as a loan to the Provincial Administration of the Cape?

Mr. Chairman, it so happened that a certain amount was allotted to the Cape Province for capital works. Towards the end of the year, however, it appeared that this was too little. It often happens in these cases that the work is completed sooner than expected. This was the case in the Cape Province this year. There was a much faster execution of the work than expected.

It can only happen in the Cape.

It is happening these days because I think the conditions in the building industry are a bit easier; things are being quickened up and there are faster building methods and so forth. We require more capital now to pay them than we did in the past. That is the only thing. Work is being done faster than we expected and the accounts have to be settled.

I should like to suggest that sub-head G of Vote No. 11 stand over until the hon. the Deputy Minister has the answer. The Minister has not given an adequate answer. In fact, he has told us that he does not have the answer. I therefore suggest that the matter stand over until the Deputy Minister has the answer. The indication is that this is part of an agreement.

What is the information that you require?

We want to know the other part of the agreement. As a result of the installation of this oil berth there has been a certain measure of pollution as a result of which some compensation was paid?

Hon. members know that we are entirely responsible for that buoy and for the oil terminal. One of the pipes was leaking. The oil companies, who are responsible for all oil pollution that might happen there, were repairing the pipes. While the pipes were under repair the tankers came back to Durban harbour. They are fully responsible for any oil pollution that may occur along the coast.

To whom do those who have suffered look for compensation? That pipe has not been found faulty once. It has actually been leaking very badly on two separate occasions. In addition to that there is continual spillage taking place. Provision is made there for a surplus boat with certain detergents which are used to spray the surplus slicks when they occur, but what guarantee is there that that is the solution to the problem? It is not the solution to the problem. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that there is still oil coming ashore. It is not necessarily coming along in the form in which it is on the waves; it is coming ashore in the form of big blobs of oil which have spilled all along the beaches on the sea side of the Bluff. It goes right down as far as Amanzimtoti. To whom do those people look for compensation when the Government has entered into an agreement of this kind?

That matter will have to be taken up with the companies.

No, that is not the answer. We are being asked to vote supply and we want to know what the answer to the problem is that is created for the people there who are suffering a loss. There is a loss being suffered in terms of a contract which the hon. the Minister of Transport has apparently entered into with these particular companies. What has he done to protect the interests of the people of South Africa? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Chairman, somebody seems to have indicated that the Government may have, in the agreement, required of the companies that they in fact compensate for pollution. It is details of that kind that we are asking for so that we shall know to whom the people who have suffered may look and whether the Government did in fact cover that in making the agreement. It will be quite wrong to pay out R40 000 to this company when in fact people may have suffered much greater damage. In fact, the Government should perhaps keep this money to ensure that the companies do compensate people for the damage they had suffered.

Mr. Chairman, the only agreement I entered into with that company was in allowing it to build a terminal buoy to off-load oil and that they would compensate the South African Railways to a certain extent for not using the harbour. When they do use the harbour we are entitled to harbour dues. If ships discharge their oil at this buoy we do not get any harbour dues. This is as far as my agreement with this company goes. In regard to the other matters, I do not have anything to do with them.

It is not part of the arrangements entered into by the hon. the Minister of Transport that we are discussing; this is apparently an arrangement which was come to by the Department of Finance and the oil company. We want to know what the quid pro quo is. There seems to be two sides to this agreement. The one is that they are entitled to certain refunds in terms of an arrangement made. On the other hand, what we want to know is what arrangements were made with the oil companies for compensation in regard to pollution. It is as simple as that. We are only trying to be helpful. We cannot be any fairer than saying that we are willing to postpone the matter to enable the hon. the Minister to get the information; we cannot be any fairer than that. We do not say that the hon. the Deputy Minister should know what the answer is. We are trying to be helpful. This is a simple matter.

Mr. Chairman, when this Government advertised and asked for objections I, as member of Parliament for Durban-Point with all its beaches, was one of those who lodged an objection. The objection went to the Department of Lands which was involved and which had to give its permission. Subsequently various discussions were held and I withdrew my objection on the ground that satisfactory assurances had been given, namely that firstly there would be no pollution and secondly that if there were pollution that pollution could be controlled immediately and eliminated. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister who wants to give R41 977 back in customs duty, that if he would like to come and swim on Durban’s Addington beach and then go home and try to scrape the oil off his feet, he would find that a week later he would still be scraping oil off his feet. This pollution affects the coast right from the constituency of the hon. member for South Coast past my constituency to the constituency of the hon. member for Durban-North.

And Blaauwberg Strand!

The nature of the oil that is coming ashore there is such that it is making these beaches so unpleasant that people cannot use them and it is having an effect on the normal economy of Durban, which is affected by holiday makers not going to the beach. When we asked the hon. Deputy Minister, who is asking us to vote this money, what the position is about concomitant agreements about pollution he does not know anything about them. In other words, one department has made an agreement about giving BP some money back and another Minister has made an agreement to get some money from them in regard to dock dues. So the Minister of Transport is happy because he is getting money for dock dues for docks that are not being used. The Deputy Minister of Finance is giving away money on customs dues and he is happy. The Minister of Lands has not said a word, but he was the one who authorized this in the first place. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is concerned with pollution, has not said a word. This is a collective responsibility. We want a clear indication that the Government is accepting its collective responsibility and not allowing its left hand to do things that its right hand does not know about.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has now reached the question of holiday makers in Durban, and in my opinion we are a very long way from the actual question we are dealing with here.

This assurance was given to BP in respect of a certain function to be performed by them, one which at that time had nothing to do with pollution. The assurance was given on three conditions which I have read to this House. Furthermore, that assurance was given subject to this House approving this refund. The three conditions which had been imposed were met. In my opinion, as far as this transaction is concerned, pollution does not enter into the picture at all. It will have to be dealt with on merit.

Was the Minister of Economic Affairs consulted?

The matter will be dealt with on merit.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, where have we got now? The hon. the Deputy Minister in effect now said: “I am not responsible for anything to do with pollution. I had a financial arrangement”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman …

Do not lose your temper.

Run away and play with your yo-yo, man. Mr. Chairman, the position is that the interests of those people whom we are representing, those people whose livelihoods are at stake because of their reliance on the stream of visitors who go there to take advantage of the bathing facilities on the beaches and so forth, have apparently never been given a thought by the Government when the various Ministers finally between themselves decided that this was the kind of solution to the problem associated with that single mooring buoy. They were prepared to put before Parliament a request for Parliament to approve of this Vote which, incidentally, I may say, is a pure formality according to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is not interested in whether we are going to agree to it or not. He said …

You can vote against it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the position is that the Government, secure in its knowledge of its majority in Parliament, felt entitled to enter to this agreement with the oil companies. It has given them a certain assurance. The oil companies obviously say that they have complied with their side of the bargain. What we are trying to find out now is whether they have complied with their side of the bargain. Was there nobody to say that if the oil companies are given these particular allowances in respect of a remission of custom duties, they will have to give a guarantee in regard to a possible solution which may flow from that off-shore mooring? Have those conditions now been satisfied? This is what we are entitled to know. It is not sufficient that there was just a financial arrangement with the Government permitting the writing off of certain custom duties or an amelioration of those custom duties. There surely was another side. That is the other side that we want because, as I say, it affects the livelihood of our people. What is that other side? Has the Government made any inquiry to find out whether the oil companies have in fact fulfilled the requirements demanded of them in terms of that contract? There are now obviously four ministers involved in the matter. May I say here that once to the hon. Minister of Transport that the spraying of detergents on those oil slicks does not dispose of the oil. That is not the answer. People are suffering financially today. This is costing the people there large sums of money. Apparently this is to be allowed to be perpetuated. In spite of the leaks which have taken place, are we to go on now in perpetuity with the Government washing its hands of the matter and saying: “No, we agreed to this, we have now allowed the companies to pay a reduced customs duty on the materials used in that off-shore buoy and now we wash our hands of it. We have nothing more to do with it. As long as they continue to put a detergent on the oil slicks, we are quite happy about it.” I repeat that the putting of detergents on the oil slicks does not dispose of the oil. Two kinds of chemical reactions take place in so far as that oil is concerned. In respect of the one reaction, it may well be that there is greater danger now to the marine life in that ocean than there would be from any other source whatever. Secondly, the reaction as far as the oil is concerned which allows it, as I have said, to come ashore not as a liquid but in great big semi-liquid, semi-solid blobs which disperse through the sand and which can go down as far as 18 inches to two feet. Therefore to talk about sweeping it up, as has been suggested in some quarters, is a lot of nonsense. You cannot sweep it up because it goes down so deeo. This is spreading further and further down the coast. This is a real problem and I do not want hon. members opposite to think that this is a sort of happy classroom atmosphere in which we can harry the teacher. This is not the position. This is a serious matter and is costing somebody tens of thousands of rands and it looks to us as though it has been perpetuated and going into the future. We want an assurance that this is going to be stopped. This is the opportune and the proper time to discuss the position, because it is before this money is paid over to these companies, or at least before they are allowed to pay the lesser amount in customs duties. We ask what protection has the public of South Africa got in terms of this agreement which is being negotiated with the oil companies.

Mr. Chairman, as far, as I am concerned, my arrangement with the oil companies was that I must be compensated for the loss of dock dues if they use the oil terminal buoy. The hon. member knows that the Oil Pollution Bill has been passed by this House during the last session. That provides for an elaborate arrangement. Directly when that Bill comes into operation as an Act, and it is an Act now, an elaborate organization will be established in Durban. I am merely concerned about the harbour as such, but all these latest methods of fighting oil pollution will be used. If the hon. member raises the matter during the Budget debate on my Vote, I can give him all the particulars, which take up about five or six foolscap pages. These particulars show what is going to be done directly when that Act comes into operation. That Act will deal with oil pollution on the whole coast. The hon. member is quite right when he says that oil detergents are of very little help in the process of dispersing oil. It disperses oil, but the oil forms blobs which go on to the beach. Much better methods must be adopted if we want to cover that aspect, but that is all covered by the Oil Pollution Bill that has been passed by this House during the last session.

Mr. Chairman, all the hon. members of this House should agree to such an extent that we should be absolutely certain that there is no counter-claim by the Government against these oil companies for perhaps greater damage than they are now claiming by way of this amount. The hon. member for Durban Point raised objections; he went to the Department of Agriculture and Land Tenure and they then were presumably satisfied with the arrangement. In view of what the hon. member has revealed, we feel certain that there must be a Government department that has made an arrangement whereby people injured as a result of the flow of oil from this point, will be compensated. The Government perhaps will be compensated for expenditure they will have in cleaning the beaches, and the other individuals may be compensated. We feel there must be …

The council.

The council likewise would obviously be concerned. There must be an arrangement made by one or other department so that if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance cannot give us the answer, presumably one of the other members of the Cabinet can. If that is not so, are we to believe that this potential nuisance to the tourist centre of Durban was embarked upon by the Government without protecting the inhabitants of this important area of our country in any way at all, save where the Pollution Bill that has been passed last year would help? This would be unsatisfactory. The Pollution Bill is in the main dealing with the sort of thing that we have very little control over, in the sense that you have tankers passing by our coastline …

It deals with everything. It deals with the harbours as well.

It is not promulgated yet.

No, it will be soon, I believe.

Here was a special point of a potentially enormous nuisance and potential danger of pollution to the people of Durban. One feels confident that, before permission was granted to establish this point, the Government must have insisted on the most stringent provisions to protect all the people concerned. Surely, among others, one would have been a provision for compensation. The evidence is that there has been so much damage already on that coastline that it must have cost an amount far in excess of this R41 000 odd required. We would like to know whether such an agreement was made by the Government and whether there is therefore perhaps a larger amount due by this company to the Government, to other councils or individuals, in which case this House ought not to pass this item.

I am very concerned with the reply given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I find it more serious than any other aspect of the discussion we have had. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he gave an undertaking under certain conditions to make these refunds. We accept that, but the interpretation of that statement is that he only protected the oil company and nobody else. He was only looking after the oil company and not after the interests of the Government and of the other people concerned. His answer was that he had an agreement with these conditions, that he was going to fulfil the agreement and that he did not know anything about anything else. This seems to be a terribly onesided contract, and the hon. the Deputy Minister seems to be quite happy about it. But worst still, we had an interjection from the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, who is one of the senior Ministers of the Cabinet, and his interjection was that if we did not like it, we should vote against it. Is this the way in which he wants Parliament to operate …

Yes, this is the way.

… that the only right the Opposition has is not to get information but simply to vote against items?

Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate that the Opposition is here to try to see what political capital they can make out of any issue. That is what they are here for. All that is before me is an item involving ex gratia payments for custom duty; it has nothing to do whatsoever with any other matter. It is purely an ex gratia payment for duty on imported goods an which payment has been made. I say if hon. members on that side of the House do not accept it, they can vote against it. That is how I feel about it.

The hon. member for Pinelands says this entire affair has nothing to do with the Bill concerning the pollution of our coasts, which is to be promulgated. Now hon. members ask, “What about the Department of Agriculture?” The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure does co-operate in this legislation in terms of which we are going to deal with pollution. This matter concerns a refund to two oil companies.

But you gave the concession.

That is quite in order, but the hon. member for Pinelands is mistaken to say that this legislation has nothing to do with this matter. When that Bill comes into operation, all these departments are consulted. Do not think we view the pollution of our coastal waters lightly; it is a very serious matter, and we agree with hon. members as far as this is concerned. But he must not say that the two matters should be separated. Surely the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is not responsible if a ship springs an oil leak five miles off the coast and the coast is polluted. We need that legislation to enable us to take action. That is why I say it is wrong to say that the two matters are completely separate; it is a coordinated matter.

Order! I just want to point out that at first I put all the votes of the hon. the Minister of Finance together. Now, for the sake of convenience, as there apparently is a dispute about Vote No. 11, I put the previous Votes up to No. 10.

Mr. Chairman, as regards Vote No. 9, when the hon. the Deputy Minister replied to the hon. member for Constantia he explained that the difference of R87 000 between the original estimate and the revised estimate was due to two factors: One, the question of late deliveries and the second one, revaluation and devaluation. Could he tell us how much was accounted for by each, especially by revaluation and devaluation?

Because of the revaluation of the German mark the expenditure attached to the acquisition of the screw press from Germany was more than had been anticipated, i.e. R2 900.

The acquisition of the what?

The screw press which they use …

For applying pressure to your thumb.

Because of the revaluation of the Swiss franc and the devaluation of the rand the final payment of 10 per cent of the price of the melting and pouring equipment for bronze will now exceed the original estimate, i.e. by R1 900.

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

I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister has fully replied to my question on Vote No. 9. Perhaps he would like to continue?

Revenue Votes Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 11.—“Customs and Excise”, R143 977:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that subhead (g)—“Refunds and remissions of grace or favour”—be reduced by R41 977. We have raised this matter with the hon. the Minister but we have not had a satisfactory reply. In view of the inadequacy of the reply I wish to move the following amendment—

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Sport is not in his seat, because he took the view that we should just move the deletion of this item. I should like to explain to him …

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion on that. The hon. member must come back to this item.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, before I sit down, just to …

I may just draw attention to the fact that this is a new item of expenditure which was not discussed in a Second Reading debate.

Order! I am aware of that. I said the hon. member was not allowed to continue referring to what the hon. the Minister of Tourism had said. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, in deciding to move the deletion of this item, we cannot possibly vote for it when we have reason to believe that the Government may in fact have a claim which can be set off against this amount, a claim which is larger than this amount. In such a case the House would be entirely wrong in supporting it. The reason why we say that there may be such a claim because any careful Government would certainly, in granting the concession of this off-shore loading point, have had in mind the possibility of pollution. Indeed its attention was specifically drawn to it by the hon. member for Durban Point. We feel therefore that they must have made an arrangement to protect themselves and South African citizens in this regard. We have from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture an indication that they have not made such an agreement. He seemed to be relying, and think that the country too should rely, on the provisions of the Pollution Bill which has not as yet been brought into force. Notwithstanding great efforts we have certainly not had a clarifying statement from him in his capacity as being connected to the Ministry of Lands. For this reason we clearly must oppose the provision.

Mr. Chairman, there are no less than four Ministers who have been involved with this matter, but the Minister of Economic Affairs is the Minister who, after all, has to deal with this whole question of oil pollution. He did not have anything to do with either the fixing of the off-shore moorings or the agreement with the petrol companies as far as I know. That seems to have come under the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether, in fact, he did have something to do with it. Has it from his point of view simply been a callous and reckless disregard for the rights and the interests of the people on the Natal coast there who are put at peril because of the fact of the establishment of that off-shore mooring point? Did he take any interest in the matter? Was he involved in this at all? Was he consulted? Did he hear about this at a time when it was possible for him to use his influence? [Interjections.]

All the measures for dealing with oil pollution which we get on the sea, from whatever cause it may be, are under the Minister of Economic Affairs. The Act which we passed last year has apparently not yet been promulgated, in spite of the urgency at the time and in spite of the trouble which we had with the Wafra. It was quite clear in the case of the Tigris the other day, which was ahore almost right alongside this mooring point, that we have no laws to deal with it. Apparently there was no law to deal with it. This extends much further than merely the foundering of one ship. This is a continuing pollution which is taking place. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he was in any way at all involved with it; can he tell us what the position is from his angle for the clearing up …

Sit down and I shall tell you.

In that case I shall not proceed if the hon. the Minister will rise to explain it to us. He said he would rise.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition is being quite silly … [Interjections.] … to drag in pollution under this Vote which is now being discussed. Indeed, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, it has nothing to do with pollution and that is why I say they are being quite silly. They are trying to scavenge a little political gain; they think they will be able to scavenge a little political gain out of this matter but they will not succeed. [Interjections.] What they are trying to do is to make out a case in regard to this Vote which is under discussion now that an amount has to be paid out to the Shell-B.P. company, and in case the Government has a claim against that company, this amount can be offset against the claim the Government will have against the company in the case of pollution. That is the case they are trying to make out.

But what is the position? Earlier this evening the hon. member for South Coast spoke about pollution on the South Coast and the chemicals which are used, the marine life which is being destroyed along the coast and the globules which are being washed up along the coast, but all these matters have nothing whatsoever to do with this point.

They have!

Those hon. members would like to establish a context now. I can furnish the hon. member for South Coast with replies to all the points he raised in connection with ocean pollution, the treatment by means of chemicals, and the substances which have been washed ashore. We have told him this ad nauseam in this House, but he does not want to accept it. He wants to try and scavenge a little political gain out of this matter. The fact of the matter is that all these oil companies and companies which are owners of tankers are insured with insurance companies. The oil companies have an insurance company called Cristal and the owners of tankers have an insurance company by the name of Tovalop. We make certain that when tankers use that terminal to discharge oil, the particular oil companies on behalf of which that oil is being discharged, are properly insured with an insurance company. In this case Shell and B.P. who use that terminal for discharging their oil, are properly insured with Cristal and Cristal makes provision that an amount of up to 30 million dollars can be paid out for every single case of pollution as compensation to whoever it may be. [Interjections.] If this is the position, that the oil company is insured with Cristal and if the amount involved is 30 million dollars, why then are hon. members so worried about a small amount we may have to recover from Shell in this case by way of an adjustment against an amount due under Customs and Excise? This is a completely ridiculous position.

I am very surprised that a lawyer like the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should come here with such confused notions. Sir, it may be perfectly true that the Shell Company to whom this payment of R42 000 is to go is in fact insured by Cristal or somebody else, but the claim that the Government or the Municipality or individuals may have on account of this pollution is against Shell in the first place, and if the terms of the contract, which the Government has presumably made to protect South Africa, include provision for a liquid amount, perhaps provided for directly in the agreement which we presume they have made, then immediately that claim by the Government can be set off against this amount which is otherwise due to Shell. And consequently it is of the most vital importance for this Committee to know, before it passes this amount of money, whether there was an agreement made by the Government to cover the situation and what the terms of that agreement were and whether in fact set-off does operate, as it may well do.

Sir, the mystery deepens. We have here Government Ministers at complete odds with each other. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, representing the Minister of Lands who is not here, got up and delivered a lecture to us on the Oil Pollution Bill. He evaded the issue. The simple issue is that his department gave the concession to the oil company to establish the ocean terminal. What we want to know is what guarantees he got from that oil company in regard to pollution. That is the question which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not answered. He has waffled about the Bill and the protection which the Bill, which is now an Act, will give, but he has not told us what steps his department took to ensure that there would be protection from and compensation for pollution. Now;, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs gets up and says, “But there is insurance against the ships”. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister a series of questions on oil pollution from this ocean terminal, and the answer to each question was, “There has not really been much pollution; there was a little leak here and there was a little leak there.” We had to drag the answer out of him. When we asked him what pollution had come from that terminal, he protected the terminal and said that there had not been much pollution. All I know is that in my constituency I have an Addington Beach which for months past has been completely polluted by oil and still is at this moment. How do I claim against Cristal or any other insurance company, or how does the City Council of Durban claim against the company when the Minister himself says that the pollution is not coming from the ocean terminal? In fact, Sir, we know that there is pollution coming from the ocean terminal; and in the face of all these denials we had an admission today from the hon. the Minister of Transport that the major pipe had leaked and had had to be replaced. We had an admission that there had been major spillage which had been dispersed, but we have heard from the hon. member for South Coast that that dispersal does not dispose of the oil; it simply turns it into globules which come up on the beach later on. In other words, Sir, we have a Government here which does not know what it is doing. One Minister does not know what the other is doing. The Minister of Lands does not know what guarantees he has. The Deputy Minister of Finance has not consulted with the Cabinet before paying our R41 000 and he does not know what his colleagues have done. The Minister of Transport is interested only in his dock dues; the Minister of Economic Affairs is only interested in insurance companies and other issues. We have a Government at odds with each other, and nobody can give us the answer, but I want to ask the pertinent question …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. We are only dealing with refunds of duties.

Mr. Chairman, that is the question I want to ask the Deputy Minister. I want to ask him to tell us whether this amount of R41 977 has in fact been paid or credited to the oil company concerned. Has it been paid or credited, or has it not? That is a fair question and it is relevant to this Vote. We want to know whether this amount has been credited or paid, not necessarily by cheque; it could be offset against payment. We want to know whether any deal has been done by which the company has already received the benefit of this money. Because, Sir, this Committee is not a rubber stamp for the Government. We are not a rubber stamp simply to say: “Ja, baas; thank you; we are going to vote for you.” We are here to protect the interests of the taxpayers of South Africa and the constituencies which we represent. Those of us who have fought against this pollution are defending the interests of our constituencies. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give a categorical assurance, if this Committee rejects this item, that this money has not been paid and in fact no deal has been done which makes it irrecoverable from the company.

Sir, if the Opposition had not spoken so seriously one would have thought they regarded this matter as a joke.

This is no joke. Deal with the Vote.

I am dealing with the Customs and Excise Vote. I do not know where the Opposition are. Customs and Excise has fulfilled its function in this regard as the Department of Customs and Excise. It has laid down the conditions which Customs and Excise has the right to lay down. I told the hon. member that those conditions had been complied with. We now come to Parliament, and the department asks for approval to effect payment. Shell-B.P. honoured the agreement it had with Customs and Excise. In other words, there is an obligation now. If Shell-B.P. has a different obligation in respect of pollution, there is other machinery to handle that—not Customs and Excise. As far as the hon. member’s specific question is concerned, I cannot conceive, since I am coming to this House to ask for approval to effect payment, that the amount would have been paid out. According to the information at my disposal it has not been paid out.

I think the hon. the Minister misunderstands the position. He is coming to the House and he wants our approval for the payment of this amount of R41 000 odd in terms of an agreement he made with Shell-B.P. for a refund of customs duties provided certain conditions were fulfilled. Now we accept that the conditions were fulfilled and we accept that the hon. the Minister is obliged to pay out these amounts of money. But this is no reason for our approval because we say the hon. the Minister should not have entered into this arrangement until he took certain protective steps at the same time, and that is what we are dealing with. We are not interested in what arrangements the hon. the Minister made. He has come to ask us for our approval and we say we will not approve it, and we will not approve his agreement with Shell-B.P., unless he has done the things we as a House believe he should have done. The Minister of Economic Affairs says everything is covered by insurance. Now I know this is somewhat outside the scope, Sir, but I ask your permission to put one question to the Minister. Is Cristal Insurance effective against the buoy or is it effective only against tankers? In other words, is the Minister satisfied that leakages from this buoy are covered by the insurance that he has mentioned this evening, because I do not believe that that is the case.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

I want to add a further reason to what the hon. member for Parktown gave. The hon. the Deputy Minister, I suggest, is seeing this in a water-tight compartment. But he and his department are only one Department of State. There are other Departments of State and we would think that the other Departments of State …

Order! That point has been made over and over again. The hon. member for Durban Point made that point a minute ago.

May I just ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that he is dealing with one isolated matter, one isolated arrangement? I want to use the argument that if in fact another Government department has a claim for a larger amount it is most relevant to this item, to whether he pays out or not, because this can be set off.

Order! Unless the hon. member can advance new arguments he must resume his seat.

Sir, we have had an admission by this Government that they entered into a contract entitling B.P.-Shell to erect this buoy. We have a further admission by this Government that some pollution has been caused as a result of this operation. We have a further admission …

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat all the admissions; he must advance new arguments.

No, but you, Sir, will allow me to lead up to my argument. We have an admission by the Minister of Economic Affairs that there could be circumstances in which a set-off may arise as a result of damage caused by the B.P.-Shell Company through this buoy operation. Now in view of the fact that we have a definite admission from members on that side of the House, from no less a member than the Leader of the House, that there has in fact been pollution caused by the operation of this buoy, we are entitled to ask whether the Government has made a claim for damages from Shell and B.P. Has a claim for damages been made, and if a claim for damages has been made then clearly a set-off would operate and this Parliament would be entitled to withhold payment until the question of set-off has been decided. So my first question to the Minister—and I direct this to the Minister of Economic Affairs or some other Minister, if there is another Minister who can give us the information—is whether a claim has been made against this company in respect of the damage caused by pollution, which is admitted to have been caused by this Government. That is the first question, and if a claim for damages has been made, I would like to know what the amount is, and if a claim has not been made I would like to know why a claim has not been made in view of the admission that this operation has caused damage. Those are the two questions I think we are entitled to have answered because clearly the question of set-off can apply on the admission of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I now want to deal with the statement by the hon. the Leader of the House, who said that the question of pollution and the possible set-off in respect of damages caused by pollution against this amount which the House is being asked to pass, could be decided and determined in terms of the Pollution Act. I would like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the House that the operation of this bouy is in terms of a contract between B.P.-Shell and the Government, and it may well be that the terms of the contract are such that when the provisions of the Pollution Act are raised against Shell and B.P., they may be able to use the terms of the contract as a protection for the basis of their operations. In other words, they may be able to say that they are operating in terms of the provisions of their contract with the Government and that they are therefore protected. Surely once again this House is entitled to know whether or not this danger exists. In other words, we are entitled to have full details of the terms of the contract to be sure that the company would not be able to overcome any action for damages from pollution by setting up the terms of the contract.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred in a half sneering manner to the explanation I tried to give about the Pollution Act which will shortly come into operation. I told him very courteously that these two matters go hand in hand. It seems to me the Opposition wants to play the fool. [Interjections.] It is quite clear what they are suggesting. They suggest that we should not pay out this amount. What is the meaning of that? Where these people have rendered a service, where Shell-B.P. have honoured their contract, do we have to pay, yes or no? That is what it is all about. [Interjections.] Those hon. members have referred to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. From the nature of the case they are the people who have drawn up the lease and administer the Sea-shore Act. But do you think I have the contract here, Sir? There are hundreds of contracts in Pretoria. The whole of this matter concerns customs and it falls under the Customs Vote. Hon. members want to know whether there is a provision such as that in the contract. I am almost certain it is included in the contract but I do not express an opinion about something if I have not read it, because I do not want to tell a lie; I should like to furnish you with the true fact, Sir. But that contract may contain a clause to the effect that …

That is an exception to the rule.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I can get the particulars but I am almost certain that the contract entered into with Shell-B.P. will contain a clause in respect of pollution. However, to save time, I should like to suggest that hon. members put a question on the Question Paper and then we Will give them the reply in the proper way.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members. I have not heard a new argument for a long time now and I want to appeal to hon. members to advance new arguments.

Mr. Chairman, we have had new information. The hon. the Deputy Minister, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, claims that there is a contract between the Department of Agricultural Credit and B.P.-Shell, governing the permission which they have for the B.P.-Shell terminal. We are relieved to know that that is so. Equally this only confirms us in our view that this House should certainly not pass this item tonight. It therefore surprises us, particularly in view of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that the other side did not seize the suggestion of the hon. Chief Whip on this side that this matter stand over until we have full information. I may say that, if that suggestion had been accepted by the Government, we would have saved an hour or more of the time of the House.

Do you want information or do you want to play politics?

I was surprised at the ignorance displayed by a lawyer on that side, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, when he spoke. Perhaps one should expect ignorance of the law from one who is not trained in it, but surely, after all the discussion we have had —indeed, Mr. Chairman,, you have suggested that we are repeating our arguments— it has sunk in with the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is a very real possibility of a set-off; and a set-off means that the debt has been cancelled out. There would therefore be no item for us to pass. According to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement there is apparently a contract which will quite possibly give the Government a claim for at least this amount. Surely, therefore, even at this late hour, we should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Pinetown to hold this matter over until it can be examined.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn my attention to the hon. member for Parktown. Those hon. members are playing politics but because the hon. member for Parktown was an accountant in his day, I now want to ask him whether he agrees that the amount under Vote 11 is merely a refund of duties which have been overcharged. Whether there is another agreement or not, has nothing to do with this matter. This amount has to be refunded simply because excess customs duties have been claimed. This case is similar to the one in regard to Vote No. 10. The hon. member should tell this House why he has not made a comparison. Surely, if Vote No. 11 is wrong, Vote No. 10 must be wrong too, but he had no objection to that. The one is being refunded under Customs and the other one is refunded under Inland Revenue. [Interjections.] In that case it is a refund from undistributed profits tax. So there is no difference.

There was no pollution in the previous case.

These are two identical cases. For that reason the hon. member must tell us why he objects to Vote No. 11 but not to Vote No. 10.

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to point out the difference to my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Sunnyside, I will be happy to do so. We have explained that the three items on Vote No. 10 are items which have appeared here year after year and that there is a provision in the Income Tax Act that, if the hon. the Minister wants to make a refund, he cannot do so although there is sound ground for doing so. He must come to Parliament for approval. We have always given our approval and have done the same tonight. For the hon. member to say that this is merely a customs matter is quite out of context. That is only one aspect of the situation. As there are contracts involved and there is insurance involved, which I do not believe applies in this case anyway, I really want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is dealing with this, to postpone this item and allow the Government to give full information, in which case we can deal with it at a later stage.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M Cadman.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 11, as printed, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 12.—“Audit”, R87 800, and Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services”, R12 900 000:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister be good enough to explain item D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications—where we have an increase of just under 50 per cent, an increase of R15 000?

Mr. Chairman, the reasons I have here are that in respect of items 2 and 3 the increase is attributable chiefly to the increase in telephone rentals and tariffs, as well as to extension for the department. [Interjections.] No, I beg your pardon. I am dealing with the wrong sub-head. The increase in respect of subhead D is attributable chiefly to the considerable rise in printing costs and the printing of more reports.

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. the Deputy Minister first read the wrong answer, he simply passed it off by saying that it is due to the printing of more reports. What reports? Since when has Audit got so many more reports that it has to spend R15 000—50 per cent— more on it? If the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to pretend that Audit is now auditing 50 per cent more departments and accounts than it used to, he cannot expect to get away with that sort of argument. But to stand up and simply say that it is due to the printing of more reports and give no further details is not an answer. We asked for an answer to our question.

Mr. Chairman, I said very clearly that it was attributable to a considerable rise in printing costs and the printing of more reports. I think the hon. member knows just as well as I do that new accounts are assigned to the Controller and Auditor-General from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, surely this was badly estimated? This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Finance was extremely proud of the fact that the increase in total expenses was only 3 per cent. Here, however, we now have an increase of 50 per cent. [Interjections.]

Order!

Speak up, we cannot hear you.

If you will keep quiet you will hear what I am saying. Here we have an increase of 50 per cent in the estimates. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain to us why he has a difference of 50 per cent between the original estimates and the final amount? That is our question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not replied. Firstly, he has not told us what extra reports were printed and secondly, he has not replied to the hon. member for Pinetown who asked how he could be 50 per cent wrong. We can understand their being 100 per cent wrong politically, but when it comes to the Deputy Minister of Finance, he should not be 50 per cent wrong financially. His political error is another matter. Let him now give us an answer as to why he is 50 per cent out in his estimates and what new reports have been printed and, seeing that he has said that the cost of printing has gone up so much, can he explain how it has gone up by 50 per cent? Does that mean that everyone in South Africa is subjected to a 50 per cent increase in printing costs or is the Government undertaking printing at an uneconomic rate? If this is the picture, that printing costs are 50 per cent more, where does the hon. Minister of Finance’s figure of a 7 per cent inflation rate come in?

4 per cent.

Where does the 4 per cent inflation rate come in, when we have a 50 per cent inflation rate when it comes to printing the reports? We want more information than this.

Mr. Chairman, surely an important principle is involved here. The Auditor-General is actually under Parliament itself. He is not an official of a State department, but an official of Parliament. He is according to the hon. Minister, printing more reports for Parliament with money voted by Parliament. I think we are certainly justified in asking what these additional reports are. Are we not justified in asking this of a person who is actually an the same position as an officer of Parliament?

The answer is that a large number of Bantu authorities, in respect of which an audit has to be carried out, have been added.

We cannot hear!

A large number of Bantu authorities, in respect of which an audit has to be carried out, have been added. The original estimate amounted to R28 000 in respect of printing. The revised estimate amounts to R43 000 in respect of printing. This is explained by those new reports that have been added, as well as an increase in printing costs.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Deputy Minister if these reports took him by surprise? Were they not expected?

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development to tell us about these different Bantu authorities.

Read the Acts and you will know why they are there.

Is this because of the Acts passed in Parliament? How many more Acts have we had this year? What printing has had to be done for these new “owerhede” or Bantu authorities. I shall ask the Minister to tell me what printing had to be done for all these new Bantu authorities because the printing has gone up by 50 per cent. What type of printing was done for Bantu authorities.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration to sit in his seat and to hurl insults at us …

Do not point at me. [Interjections.]

It is all very well for the hon. Minister to sit there and shout across the floor. Will he tell us what these Bantu authorities are?

You can point at your workers on the farm, but not at me.

I want to ask the hon. member to which sobriety he refers. Does he talk about my political sobriety, because I see no sobriety on that side of the House at all; none at all. It is no good the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration hurling insults at us, it is no good saying that he does not speak to people who are not sober. He cannot deny that he has said. It. Does he deny that he said it?

What?

That you do not speak to people who are not sober.

I did not say that.

What did you say?

I said I only speak to people who are sober.

Well, it is exactly the same. What does he imply by that?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is what the hon. Minister has said in order in terms of the rules of Parliament? He said that he would only speak to people who were sober.

I never said so.

He said so!

He must withdraw.

He repeated it.

He must apologize to the Höuse.

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say?

Mr. Chairman, I spoke Afrikaans. I sat here and I made an interjection; I said I only spoke to people who were sober, and the word “sober” (nugter) has many meanings; it means inter alia … [Interjections.]

Disgrace!

Order! Any person who makes an interjection now, will be sent from the Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! Let me finish first. Any person who makes an interjection while this Vote is being dealt with, will be sent from this Committee without any warning.

Mr. Chairman, did you rule that what the Minister said was out of order, or was it in order?

That is in order. The hon. the Minister said he spoke of “sober”, and that is quite permissible. That is not out of order.

On a point of order, Sir, the Minister said that he spoke in Afrikaans and that he said “ek praat net met mense wat nugter is”. But he repeated in English, “I said I only talked to people who are sober”. I demand that he apologize to the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. the Minister repeated in English, while I was speaking to him, that he said he only spoke to people who were sober. Those were his words.

Order! I have given my ruling on that matter.

Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your ruling but let me say that when we talk about sobriety, we expect to see some sobriety on the other side of the House as well; because whether this be political sobriety or sobriety which comes out of a bottle, or whatever the sobriety may be, it is exactly the same as the meaning of the hon. Minister when he said it.

Order! Will the hon. member please resume his seat. I put the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I address you on your ruling in this matter? There is a long list of precedents, both in this House and in the House of Commons, that if an imputation is made against a member that he is not sober, and that is the imputation which was made, that is unparliamentary.

Order!

What is more, Sir, if I may just conclude my few remarks and arguments, if someone outside of this House says that someone in this House was not sober or suggested that he might not be, that would be a breach of the privileges of Parliament. Sir, I ask you to revise your ruling in this matter, and ask you in the interests of Parliament, to rule what the hon. the Minister said as out of order. Otherwise, Sir, you will create a precedent here which will be most unfortunate for our future deliberations in this House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal explanation …

Order!

The hon. Minister has given his explanation, and I have accepted it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

And I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister made two distinct and separate remarks. The first remark was made in Afrikaans, and that is the remark which he has repeated in answer to your request. He then made a second remark in English, as an interjection, when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was speaking. It is the remark in English to which we are taking exception. That remark in English was clearly stated, namely that he speaks only to persons who are sober, the clear implication being that certain members in this House at the moment are not sober. I suggest that is clearly unparliamentary and that the hon. the Minister should be ordered to withdraw and to apologize to this House.

Order! I have given my ruling, I put the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is not a matter, if I may say so, of your ruling as to the hon. Minister’s explanation. The hon. the Minister said that he spoke in Afrikaans. He did not speak in Afrikaans only. He also said something in English. I ask for your ruling on what the hon. Minister said in English. If the hon. the Minister denies that he said what he said in English, then I would like to ask him for a Select Committee as to whether he is telling the truth, whether the hon. the Minister has given you a proper and honest explanation.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister add something in English?

Mr. Chairman, may I say something on a point of personal explanation? Firstly, the hon. member for Durban North is absolutely wrong in imputing to me that I told certain members in this House that they were sober or not sober. I did not … one single … [Interjections.] Sir, have interjections not been made?

Order!

Let me state it clearly—I did not say to one single member, “You (u of jy) are sober or not sober.” I said, in general, that I spoke to people who were sober. That is what I said.

What did you say in English?

In English I turned round the hon. member’s negative statement to show that I had spoken in a positive sense. That is all I did.

Order!

I am sorry, Sir, I think the hon. the Minister, in all fairness, should say in English the words he used in English when he was addressing his remark to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District where he said clearly —and I am sure it has been recorded on tape—“I speak only to people who are sober; I address only people who are sober.” He said that in English. I challenge him to deny that he said that in English.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am challenging the hon. the Minister to say whether it is so or not. If he denies it I must accept his denial. We all heard it here. I challenge him as a man of honour to say whether he used those words in English.

The hon. the Minister has given his explanation.

But he has given his explanation in Afrikaans. It is the words he used in English.

Order!

I suggest that you allow us to challenge the Minister as to whether he used those words or not.

Will the hon. member resume his seat please.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the Vote. This may sound strange after the performance of the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration. He was asked a direct question as to how many Bantu authorities have been established during the current financial year. He has refused to answer that question. I put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance who gave as a reason for the increase in this Vote, the number of Bantu Authorities that have been created. We have asked him and he does not know. We have asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and he does not know how many Authorities have been created. If he knows let him get up and tell the House. Let him help his colleagues out of trouble. His silence is an indication that he as the Minister in charge does not know how many Bantu Authorities have been established within the last year. If he knows, let him give us the figure. If he does not, let the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance give us the figure. He is asking for an increase in expenditure and he is not able to tell us the reason other than the vague statement, “the number of Bantu Authorities”. Where were the Bantu Authorities, how many were there and what audit was required for them? As far as I can recollect this Parliament—the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said by “Acts of Parliament”—has passed no Bill this session creating an authority. It passed a Homelands Bill last year and under that Bill there were two or perhaps three Authorities established. If that is incorrect, let the hon. the Minister tell us what other Authorities were established. We cannot be asked to vote money when neither the Minister responsible for the money nor the Minister responsible for that department, knows what it is for in detail.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps one of the difficulties that we have this evening—and one refers of course to the lack of answers from that side of the House—is perhaps that we are dealing with persons who are not sober.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Why? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member referring to hon. members on this side of the House?

I understood that you have just ruled that that was parliamentary?

Order! Is the hon. member referring to hon. members on this side?

Yes, I am referring to the hon. gentlemen opposite.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Why, did I misunderstand you, Sir, when that was ruled to be parliamentary?

Is the hon. member saying that hon. members on that side are not sober?

That is the inference from what I said.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I trust that you will ask the hon. the Minister likewise to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that the record is put straight here. The comments of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration were made directly at the hon. member for Durban Point, who had challenged him to reply to the question put. The reply of the hon. the Minister was: “ek praat net met mense wat nugter is”. This he said directly at the hon. member for Durban Point.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote.

All right, Sir, I shall come back to it, but while we are talking about people and their relative sobriety—be it political sobriety or any other form of sobriety—I think the hon. the Deputy Minister himself is confused, because just now in his reply he referred to an original Vote for item D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications of R28 000. I do not know from where he got that amount. He referred to a subsequent vote which has the effect that the final figure is now R33 000. I do not see that figure here either. The figures which he has been asked to explain are an original Vote of R33 500 and a subsequently revised estimate of R48 500. Perhaps he might give us the correct answer this time.

At the same time I should like him to tell us the names of some of these Bantu authorities whose accounts have now been published and also to tell us which of these reports are now available to us—those reports which have cost this Parliament another R15 000. Are they available to us and where can we get them, if they are available? Were they tabled in this House?

In addition to that, I want to put this challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister or to the Government as such. He is not alone in this matter; he has the three blind mice with him—those three Ministers who are responsible for these very Bantu Authorities. Perhaps, if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance cannot give us the answer, one of the three blind mice may give us the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply to the best of my ability without … the distress of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat …

Speak up a little!

My information is that the increase is chiefly the result of an increase in printing costs. What the percentage of the increase was, I cannot tell the hon. member. In addition to that, it is attributed in particular to the audit of a number of Bantu Authorities that had to be carried out. The hon. member probably knows just as well as I do that Bantu Authorities were established, and not only last year, but also in previous years, and the activities of those authorities are increasing; in other words, the costs of the Controller and Auditor-General are increasing.

The hon. member questioned certain figures. I mentioned figures that were relevant. Printing, R28 000, increased to R43 000—an increase of R1 500.

No, R15 000.

In respect of stationery it was R4 000, and in the revised estimate it was also R4 000. In the case of publications it was R1 500, and in the revised estimate it was also R1 500. The total in the original estimate therefore amounts to R33 500, and in the revised estimate it amounts to R48 500, still an increase, therefore, of R15 000.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 14.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R12 631 000, and 17.—“Agricultural Technical Services”, R9 188 000, Loan Votes C. —“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R50, and D.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R1 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 5.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R50. and 6.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R50:

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with Vote No. 5 in the South-West Africa Estimates. Will the hon. the Minister please explain this ex gratia payment to the Windhoek Municipality in respect of the accumulated operational losses at the Windhoek abattoir, and the circumstances under which Parliament is being asked to accept the charge on account of their accumulated losses which amount to R278 000, a very large sum indeed. If there is a question of some legal liability— and I do not know the grounds for it: but I should like to hear what they are—I hope we are going to get a very full explanation. Sir, we are getting tired of having to drag answers bit by bit out of Ministers who have not done their homework. Since this involves a big sum of money of over R¼ million, may we ask the Minister now to give us precise details, including details as to how it came about that this amount of money has been accepted by the Government as a proper charge against our Revenue Account and to tell us what the circumstances are which have led to this charge being raised.

Sir, the hon. member is probably aware of the fact that we had an agreement with the Windhoek Municipality to erect and maintain an abattoir for the farmers of South-West Africa. For various reasons that abattoir operated at a loss, so much so that the Windhoek Municipality reached the point where they said that they alone were responsible for the erection and maintenance of abattoirs for the needs of their own town, which is a perfectly reasonable claim on their part. The Meat Board and the Department of Agricultural Economics felt that we would be depriving the Windhoek farmers of a privilege if we reduced this abattoir in size. An undertaking was given to the Windhoek Municipality that accumulated losses would be repaid to the Municipality. During an emergency in 1957, when there was an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, an abattoir was erected in order also to have canning facilities there. We then carried out the undertaking to repay the Windhoek Municipality that amount. Is the hon. member listening? He gave me to understand at the outset that he was not going to get a reply to his question, and this matter is a very serious one as far as I am concerned. If the hon. member is dissatisfied because we are helping a number of farmers who are in difficulties to raise a fund for obtaining an abattoir, I do not think he is very sympathetic towards those people. We felt that we had to repay that amount to the Windhoek Municipality and that we should have the abattoir operated by another company. At the moment Vleissentraal is the only interested concern that is prepared to take over the abattoir and operate it on its account, and we are repaying the loss to the Municipality.

Sir, arising out of what the Deputy Minister has said, he must give us a little more detail if he will. I understand that this particular abattoir is used for the greater part of the time for the purposes of a private export meat canning company. It uses this abattoir in Windhoek not for the benefit of the farmers, although, of course, some of them are experiencing difficulty in getting the necessary quotas to be able to export to South Africa under this Government. I understand that this abattoir is not mainly for the benefit of the farmers of South-West Africa, but for a private undertaking which exports canned meat. Has the Deputy Minister gone into the question as to whether perhaps that company has not contributed sufficiently and whether that is not the cause of the loss which has accumulated in so far as the Windhoek abattoirs are concerned?

I have said that the firm that is doing the work is Vleissentraal. Since the negotiations in September, Vleissentraal has spent an additional R950 000 on this abattoir out of money contributed by members of that co-operative society who are meat farmers. They have spent an additional R950 000—to can what meat?

Meat you pick from the trees.

It was to can the meat produced by those farmers. If there is any objection to this repayment, which is a request of the South-West African Agricultural Union, which asked us not to allow the abattoir to go under, I can go back to them and tell them: “You see what problems we pick up along the way.” Vleissentraal is not a private company; it is a co-operative society of which I think more than 80 per cent of the farmers of South-West Africa are members, Nationalists as well as United Party supporters. They all have enough sense to know that they must co-operate. These people have a co-operative society which renders these services to them. This is something of which we need not be ashamed at all.

Sir, I wish to return to Vote No. 14, item P, i.e. the subsidy in respect of flood damage in the Eastern Cape. This is a completely new item, and I think the hon. the Minister should inform the House …

The Minister is not here.

If the Minister is not here, then the hon. the Deputy Minister can inform us …

Order! A ruling was given a few moments ago that no interjections were to be made, and I am going to act in terms of that ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, the ruling was in respect of that particular Vote.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, here is an item of R1 300 000. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should inform this Committee how this subsidy is being paid and what form of assistance will be given to those farmers.

Sir, I should like to say something about this matter, because it is very near to my heart. Before I proceed, I just want to express my very sincere thanks to the Ministers who came to make the investigation there. They were there within a few days after we had had that tremendous flood in the Gamtoos and the Eastern Cape rivers. I also want to thank the Cabinet for the money they made available to help the farmers. While I am expressing my gratitude, I think it would be proper also to refer to all the people and departments who rendered assistance in connection with the flood. I am thinking specifically of the Department of Defence, which made helicopters available and saved more than 320 lives. Sir, it was a wonderful effort and they were prepared to put everything aside in order to arrive there so early on a Sunday-morning. I am also thinking of the Police, who did very valuable work there. Sir, when I think of the great benefits brought to us by the radio telecommunications of the Police, I want to thank them sincerely for that, and also for all the other things they did there. I also want to thank the local magistrate and his people for co-ordinating the aid services. The Department of Water Affairs also accomplished a tremendous task there. They repaired the canals within a month. Sir, after previous floods in that valley it took a year to have water on the lands again. After this flood the Department of Water Affairs had the water in the canals again within a month. The farmers could plant again, so much so that they planted so much vegetables that in January the Port Elizabeth market could not absorb those vegetables; that is how well things went within a few months as a result of the assistance rendered by these departments. I also want to thank the postal services, especially the telephone exchanges, for the tremendous work they did there.

Order! This does not fall under the Votes now under discussion.

Sir, I actually want to come to the amount of R1 300 000 requested under this Vote for assistance to those people. This was a tremendous encouragement. I just want to refer back to the member for Newton Park, who stood up here and asked questions about this.

“The hon. member” for Newton Park.

The hon. member for Newton Park several times referred sneeringly to the assistance given by the Government in this connection. In a previous debate he said the following—

Sir, I want to give the assurance that the Government treated those farmers very decently, and I also want to give the assurance that the farmers do have the courage to go on, and that they are grateful for the assistance the Government is giving, and that this assistance given by the State will very soon have those valleys in production again. This State assistance referred to by the hon. member for Newton Park is given very generously. There was some delay, but that was very necessary, because proper surveys of the damage had to be made. Government money cannot simply be given away without proper investigation and control. A great deal is going to be done there, more than the farmers themselves had expected. All the arable land is going to be compensated for up to an amount of R1 000 per morgen, I do not think any farmer can expect more than that. Land that was washed away will be compensated for at R1 000 per morgen. Buildings, farm buildings and homes of Whites are being subsidized to the tune of 50 per cent. Water-works that were washed away are being subsidized to the tune of 50 per cent, and fences that were washed away are also being subsidized. We also see in Loan Vote D that provision is being made for interest-free loans for the maintenance of farmers, farmers who cannot go on. I want to repeat that we are grateful to the Government for the assistance it is giving, and that it is very highly appreciated.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the full amount of R1,3 million will be paid out by 31st March.

The hon. member for Humansdorp very clearly answered the hon. member for Newton Park’s question, but I want to add that I should also like to thank him for acknowledging so gratefully this tremendous amount, because there is still, in addition, an interest-free loan of R30 for each husband or wife and R10 for each child per month, which is being made available where the individual’s land was washed away and their means of livelihood was destroyed, plus R1 000 per morgen which is paid out in full for land that was sifted up or washed away. This amount is only a provisional amount on the Estimate. I take it you understand that everything cannot be paid out at the same time. It is just impossible in practice to pay out all the amounts simultaneously. The amount will be considerably greater. This is only a provisional amount because this is an unforeseen occurrence. Then I want to tell the hon. member that if he looks at Loan Vote D, which is there solely to have an amount in the Estimate, he will see that some of the amounts are only R50, but from other savings we can employ money here to assist these people, but I do not think it will ever be possible in practice to have everything paid out by the end of March.

I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Humansdorp said. This is a new item, and the hon. member tried to create the impression that I had referred scornfully to the aid the Government granted. What I did say in a previous debate was that we expected that relief would have to be granted to these farmers, but what we objected to was not the form of the aid which the Minister and the hon. member for Humansdorp have just announced. What we objected to was that this flood damage occurred in August of last year. It then took this Government at least three months before they could tell those people what form of aid they would receive. The hon. member for Humansdorp, who knows that part of his constituency just as well as I do, knows that when such flood damage occurs, this is one of the first things those people want to know: they want to know what form of aid the Government is prepared to grant them. Those people are not objecting to the aid the Government is now granting, but we must not forget that at that stage the land of the majority of those few hundred farmers had been totally destroyed. That was the very time when they needed the confidence of this Government to tell them what their future prospects were. The hon. member for Humansdorp is now creating the impression that the Government was responsible for the rehabilitation of that area, but the hon. member surely knows this is not so. He ought to know that in many cases it was private companies who made tractors and implements available to get that land back into production as soon as possible. And that after we had also told the hon. members on that side they should immediately announce the aid to be granted so that that area could again swing into full agricultural production. What I now want to know from the hon. the Minister is this. He mentioned that there would be some people who would be paid out about R1 000 per morgen. There is a large portion of that valley that has been totally washed away and where now there are only stones left, and in the case of a few farmers this is virtually their entire area. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this R1 000 per morgen will be made available to those farmers who suffered losses, or is the R1 000 per morgen for those people whose soil was washed away completely. There are quite a few such farmers who had six, 10 and 12 morgen, very little of which is left, if anything at all. I want to know from the Minister whether his R1 000 per morgen is only to get that land back into production or whether the R1 000 per morgen is compensation for those people whose topsoil was completely washed away.

Sir, it certainly is tragic if one thinks that this incident as a whole is going to cost about R5 million, and then the hon. member for Newton Park still has to go and peddle his wares amongst the people, having all kinds of negative things to say. What are the actual facts? At the Transvaal Agricultural Union congress the Prime Minister, who attended the congress, told the Minister of Agriculture, after we had heard of the flood damage over the radio, go and have a look, I went with him. When we were sitting in the aircraft I asked the Minister what he was going to tell the farmers, and he then said he had obtained permission from the Prime Minister, and recommendations would be made to the Cabinet so that he could tell those people there, while they were in distress, that they would receive aid. The hon. member said you had to wait three months, but the Minister said he would pay them out for 50 per cent of the losses suffered. He said he could provisionally give that undertaking. The Minister of Agriculture said that at Naboomspruit, at Die Oog, the Prime Minister gave him leave to announce this. But now the hon. member says we took three months to announce this. The hon. member also says that private companies did the work But the Minister of Agriculture said there that if they could get people with bulldozers to do the work there would be 50 per cent compensation, and he said they should get the bulldozers, Those private companies were compensated for every cent, except the artificial fertilizer companies who gave an amount of R9 000. I also gratefully acknowledge that. Every little bit helped. The State gave approximately R5 million, and then the hon. member comes along and makes politics about it amongst those people. The hon. member spoke about land. I expressly said a moment ago that R1 000 per morgen is being paid if the soil has been washed away to rock-bottom. That is surely logical and self-evident! After our meeting there were many interviews with those people. People came along here from Gamtoos, and we went to visit some of them there and held interviews with them. They have no ulterior political motives at all and they know that we are sincere in our actions. They know that we want to help them. We told them that we want to try, first of all, to resettle them on land that can be irrigated, but that we first had to discuss this with the Minister of Water Affairs. We said that we would perhaps be able to shift the canal, etc. Then the hon. member comes along and tells those people, whose soil had been washed away completely, that the Government is not going to give them anything, that only those who had again developed their land would get R1 000. Sir, the farmers do not take that kind of rubbish. They know full well that if their soil has been completely washed away we shall try to resettle them or pay them out so that they can again make a livelihood. In that case we pay them R1 000 per morgen. In the previous debate I also said this to the hon. member. But now the hon. member comes along with this story again!

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Newton Park is the biggest political peddler walking round on two legs in South Africa. He referred with contempt to the aid the Government granted the farmers of the Gamtoos Valley and the Sundays River Valley. He complained here that the Government had not granted any aid for three months. That hon. member sits here in Durbanville; ask us who are living there. After three months one could not even walk across those lands yet. They were washed away. The hon. member lies dreaming in Durbanville, and now he criticizes the aid that the Government granted us at the Sundays River and in its surrounding areas. Those are the old tactics he uses. The hon. member’s colleague sits at Graaff-Reinet. He does not even know what the Sundays River and the Gamtoos Valley look like. The other hon. member from P.E. Central, who sits there on the other side, cannot even make a proper speech. The hon. member for Newton Park must always write everything out for him. Does the hon. member for Newton Park not know that immediately one could again walk on those lands—and the hon. member must not forget that the flood waters had covered the land, that the soil had been washed away and that thorn-tree branches covered the orange trees—the Department of Agriculture sent some of its experts along? Those experts walked from one farm to another and made a survey of the damage that was done there. Within three months the survey was complete.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, it is no use my answering a question of his, because he has no brains; he would not understand it anyway. Everyone who has any practical knowledge knows that if flood waters have covered the land and mud has been deposited on it, improvements cannot be made within three months. It is a question of time. The soil must dry out and the furrows must be repaired. The wire fences must be replaced.

The Government must be changed.

Now my hon. friend comes along and says …

Order: I have just warned the hon. member for Walmer. Notwithstanding my requests for order, he is persisting with his interjections. I must ask the hon. member to leave the Chamber.

The hon. member for Walmer thereupon withdrew.

The hon. member may proceed.

Now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along and says that private companies did that work. I challenge the hon. member to tell me where those private companies carried out work free of charge. We had to pay for every hour’s work they did. Our farmers in the Sundays River Valley and in the Gamtoos Valley are grateful for what the Government did for us. They not only came to save the people’s lives but also to give food. During the floods they flew down over our homes in helicopters and asked whether the people had food to eat. Instead of being grateful, that hon. member tries to make political capital out of the terrible losses suffered by the Sundays River and Gamtoos Valley farmers. That hon. member for Newton Park is the cheapest political peddler walking round on two legs in South Africa. He speaks with contempt of the aid the Government granted. The State itself suffered losses totalling more than R200 000. The Government is going to compensate us if we can furnish proof of the losses we suffered. However, we do not want to make political capital out of this and hold a knife at the Government’s throat. All I want to say on behalf of the farmers of the Sundays River is that the Government helped us to pay our water rates, helped us with labour and gave us money to level our lands again. They also helped us to fertilize our orange trees and to rehabilitate ourselves again. On behalf of the farmers of the Gamtoos River Valley and the Sundays River I, as one of those farmers, want to thank the Government very much to for what it did for us. We shall not allow ourselves to be mislead by those cheap political peddlers who are running around in South Africa, trying at every opportunity to make politics of this matter. At the time of the great flood in Port Elizabeth hon. members opposite also wanted to make political capital of the affair, but what did they achieve? Absolutely nothing. They do not know the Eastern Cape. Now and again they only come along and sleep there for the night, and we must do the work.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that we are not peddling the position of the people there. What hon. members opposite apparently do not like is that we are pointing out to them the mistakes they are making. That is why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is so angry. I not only went to that area of my own free will, but also because I was invited by the farmers of that area to come and look at their position. Why did they invite me? They invited me to keep this Government on its toes. They invited me to point out to this Government the instances when it is not doing its duty and to criticize the Government. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North does not like this criticism, because he knows about the reports in his own newspaper, Die Oosterlig. Up to a month after the flood damage was over, those farmers said they still did not know what their position was. That is our whole argument. This Government ought to learn from a disaster such as the one that struck the Eastern Cape. In other words, it ought to have a plan in case such damage should again be caused, so that those people do not need to wait until aid measures are announced by the Government. That is why we welcome the aid which the hon. the Deputy Minister announced in the form of this R1 300 000. I told him I had no objection to that. However, in future these people must be helped in good time, when such a disaster strikes again, so that their land can again be in profitable use within a short period.

Under Vote No. 17 I notice that in respect of item W. “Soil Conservation”, there is a considerable increase in the additional amount that must be made available. This amount is so much greater than the amount originally budgeted, that I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes us a reply about why there is so great a difference and what all of this entails.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park said he was invited to the Eastern Cape, but I want to tell him that we were not invited, we went of our own accord. We went out of interest. The chairman of the agricultural group of the United Party, however, had to be invited. However, the next day we were already there at the instructions of our Prime Minister.

You were not there on any instructions.

Very well then, at a friendly request from him. Mr. Chairman, the main point is that we had to carry out a survey. He says the people had to wait three weeks. But we did not arrive there with cheques. Yesterday I received a letter from those same regional agricultural unions in which they ask that I visit them again to attend a conference there at which they want to express their thanks, thanks which I must convey to the Government, and work out a plan for the future so that we shall be able to prevent things of this kind happening. Does that sound like people who are ungrateful? That is where that hon. member tried to peddle his wares and steal a march on us by asking whether the people were satisfied. What is the use in finding out there that a certain farmer is a United Party man and then telling him: I am also a United Party man, are you satisfied with the Government? It is easy to get hold of stories in that way. The hon. member asked why there is an increase in the appropriation for soil conservation. It was not possible for us last year to budget for what the livestock withdrawal scheme and the veld reclamation scheme would cost. The hon. member himself is aware of the fact that the number of applications in the majority of areas was greater than we expected. This is also attributable to the fact that wool prices decreased and to the fact that the droughts continued longer than was expected. Those, in brief, are the chief reasons for the increase under that one vote.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, a little earlier in reply to a question, told us, regarding Vote No. 5—South-West Africa-—that the R278 400 was to be paid to the Windhoek municipality in consequence of an agreement. The words that he used were “Ons het ’n ooreenkoms met die Windhoek-munisipaliteit”. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is who is “ons” and how he is doing this? He mentioned the date 1957. I did not quite catch what he was referring to when he mentioned this date. Is this being done through the Abattoir Commission or is this an agreement with the Department of Agriculture?

While the hon. the Deputy Minister is replying to that, I wonder whether he can give us the details regarding Loan Vote C—Loan to the Abattoir Commission for the Erection and Improvement of Abattoirs in Controlled Areas, R100 000.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asks who “we” are. The “we” is the Meat Board, which had an agreement with the South-West Africa Administration in 1957, long before the existence of the Abattoir Commission.

It has nothing to do with the Abattoir Commission?

No, the Abattoir Commission began functioning in 1966.

Then the hon. member also asked a question in connection with the amount allocated to the Abattoir Commission under loan Vote C. The hon. member is aware of the fact that the Abattoir Commission is now taking over functions of the municipalities. In this connection I shall just mention the municipalities of Springs, Benoni, and Germiston. At these places thousands of rand have already been spent to improve abattoir facilities. At some of these abattoirs the amount of beef accepted has increased by a mere 20 per cent. We needed funds to carry out these essential functions. Hence this Loan Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether the whole of this R100 000 has been spent on those three abattoirs or whether portion of it has been spent on investigation also of other abattoirs or other proposed sites for abattoirs? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that I have an interest in my constitutency on this question of the siting of the regional abattoir in Natal. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us whether any of this money is being expended on that and when we can expect that we might have a regional abattoir there?

Are you referring to Cato Ridge?

Yes.

More than R100 000 have already been spent out of savings. The Abattoir Commission made use of savings, because we have an amount on the Budget allocated to the Abattoir Commission. About Cato Ridge or the abattoir at … what is the name of that alternative site near Durban?

Mariannhill.

I do not think the Abattoir Commission spent very much on investigations into alternative spots. Personally I prefer Cato Ridge, because then you have an abattoir serving Pietermaritzburg and Durban. Then you will have a big abattoir with a highway in between. However, the Abattoir Commission did not spend much on this investigation but they are busy at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, may I just request your ruling in connection with Vote No. 17. The hon. Minister mentioned that the amount under item W, “Soil Conservation”, is now so much greater as a result of the implementation of the livestock withdrawal scheme. I think this is about the first financial year where so much is being spent on this scheme. Am I entitled to discuss this scheme now? I do so as a result of the hon. the Minister’s …

Order! No, the hon. member may not discuss it. The hon. member may only request the reasons for the increase. The hon. member may only discuss it when it is a new item under the Vote.

The hon. the Minister’s explanation for the increase in this amount was specifically that this year for the first time the department implemented the livestock withdrawal scheme on such an extended scale. Hence this R6 573 000.

The hon. member now has the reason and he may not discuss it further.

But, Mr. Chairman, if I may address you at greater length on that point, this is the first financial year in which the scheme has been implemented, and as far as that …

Order!

This is the second year.

Order! It is an increase of the Vote and the rules stipulate that the hon. member may ask why there is an increase. The hon. member has received the reply and I cannot allow this entire matter to be discussed. The hon. member may discuss it under the Minister’s Vote in the Budget, but not here.

Cannot the reason for the increase given by the Minister be discussed?

I have been saying all the time that the reasons may be asked for, but the reasons may not be discussed.

Mr. Chairman, under Vote 17 I wish to refer to subhead R, the question of plant pest control. The original amount stood at R120 000 and the revised estimate is R1 655 000. This shows almost a fourteenfold increase, and I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us reasons for this large increase, whether the control is satisfactory and also whether it will be necessary to spend further amounts on this control?

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy with this item and with the amount spent. R1 420 000 was used for combating locusts. As previously acknowledge by the Opposition, the locust plague was squashed this year as a result of this amount being spent. R115 000 was also spent for combating finches and the golden eel-worm. That is also a portion of the item “Plant Pest Control”. I am certain of the fact that the money was well employed and that in practice very little wastage occurred.

Mr. Chairman, I want clarity on a certain matter. It says distinctly “Plant Pest Control” so I take it that the Minister can give a break-down as to what extent the money was spent on plant control and to what extent on locust control.

On the control of the golden nematode, also known as the ell-worm. We spent R115 000 on that. That, in other words, was spent on the control of plant pests.

Mr. Chairman, may I refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to item H, page 50, which reads: “Ex gratia payments to land-owners at Osana”? Apparently that is also a new item. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes us an answer in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, the Osana farmers—here there is a printing error, it is not “Osana”—in South-West Africa were dissatisfied about the payments they received for the buying up of their land with respect to that irrigation scheme. We had to take some of the farmers’ water away and pay them out. Four farmers made representations to the effect that they were not treated like the other farmers who were later bought out. We made an ex gratia payment to them for this amount.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 18.—“Defence” R25 453:

I refer to subhead P, which reads: “Contribution to Medical Fund: Permanent Force personnel retired prior to 1st January, 1964.” This is a new item, amounting to R4 800. I was under the impression that the subscriptions to this fund would carry the fund. Will the Minister please tell us whether this amount is in excess of the contributions and whether he expects it to be a recurring liability?

I would be grateful if the hon. Minister could also give us a more detailed explanation of item R, which is the ex gratia payment to the company Thomson Electronics.

Mr. Chairman, as far as sub-head P is concerned, the position is that the Medical Continuation Fund comprises two funds: an A Fund, to which contributions are made by those who started contributing after 1st January, 1964; and the B Fund, which consists of those persons who retired prior to 1st January, 1964. Since the A Fund carries itself, and owing to the small amounts which persons who retired prior to 1st January, 1964, are able to contribute because of their small pensions, they are not in a position to meet the commitments in regard to the A Fund. That is why they have to contribute on a lower scale and why the fund cannot carry itself. Subsequent to that the Minister of Finance was kind enough to agree to a subsidy for this B Fund on the basis of 60 to 40. That has been in force since 1st December, 1971. On the basis of data we have at the moment, it is estimated that, with the establishment of the fund as from 1st May, 1971, the expenditure will amount to approximately R2 000 per month and that the subsidy paid by the State will therefore be R1 200 per month, which brings the total for this financial year to R4 800. That is the explanation as far as the first question is concerned.

As far as the second question is concerned, it is a question of a tender that was entered into and approved. The firm Thomson Electronics had to supply the Navy with certain equipment. In their calculations there was an amount of R167 885,10, which was approved by the State Procurement Board. But after the order had been placed and the spares had been supplied, this firm discovered to its regret that it had calculated the rate of exchange wrongly in respect of two items. I have the particulars here. It is in respect of a number of articles that a mistake was made by the firm in the conversion. This was subsequently brought to our notice. At the time the ruling rate of exchange was 6,82 French franc for R1, and the erroneous calculation by the firm caused the deficit, which came to R20 652,61. The State Procurement Board approved the additional expenditure subject to Treasury approval, and since the tender had already been carried out, the Treasury could not approve it as an amendment to the contract, and this is the only way to accommodate them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 21.—“Indian Affairs”, R707 000:

Mr. Chairman, this Vote reflects an increase of something over R1¼ million in the revised Estimates. Sir, this is in a department which is not a very large department and I would like the hon. the Minister to give some explanation for this substantial increase in the amount required.

The increase mainly results from the various salary concessions granted to both White and non-White teaching personnel during the past year, the details of which were in some cases received too late for the financial implications to be correctly determined in order to include adequate provision in the main Estimates. The relevant concessions are briefly as follows—

1. (i) Improvement of the posts structure for teachers at Indian schools and the coming into being of 117 new posts of deputy principal and vice-principal with effect from 1st January, 1971, as a result thereof;
2. (ii) the application of the rank progression system and the notch-per-an-num basis to teachers as from 1st January, 1971;
3. (iii) the introduction of new enhanced key scales for all non-White personnel as from 1st October, 1971.

From the provision under sub-Head A, the salaries of, amongst others, the following teaching personnel are paid: Inspectors of education, 25; Inspectors of Special Subjects, 19; Principals of Colleges of Education, 2; lecturers at Colleges of Education, 87; school principals, 372, and teachers, 5 681, making a total of 6 186. Of the 6 186 units, 113 are Whites and 6 073 are non-Whites.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, could he give some indication as to the improvement that has been effected, as a result of this increase, in the salary ratio existing between the White and the Indian school teachers?

Could the hon. the Minister tell us how much of this increase of more than R1 million is being paid out in the form of increased salaries to Indian members of the teaching profession, and how much is being paid to White members of the staff? Has an analysis of it perhaps been made?

Sir, in reply to that question, I think I made it clear that the increases only affected 113 White personnel as against roughly 6 000 Indian personnel. The scales were all revised in accordance with the statement that was made earlier in this House. I think Indian and Coloured teachers were treated on the same basis. I am not in a position to give the details, but the entire increase is accounted for by increases in salaries and nothing else.

Sir, I do not quite understand that. The hon. the Minister says that the entire increase is accounted for by increases in salaries. Earlier when he stood up, however, he said that this increase is due mainly to increases in salaries. Are there other amounts, too? Why did he use the word “mainly” in the beginning if, as he now says, this increase is accounted for entirely by increases in salaries?

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22.—“Foreign Affairs”, R1 139 000:

Under subhead A—Salaries and Allowances—there is an increase of approximately R800 000. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether this is merely an increase in salaries or whether any new services are involved. If there are new services, we would be glad if he could tell us what they are. Then there is a big increase on transport services as well. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us what this relates to. The same applies to subhead C, where an additional R77 000 is being requested for postal and telegraph services. Furthermore, under sub-head E there is a fairly large increase of R109 000 under the item “General” as compared with an original estimate of approximately R400 000. We should like some information on that. Then there is a very interesting item, namely “Special awards for honour to foreigners,” amounting to R4 000. We should like to know to whom these were granted and what the nature of the awards are. Lastly, there is an extra bit of affection for the U.N. The U.N. is receiving an additional R32 000. This is interesting. I should like to know whether it is due to a higher assessment or whether the Minister is making contributions to services in respect of which contributions were previously not made.

Mr. Chairman, as far as sub-head A is concerned, the excess anticipated is attributable to the following factors: (a) The annual adjustment of Foreign Service salaries. This adjustment normally takes place on 1st July every year. It is a regular adjustment made every year, (b) The reorganization of the Department’s establishment and the attendant regarding of some foreign posts, (c) The adjustment of salaries and wages of locally recruited staff abroad. This is in fact the only adjustment. The hon. member referred to it. This does not apply to members of the Department in South Africa, (d) The expansion of the establishment, i.e. the opening of new missions abroad as well as the creation of new posts. In this regard I may point out that a total of 69 new posts have been created, inter alia at the new missions in Brazilia, the new capital of Brazil, and also the new mission with the EEC in Brussels. These are new missions which were established in the course of the year, (e) The effect of the devaluation of the rand and the readjustment of monetary units. Approximately 86 per cent of the appropriation under this sub-head is paid out abroad and is therefore caused by the devaluation of the rand and the readjustment of monetary units.

In regard to sub-head B …

There is a big increase.

Yes, it is a reasonable increase in costs. This is due, inter alia, to the cost of transporting diplomatic mailbags to and from foreign countries. It is a large item of expenditure. The increase of R115 000 is attributable to the fact that the provision in respect of the transportation of diplomatic mail-bags appears to be inadequate as a result of an increase in mailbag traffic and tariff increases. This is therefore attributable to increased traffic and tariff increases.

Then there is sub-head C—Postal and Telegraph Services. The increase is attributable to the increase in postal tariffs abroad, mainly in the United Kingdom. An amount of R10 000 is involved here. The provision under the item “Telegraph Services” is used for expenditure in connection with the despatch of telegrams as well as telex and cable services. The increase is attributable mainly to increases in the tariffs for these services, abroad as well.

I now come to telephone services. The provision here is used to defray expenditure in connection with the provision of telephone services. The increase of R49 000 is attributable to the increases in rentals and telephone call tariffs in the Republic itself and abroad, as well as to the effect of the devaluation of the rand and the readjustment of monetary units. As regards the general sub-head E, Miscellaneous Expenses, this sub-head consists of a variety of items, details of which are as follows: Departmental entertainment expenditure— R8 000; this is the departmental entertainment costs, including the entertainment costs in respect of important persons visiting the Republic as guests of the State; such costs are defrayed from this item and as a result of prominent visitors coming here in the past year, there is an increase of R8 000. A further item where there has been an increase of R5 500 is the item “Uniforms and Minor Expenses”. The provision under this item is intended for the provision of uniforms for chauffeurs and messengers in the service of the Department, as well as for all other expenses of a minor nature which cannot be included under other sub-heads of the Vote. This sub-head is a mixture. The increase is attributable mainly to increases in the prices of uniforms of our staff abroad. Then there is an amount of R12 000, “Social Insurance Schemes”. Social, medical and hospital insurance schemes are in operation in most countries where the Republic has missions, and these schemes make provision for various benefits to locally recruited staff, such as pension benefits, medical treatment and hospitalization. Membership of such organizations to qualify for such benefits are usually compulsory and, in addition to contributions by the staff members themselves, employers must also contribute on behalf of the staff members. In countries where these insurance schemes are not compulsory, it is often to the benefit of the employers to contribute to them, because they play an important part in the recruitment of staff in our embassies. In the case of the Republic’s missions abroad, the employers as well as the employees contribute to the various schemes and this is usually done on a percentage-of-salary basis. The reasons for the increase of R12 000 is the fact that the contributions by the South African Consulate-General in Hamburg for the compulsory social insurance schemes now have to be paid directly to the insurers, while previously the contributions were paid by the employees themselves and their salaries were adjusted accordingly, as well as salary adjustments and the accompanying higher contribution rates in the case of various other missions abroad, but that one was the most important.

The next item to which the hon. member referred was the R4 000 for special awards of honour to foreigners. Hon. members will recall that the Government recently introduced a decoration for meritorious service in the case of South African citizens. It is the custom in many countries in the world to decorate citizens of other countries as well by way of reciprocity or otherwise. The Government felt it was necessary to make it possible to award a decoration to foreigners for deserving conduct so that the Government, the country, could express its appreciation in this way for the services of persons who qualify. This amount is needed for the manufacture of such decorations and the material used for that purpose. A full statement will subsequently be made in this regard. It was not possible to include this amount in the original estimate.

The increase of R32 000 in respect of the United Nations is not attributable to increased expenditure, but simply to the effect of the devaluation of the rand on the Republic’s contribution to the U.N.’s annual budget.

Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. the Minister correctly that up to now no awards of honour have been made and that this amount of R4 000 is for the manufacture of medals?

Yes, it is for the future, for the costs which will be incurred in this regard. An announcement will be made in this regard, but the money is needed now.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of item A the hon. the Minister explained that certain regular adjustments are made and that these are partly responsible for this increase. I just want to ask the Minister why, if his department knows that certain regular adjustments have to be made every year, the amount concerned appears on the Additional Estimates instead of on the original estimate?

Mr. Chairman, these adjustments are made in respect of the fluctuating cost of living abroad. It is impossible to estimate in advance to what extent the cost of living is going to increase or decrease in each particular country. It is a difficult, involved study. In the past we followed the calculation of a particular country which went into the details thoroughly, but at the moment we are doing it ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Estimates the R4 000 is for decorations to foreigners. Are they medals which have been named and will there be a special title attached to them?

Mr. Chairman, as I have explained, a detailed statement in this connection will be made. These awards will be in the form of medals and ribbons. The expense is so high not because we are going to have such a large number of them made at this stage, but because the prototype has to be made. The drawings have been approved …

Will this medal have a name?

Yes, it will have a name.

You do not know the name?

I know the name which has been decided on, but I do not know whether I should, at this early stage, disclose it. The matter rests with the Prime Minister and I would prefer him to make a comprehensive statement in this connection at the appropriate time. However, if the hon. member insists, I can give him the name.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned that the amount in respect of departmental receptions under item E, Miscellaneous Expenses, is being increased by R8 000 The original estimate was R15 000, in other words, the revised estimate will now amount to R23 000. We have no objection to provision being made for eminent visitors, but there are so many other departments which also invite eminent visitors to the country that I should like to know for which eminent visitors this additional amount of R8 000 was required. The Department of Information, for example, also invites eminent visitors and sometimes amounts for this purpose are found on the Prime Minister’s Vote as well.

Mr. Chairman, the one I want to mention in particular—and I expected that hon. members would not ask me this—is of course the visit of the President of Malawi, which was a big official State visit.

Mr. Chairman, under Item D: “Printing Stationery, Advertisements and Publications,” there is an increase of R15 000, which compares very favourably with the original estimate of R192 000 when compared with the Audit figure of R33 000. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would care to comment on this figure of R15 000.

Sub-head D is for printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. There is an increase of R9 000 in respect of stationery. This is attributable to price increases in respect of stationery abroad, the expansion of activities at missions abroad, and the devaluation of the rand and the readjustment of the other monetary units. Stationery used in South Africa is bought from the Government Printer, but the missions abroad buy it there. Consequently the position here is also influenced by devaluation.

Purchases of books, publications, newspapers, periodicals, etc., which are supplied at all our missions, are defrayed from the provision under this item. The increase of R6 000 is attributable mainly to price increases in South Africa and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that a statement on the special awards of honour to foreigners would be made “at the appropriate time”. Can we expect something in the near future, or is it something which he feels should be kept over for the Prime Minister’s Vote? Seeing that the matter falls under Foreign Affairs, I wonder if the hon. the Minister will not give us some more information.

What does the hon. member actually want to know? Does he want to know the name of the decoration? If they press me in this regard, I shall furnish it.

We should like to know who the people are who helped to make it, what it looks like, and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, a sub-committee of the Cabinet investigated these matters. I was its chairman. We called in the services of experts. In addition, we made inquiries and had investigations made abroad. Recommendations were then made to the Cabinet and these were approved. The prototypes still have to be made. When everything is ready an announcement will be made by the highest authority, as in the previous case. If hon. members are pressing me for the name, I may as well say what it is. The name is the Order of Good Hope.

Mr. Chairman, we can accept then, of course, that since this amount is being requested for the current financial year, that announcement will be made before 31st March this year.

I cannot promise that, but it should be soon, because all the preparatory work has been completed.

We are requesting the money only until 31st March.

That is correct.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R3 552 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 10.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R577 000:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us the reason for the increase of over R1 million under subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances? In respect of subhead N —Grant-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund—there is also an increase of over R2½ million. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us as detailed a reply as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs gave just now on a similar question.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to subhead A—Health Services (excluding preventive environmental health services; within Native areas—under South-West Africa Vote No. 10, where the amount has been increased by R577 000. Could the hon. the Minister give the Committee some explanation as to the expenditure in this connection?

Mr. Chairman, I may just say that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to the question by the hon. member for Berea in respect of South-West Africa, Vote No. 10. I shall reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Transkei. It concerns Vote No. 21, subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances. The increase is attributed to several factors which, to a large extent, occur in other departments as well. However, certain of the factors with which we have to deal do not occur in the other departments. The first factor I may mention to the Committee this evening is that when the Estimates for 1971-72 were prepared, absolute certainty had not yet been reached on which posts in the various services of the Bantu territorial authorities, as they were called at the time and which then received departmental administrations, would still have to be occupied by Whites and which by Bantu persons. An attempt was made to appoint as many Bantu persons as possible to the posts in the hierarchy of each department. Later, when the posts had in fact been filled, it appeared that more White persons had had to be appointed in the various departmental administrations than had initially been hoped. The hon. member knows of the different salary scales between the two groups of persons, and consequently increased expenditure was necessary because more White persons had been placed with the various Bantu Governments. We had to do this in respect of quite a few Bantu Governments. This is the one factor. The other factor is that since it is a new administration, with various departments which were established with the various Bantu Governments, one can understand that as one comes to deal with matters in practice and as the administration starts working, one will need more posts in certain departments. In the Public Service the establishment, as it is called, had to be increased, something which was not realized either when the entire hierarchy of posts was originally designed, because there had been no practical experience. There was no basis of experience on which the calculation could be made, and when we came to deal with matters in practice, it appeared that increases in the establishment were necessary at certain places. This, of course, involves more expenditure as well.

Another important reason why there were salary increases and why more money was needed, was the salary adjustments that were made, of which the hon. members are aware. The adjustments were made on 1st January, 1971, as well on 1st October, 1971. The salary adjustments were in respect of Bantu persons as well as White persons. These things could not have been foreseen, of course, when the Estimates were drawn up a year before. These are the important reasons why there were salary increases.

Then I want to know from the hon. member whether he put a question to me only in respect of subhead A, or whether he asked me about others as well.

Subhead N as well.

As far as subhead N is concerned, I may say that the increases are attributable to a completely new administrative departure which came about in respect of hospitalization and health services in the Bantu homelands. The hon. member will know that on 1st April, 1970, the responsibility for Bantu health services and hospitalization were taken over from the provinces by my department. The Department of Health is the executive department. As this take-over took place, as this work was taken over and as it got into its stride, it appeared that in the preparatory work, which had to be done timeously for the Estimates, it had also not been possible to make an accurate assessment of the needs for the following year. For that reason adjustments were necessary, because in certain respects the expected expenditure had very naturally been under-estimated. It was under-estimated, as I have said, because our department did not have records, as the subsidy systems and the administrative methods used by these two departments of the Republican Government are not the same as those used by the provinces before this take-over took place. Of course, certain additional provisions also became necessary in connection with tuberculosis and infectious diseases.

In regard to subhead N, there are further factors which are concerned with salaries, because salaries enter into the matter on this Vote as well, namely the salary adjustments in respect of Bantu persons as well as White persons on the two dates I mentioned a moment ago, i.e. 1st April and 1st January. Furthermore, there is the revision or the improvement of the vacation savings bonuses awarded to the staff at the various hospitals, as well as a smaller amount to be allocated to services in regard to family planning, which are also undertaken on our behalf by the Department of Health. These are all the reasons I have.

In regard to Vote No. 10, I just want to set out the details briefly. The increase of R577 000 is made up as follows: Administrative and running costs of State hospitals and clinics, R181 000; subsidies, contributions, etc., to mission hospitals and clinics, R164 000, linen services, R8 000; and overhead expenses R224 000. In order to explain further, I just want to mention that the amount of R146 706 represents overhead expenses for 1970-’71 which could not be proved on this Vote by the Administration, which acts as an agent here. In the course of the year, however, they succeeded in producing satisfactory proof to the department, Therefore this is an amount which has been added from the 1970-’71 financial year. Furthermore, this year they underestimated overhead expenses by R77 000. I just want to say that the Administration actually submitted a considerably larger estimate, i.e. R2 691 000, but the department felt that they had to cut down and eventually submitted an estimate of only R2 127 000. I think this is a full exposition. We in the department perhaps expected too much of the Administration and forced them down to too low a level, which is why, except for the overhead expenses from the previous financial year, we now have to make provision for the additional amount, because it has appeared that they estimated more correctly than the department did. I think this is a full explanation of the entire matter.

I thank the Deputy Minister for the detailed explanation he gave, but I am not quite clear as to why this amount had to be paid, according to his reply, for health services taken over by the Department of Health. Why is it paid by the South African Bantu Trust Fund when under Vote 10 we also have health services within the Bantu areas? Why should there be two sub-Heads for apparently the same expenditure?

This, of course, is not the first time it has been like this. It has been the position in the main Estimates.

There is a new arrangement now in terms of which you have taken it over.

No, it is not the first time it has appeared like this in Estimates. It was set out like this in previous Main Estimates. This is how it was arranged by the Treasury in consultation with the departments concerned, i.e. that it should be done in the way in which it is set out here as well. But it is not the first time that it has appeared like this.

I just want to refer the Minister to Vote 34. Is the position then that from this fund, the South African Bantu Trust Fund pays the provincial authorities in the cases where they are providing the hospitalization for the Bantu?

No, Mr. Chairman, I may inform the hon. member that for Bantu hospitalization and health services inside the Bantu areas in the four provinces, the provinces no longer undertake any responsibility, so we do not have to pay anything over to them for services rendered by them. The Department of Health undertakes that now. All the services in the four provinces inside the Bantu areas formerly undertaken by the provinces are now undertaken by my colleague’s department. But in the Bantu areas in South-West Africa, the point to which the hon. the Deputy Minister replied just now, the health services are undertaken by the South-West Africa Administration for us, and not by my colleague’s department.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.