Sir, when we were discussing the Interior Vote yesterday afternoon, there was no opportunity of replying to certain questions put by hon. members in regard to the Public Service Commission. Because the Public Service Commission must control such a large proportion of the activities of the Department of the Interior, I think it is only right that I should say a few things right at the outset of the debate this morning in order to give hon. members the background to these matters. At the outset I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Public Service Commissioners sincerely for the work they have done in recent years. These people have a very difficult task. Personal contact between them and the officials is not always easy; there is a large gap between them, and it is probably difficult for the Commissioners to carry out their work as they should like to. But in my experience, the work they have done in the past year was of such a nature that I think that on behalf of this House I should convey our thanks to them for what they have done. Furthermore, I think it is necessary on this occasion that we should convey our thanks to the senior officials in the Public Service Commission who have an extremely difficult task which they have performed extremely well in the past year, and as far as I know, in the past as well. One does not want to mention names on such an occasion, but I do think I should mention the name here of the Secretary of the Commission who has been there for many years and who has a very great share in the activities of the Department which falls under him within the Public Service Commission.

Sir, just as a background, I want to mention a few facts to hon. members this morning in order to indicate what we are doing and trying to do in order to improve, as far as possible, the circumstances under which public servants work and which are often sharply criticized. I think it would interest hon. members to hear what has been done for our officials in this regard in the past year. To start with, I want to refer to the great improvements which have been effected in recent years. Hon. members will remember that in 1971 considerable improvements were effected in the Public Service. Great improvements were also effected in 1969, as well as in 1965. During this period of five years, the salaries of public servants were increased by 34 per cent, which works out at an increase of an average of 7 per cent per year. However, together with this, it should be taken into account that many additional improvements have been effected over this period, and if this additional improvement were to be calculated in terms of cash, it would have increased the average salary increase of 7 per cent per year considerably. Then, of course, there are also conditions of service which have been improved, of which hon. members are perhaps not aware because not much publicity was given to it. In the third place, we have what is known as fringe benefits which have recently been given to public servants. I just want to mention a few of these fringe benefits, because I believe they should also be taken into account in establishing to what extent public servants are better off today than they were in the past. In the first place, there is the question of the pension gratuity. One of the hon. members mentioned it here yesterday and asked what was being done in this regard. Men who in the past received a smaller pension gratuity on their retirement than women, are now receiving the same as women. In other words, in this respect men and women are being treated on an equal footing. Furthermore, for the first time employees may become members of their provident funds immediately. In the past they had to complete two years’ service before they could join this fund and enjoy the benefits attached to it. Furthermore, a formula has been worked out according to which additional pensionable service may be purchased by the payment of arrear contributions. The formula has been made considerably more favourable in the past year. Then, the question of full holiday leave credit was also mentioned here by one of the hon. members. Unfortunately I cannot deal individually with all the various points raised here by hon. members, because naturally, in a debate such as this, a large number of minor points are raised. On the death of a public servant, holiday leave is now paid out as a gratuity to his dependants without any limit. Furthermore, it has been decided to introduce a system whereby a leave gratuity is paid out automatically to employees according to their date of appointment. In addition, the subsistence and field allowances, which hon. members may consider to be of lesser importance, were increased considerably during the past year. This, of course, has also affected the total income of our officials. Furthermore, the merit system has been improved, and the medical aid scheme has also been extended. In our opinion it is probably one of the best schemes in the country today. There is no doubt that this scheme is comparable to the best medical aid schemes known to us. I think our officials have reason to be grateful for the fact that provision is now being made for something which they have requested over a period of many years. As far as financial assistance in respect of housing is concerned, Sir, it will interest you to hear that in the past year alone, 12 100 100-per-cent housing loans have been granted to officials.

Before the hon. the Minister leaves the question of housing loans to public servants, may I ask him whether the limit of R15 000 has been raised or whether it still applies.

No, it has not been raised as yet. It has been under consideration for some time.

*The holiday savings bonus which has been introduced, has been welcomed by public servants throughout the country. This is also something our officials have been requesting for many years. Another interesting test which will interest you, was carried out in the past few years. It was carried out in co-operation with our Public Servants’ Association and the Commission itself, and its aim was to determine what the productivity of our officials in South Africa was and whether it was at all comparable to that of other countries. It is often said by way of criticism that the productivity in the Public Service in South Africa is poor and we felt that these tests should be carried out so that we could have an indication, in any case in as far as something like this is possible, of what the potential of our officials is. A team of our most senior men went abroad on two occasions. First they visited 11 countries, and subsequently they visited three more in order to determine exactly what the position was there and how this could be measured. It was found that the increase in productivity as regards the Public Service in South Africa between the years 1963 and 1969, which is a fairly long period, namely seven years, was 64 per cent. This was the increase in productivity, as compared to an increase of 54 per cent in the productivity in ten of the greatest industrial countries abroad. Amongst those countries in which the tests were carried out, were the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, West Germany, France and Japan. I think this is particularly interesting to know in regard to a country such as Japan which claims that its productivity is probably the highest in the world. Of course, many factors have contributed towards this. In the first place, the private sector was tested, i.e. the productivity in the private sector, and not only in the Public Service, but it was also determined that the Public Service itself in a country, and particularly in South Africa, must be able to make a considerable contribution to the productivity of the private sector to produce a percentage of 63 per cent over a period of seven years. This study group determined, inter alia, that an economic factor should be taken into account, a factor which is in fact very important, namely the question of the number of working hours. The question of how the working hours of our Public servants compares with those of other countries was put to me in the Other Place and was also mentioned here yesterday. The figures we have obtained from abroad in the past few months, are interesting. South Africa is one of the few countries where the public servants still work a 40 hour week. In general it is 40 hours, but it goes up to 48 hours per week. This is extremely high in comparison with other countries I want to mention. In the case of Australia, the working hours are 36¾ per week spread over 5½ days. In the case of London it is 36 hours and in the rest of Britain it is 37 hours, in West Germany it is 35 and in the U.S.A. 37½. In other words, the figure in South Africa is the highest as far as this is concerned. The group which carried out this investigation, also found that in almost all the other Western countries pressure is now being brought to bear on the Governments to reduce the number of working hours; to reduce everything above 40 hours to the level which is regarded there as a reasonable average, i.e. 35 hours per week.

Can you tell us how the productivity is measured?

It is a very technical procedure. It is a very long list. I could give you the details I have with the greatest of pleasure, but it would of course be a very difficult task to deal with it now. Many factors must be taken into consideration. Of course, something of this nature cannot be one hundred per cent scientific either. It cannot be done in the same way in the private sector or in the Public Service.

May I put a question? The hon. the Minister said that percentage-wise the production had increased. Can he also say that the actual productivity is greater than in the other countries? I am referring to the productivity itself, not merely the improvement which has been effected.

No, I have no figures as far as that is concerned. I think one of the other hon. members will probably deal with that matter. My figures extend only over the period from 1963 to 1969. At the moment I do not know what the position is, but I think one of the other hon. members would be able to give you those details.

Considerable criticism was levelled here yesterday as well as on previous occasions at the methods used in recruiting officials. In general the Public Service Commission is satisfied that these methods produce the average result, or an average result which should be regarded as satisfactory in comparison with the losses one has to recoup, and with the position in other countries as well. Perhaps it is not necessary to go into details in respect of this matter. All I want to say is that in spite of these small gains which have been made over the past few years in regard to the recruiting of officials, it is possible, of course, to reduce one’s work by means of certain methods and to let a smaller number of persons handle it. I think this is in fact the major object of this particular investigation.

As far as the Whites are concerned, there is a particular fact I want to mention, namely that we are still assisting the non-White groups to a large extent by seconding some of our officials to the non-White sections, namely the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds. This is being done because we are trying to fill many of the important positions, especially among the Bantu, as we have done in recent years in the Transkei, from which we are gradually beginning to withdraw them again, but now we are gradually transferring the same services to the other Bantu homelands as well. We are helping the Coloureds and the Indians in the same way. We have to second a total of approximately 3 400 Whites to those groups or governments, which does not have a prejudicial effect, I will not say that, on the availability of White officials, but which does nevertheless have an overall effect which must be taken into account. We are using some of our better employees there, with the particular idea in mind that we should help those population groups on the highest levels to establish patterns and to be able to manage the more technical and professional services which they cannot do by themselves in the beginning. In an attempt to improve the manpower position and particularly as a result of this loss of 3 400 professional people as well, we are trying to recruit more women to the Public Service. It is quite interesting to know that we have a very high percentage of women in the Public Service in South Africa. It compares more favourably with other countries than one would think. For example, we have a number of women who are employed in a permanent capacity. There are more than 9 100 of them, all of whom occupy salaried posts, as opposed to 41 000 men. This gives a total of 62 000 officials who may be grouped under the salaried group. As far as the number of women is concerned, it means that 33,6 per cent of those people are women, while in a country such as Belgium, only 22 per cent of their people are in the same category. We are also trying to make use of married women as far as possible, for the simple reason that we realize the problem in respect of younger people who marry, leave and do not always have the training and background for particular posts as the married women have. This has led to 52 per cent of the workers in the higher categories in the Public Service being women, as opposed to 48 per cent men. Of these women, 11 per cent are permanent, i.e. they occupy some of the most senior permanent posts in the Public Service. Furthermore, it is the case that a considerable number of these women have already occupied some of the most senior posts. In one case one of these women has become a deputy secretary of a department.

Are you including the married women?

Yes, I am including the married women.

They are included in the permanent staff?

Yes. In the private sector the position of women is not as favourable as it is in the Public Service. The figures which have been analysed, indicate that there is a greater percentage in the Public Service and also that women in the upper income group in the Public Service, earn more than in the case of the private sector. The policy in this regard is that in future, when shortages in the Public Service necessitate it, we shall try to recruit an increasing number of women, even though it may be on the same basis as in some other countries where such women work in a temporary capacity for a short period every day. Of course, it would not be possible for them all to be full-time staff, but some could be used if they made themselves available for parts of the day, which is in fact happening already. We already have approximately 4 000 women in South Africa who are available on a part-time basis, for part of the day, and who can therefore fill the vacancies in that way. As far as part-time units are concerned, I may mention in passing that their number is increasing and that in future we shall concentrate on trying to increase productivity by using them.

†In so far as productivity is concerned, I should like to point out that this is one of the main problems which I believe every Western country has. As far as I know, this is one of the greatest problems with which countries have to cope. It is very difficult, of course, as I said initially, to make comparisons between productivity in South Africa and in the rest of the world. The older techniques which we used to increase productivity were drastically changed over the past few years and the number of our senior men who we sent overseas found that it was possible to introduce a system more compatible with circumstances in South Africa and which in the end proved in fact to be very fruitful. The inspectorate of the Public Service Commission later succeeded in evolving a scheme of this nature and I think it is worthwhile to inform the Committee that this new technique which was introduced, and called the KTE technique, is today considered to be one of the foremost in the world. In fact, it is a technique in respect of which particulars are being called for by other countries in the world.

Many advantages were discovered during the investigation of this new technique with a view to its ultimate introduction. Inter alia it improved the supervision over people in the lower grades; it improved the training of staff and it increased productivity by between 20 per cent and 30 per cent, as we see it. This percentage is a fairly rough estimate and cannot be proved scientifically. Quite remarkable results were achieved as a result of the introduction of this new technique. Where this new technique was not directly linked with bonus incentives, it was applied to approximately 5 000 employees in various categories and in 29 departments and administrations as a whole. Where the new technique was coupled with direct incentives, the results achieved were more or less the following: In the first place, in the case of a bureau of a department, the increase in productivity appeared to be about 60 per cent. In the case of coding divisions of departments there proved to be an increase in productivity of about 100 per cent. These are of course also rough estimates because they cannot be scientifically proved. In the case of the accounts branch of departments there was an increase in productivity of about 45 per cent as a result of the introduction of this particular new technique.

I say again that I do not wish to deal further with the matter of comparisons with other countries, but it does appear as if this technique may in the course of time be widened with the result that it may be accepted by countries which are at present still working on older techniques than we are.

I mention these figures this morning because there has been a great deal of criticism during the past two years on account of the fact that we do not want an investigation into the Public Service. We do not want to appoint a commission of inquiry into what is going on in the Public Service and with a view to inquire whether better methods or more scientific approaches can be introduced. One of the reasons why we do not want to appoint such a commission of inquiry is that it will be very difficult for people who are laymen, like myself, to serve on a commission which investigates the activities of the men who have been busy with this type of work for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. I think it will be, I shall not say stupid, but quite unwise if one were to appoint a commission as was done in the case of the Centlivres Commission in 1929 …

That was in 1944.

There was one in 1944 as well.

There was one in 1920 and another in 1944.

Yes, that is correct. I want to thank the hon. member very much for that.

Those investigations both took place at a time when we did not have these direct communications between countries and when the methods used in different countries were not available to all concerned. Today it is much easier. We do not take a step in respect of anything which we regard as very important, without consulting other countries, getting information from them or sending over a team who can investigate the position in loco. This in itself makes it rather unnecessary to appoint a commission of inquiry.

Is the hon. the Minister not aware that the issue which we have raised is that the Public Servants’ Association at their annual gatherings during the last few years themselves constantly raised this matter and passed resolutions calling for the appointment of such a commission comprising not only members of the Public Service but also people from outside?

I can assure the hon. member that I know all about the particular matter in as far as the association is concerned. One can read The Public Servant every month, the publication which they publish. I attended their congress too and I had many discussions with the Public Servants’ Association in connection with this particular matter. I have indicated to them that it would not serve any good purpose if one were to appoint a commission of inquiry. In fact, I can tell hon. members that they will not find any reference in any of these Public Service publications to the need for further investigation during the past six months. I think that is a result of the fact that we have put before them the facts as we see them and because of the direct contact we have with all developments in other countries as far as public service work is concerned.

As far as recruiting is concerned, I want to say that this is also a matter which has been raised from time to time. It stands to reason that recruiting in itself and publicity in respect thereof is a matter which is raised on every suitable occasion every year. It has become a hardy annual. I think the replies that we have given in the past cover more or less the same field.

Is there a possibility of increasing the number of bursaries?

I will come to that. I will deal with the question of bursaries in a few minutes. There are five different fronts, as they are called by the Public Service Commission, on which they try to improve recruiting and publicity in respect thereof. Firstly, they naturally concentrate on schools and school-leaving pupils. In 800 of the high schools of South Africa three lecturers are given per year on the prospects in the Public Service. It is interesting, too, to note that they concentrate on the private sector in an endeavour to find people who are interested in public service work. Although they are interested in public service work, these people may have been ignorant about the prospects in the Public Service and after they have been approached, they decide to change their jobs and come over to the Public Service. As far as university students are concerned, I want to say that we have a number of ways in which we approach them. We give lectures at the universities and different types of publicity media are used to inform students of the courses which are open to them in the Public Service and what it offers them. Then we have courses in the Service itself to disseminate information to some of our public servants whom we feel should have this information at their disposal. I do not want to keep the House any longer on this question of advertising media, but I do want to mention that I have a long list here of all the advertising media which are being used today in an effort to recruit as many people as possible for the Public Service. We also make use of films on a large scale. In 1971 more than 200 lectures were given to adult audiences, to women’s organizations and other people who were interested. We have also had a number of exhibitions. We made use of film strips, colour slides, photos and so forth in various ways and in various spheres. In general, I think the public is becoming aware of the fact that the Public Service is today offering them much more, not only in the form of direct salaries, but also in respect of all these other matters which I have mentioned. Generally speaking, I think the use of the Press was a very good idea, too. This has been fruitful in the past year, because a number of newspapers were quite keen to help us in publicising articles on the careers which can be followed in the Public Service and the salaries attached to the various posts.

*The hon. member for Green Point asked me about the question of bursaries and financial assistance to people in order to make it possible for them to join the Public Service. I can give this House interesting data in this regard. We are doing a fair amount in an attempt to improve the position. In fact, we have six different methods which we use for rendering financial assistance to people who in our opinion have the potential to be used in the Public Service. In fact, we search for the more intelligent people. There is, for example, the payment of class fees, over and above bursaries. This is only one of the things we do. Then we have bursaries not only for part-time study, but also for full-time study. We have schemes for the training of technicians which are financed by the Government. We have financial schemes under which a person’s full salary is paid while he is undergoing his training. Then there is the training of people for paramedical services. This in particular is an extremely interesting task, and it would interest the hon. member for Green Point. We are concentrating more and more on rendering financial assistance to people who, in our opinion, can be used in the paramedical sphere. There is a large shortage in this regard.

Whites and non-Whites?

Yes. Members of all four groups may obtain bursaries in respect of any of these categories I have mentioned here. This holds good not only for the Whites, but for all groups. Another interesting example is another scheme we have to ensure that people with legal qualifications are recruited for the Departments of Justice and Bantu Administration and Development by rendering financial assistance to people for their training. We are doing this because we foresee a large shortage arising in that department. With the development of our Bantu homelands and the emancipation of the other groups, more legal aid is required for establishing a good pattern in a Bantu homeland, or wherever. More people with legal training are required for this purpose. At present more than 770 people have received bursaries merely for this particular matter I have just mentioned, i.e. for training in law. The hon. member for Green Point asked me what the position was in respect of the awarding of bursaries in general. The scheme which, as hon. members know, has been in operation since as far back as 1956, has led to literally millions of rands being made available by the Government to people who are worthy of being awarded bursaries, people who have earned it because of their achievements. In 1971 750 bursaries were awarded. The bursaries amount to approximately R250 per year— R500 in the case of college and university students where the costs attaching to higher education is higher of course. If a man goes abroad to study, he receives a bursary of R1 200. Direct financial expenditure by the Government on bursaries amounts to R1 750 000 per annum. This gives this hon. House an idea of how the importance of financial assistance to people who cannot always afford it themselves, has increased. More than 1 100 people received bursaries this year. A considerable number of them are studying abroad. Of course, we send people there, especially if a person wants to study and qualify in a particular sphere in which we can put him to good use in South Africa. I do not think hon. members want further figures in regard to bursaries, but you may go ahead and request them if you wish. Several figures are available in this regard.

Then we come to the question of in-service training, in respect of which I was asked yesterday what we were doing in that regard? For a long time we have had criticism levelled at us to the effect that we are not paying sufficient attention to the training of people already in our service. Hon. members will be interested to hear that 30 000 of our own officials—i.e. 30 000 out of the total—are assisting in various schemes for in-service training. That number of 30 000 has been divided into four sections and covers virtually all fields, from Bantu languages to hydrology in the Department of Water Affairs. There is virtually no subject which does not make in-service training possible in the Public Service.

Thought has already been given to the possibility of establishing what is called a training college for public servants. The work done by public servants differs considerably from the work done in other professions, or rather from the work done at universities and in schools. Because the instruction and training which is given there differs so much from the training required in the Public Service, consideration has been given to the possibility of a training college which may perhaps be established in South Africa one day. Some of our people who were sent abroad, found that such colleges in fact existed in various countries. I would say the United States of America was leading the field as regards the quality of its college. There are four countries in Western Europe which also have such training colleges to which they send people who are selected at school or university, with assistance from the side of the State. This committee which was abroad, has already reported. They suggested that we should consider in principle the possibility of establishing such a college in South Africa at a later stage. Because this is not possible at present because of economic and other circumstances, of course, hon. members will understand that we shall have to start with something smaller if we want to introduce training of this nature. Consideration is being given to a training school, as it is called, which may perhaps be considered by the Government or by the Cabinet in the next few years after such a school has been approved by the Public Service Commission.

The question of merit is also something which has undergone a complete change as a result of investigations carried out by the Public Service Commission in recent times. How does one assess the merit of a person? It is extremely difficult to assess it, of course, for the simple reason that one is not working with factors which can be assessed scientifically. Nor is there a formula which one can work out. In the case of persons, especially if they are fairly young, one cannot always assess what kind of material they are and how one is to assess their merit. Modern methods which have been devised by psychologists and educationists, are available and are applied in South Africa as well. We investigated the position in 14 different countries. We investigated in what way the methods used for assessing a person’s merit were being applied. In this respect alone, I want to say to you that this is an indication to you that the Public Service Commission is in fact working on this. I claim nothing for myself, because I know absolutely nothing about this matter. Nominally I am in charge of the Public Service Commission, but in reality I know very little about it. The position is that this particular investigation was carried out in 14 countries by persons who have been dealing with this for many years. As regards the question of the time and energy which must be used or devoted to the matter of assessing whether a person is meritorious or not, you can imagine that if one has to deal with thousands of people every year and a decision has to be taken whether a person should be appointed to a particular post or department, this in itself brings about a tremendous wastage of man-hours and time. In order to eliminate this, the committee also investigated the possibility of shortening the method of assessing a person’s merit. We have been successful in reducing the man-hours devoted in the past to the testing of people, by 45 per cent. I think this in itself is a very good indication of the fact that it was worthwhile spending a small sum of money on an investigation of this nature. One finds that the results, too, are more than worthwhile. In this regard, I could also draw comparisons with the systems followed in other countries, but I do not think it is necessary. I just want to leave you with the assurance that we—the department in any event—is very well conversant with all methods used for testing a person’s merit, working capacity, aptitude, insight, judgment, attitude, etc., before he is then appointed to a particular post.

At the end of my exposition as far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, I just want to mention one or two matters which, in my opinion, will have to be given much more attention by the Government than we could give it in the past. I am referring to what was sometimes called bureaucracy in the past, what is in fact not bureaucracy, in other words, the extension of the departmental machine. We have a great number of departments in South Africa. Many of the hon. members will know what our difficulties are in this regard. I shall mention a few to them. We have 43 departments in South Africa. Let me compare this to the position in other countries: In the United States of America there are 11, in Germany 22, in the Netherlands 10, in Japan 13, in Switzerland 7, in Sweden 12, in Australia 26, in Canada 26 and in Great Britain 24. These are all fewer than here. However, we must remember the most important reason for that is the fact that we have four population groups.

You have to quadruplicate everything.

You do not necessarily have to duplicate everything …

I said you have to “quadruplicate” everything.

Not necessarily; it depends on how far a particular group has developed. As you yourself know, some of them, the Indians for example, do not need a great deal of help in this connection. They have developed further than the Bantu, as you know. For that reason alone we second fewer people to the Indians and Coloured people than we do in the case of the Bantu. This seconding in itself means that we require fewer departments or units for the Indians and the Coloureds, as opposed to the Bantu. That stands to reason.

†The Government is aware of the difficulties which we have in this regard and the matter has been given attention by the Government in the past. It is, however, extremely difficult to unite two or three departments, to bring them together. The fact is that we are aware of the rather large number of departments in South Africa, which in turn, of course, means a large number of units, including secretaries and other more highly paid officials; that stands to reason. There must inevitably be a certain amount of duplication between departments if there is such a large number of them, and things cannot be co-ordinated easily, as is the case in countries where there are 12 or 15 or even 20 ministries, as the case may be. But this is a direction in which we are working; the Government has given the matter attention in the past, and in the future I am sure we shall find media and procedures which can be followed, as a result of which improvements can be brought about.

Parkinson can tell you something about that.

Yes, we have heard about him.

*Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I want to say something in regard to wages. I promised last year that I would have the wage structure and problems we may have in that regard investigated by the Public Service Commission and concomitant bodies. I am speaking in general terms now. As hon. members will see in my Hansard, I spoke about the Public Service Commission itself last year. It is not my duty to investigate the position of persons outside the Public Service and that of officials who have nothing to do with the Public Service; this I cannot do. However, what I am doing and what I undertook to do last year, is twofold. In the first place, I am ascertaining whether the gap between the Whites and the non-Whites in the Public Service can be closed, yes or no. Hon. members will be interested to know that we have made a considerable amount available to non-Whites in the course of the past year to restore parity … no, I am not expressing myself very clearly. Let me rather put it this way: The amount has been made available to restore the position to the ratio which existed at the beginning of 1971. There was a certain ratio in regard to the professional groups; this was mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point yesterday. For instance, there was a percentage ratio in respect of White medical practitioners, Bantu medical practitioners, and Indian medical practitioners. That ratio was restored in October last year. This has also been announced in the Press.

Has it reached the ratio of 10, 9, 8 or has it not reached it yet?

No, in the case of medical practitioners it is 80 per cent as against 100 per cent. This is the position only in the case of medical practitioners.

What is the position regarding Coloureds and Indians?

It used to be a ratio of 10, 9, 8.

No, wait a minute. I have also been on the executive committee for a long time, and it was not always 10, 9, 8. At times it varied. It was changed from time to time by the four administrators in South Africa. The last ratio the hon. member is referring to, is the 10, 9, 8 ratio.

In 1964.

Yes, 1964: that is right, but it was changed in 1968. It was not changed by the National Party or the Government. It was changed by, amongst others, the Co-ordinating Committee on Hospital Affairs. There were other bodies involved here. Three of them were concerned with this matter, and made suggestions in regard to a change in the ratio. I have the figures here. A question was put to me in this connection by the hon. member for Houghton, and I gave her the reply. I see she has the information in that document before her. I do not have the percentages off-hand, but I shall look them up. Here they are; the present ratios are as follows:

Those are the figures I gave the hon. member in reply to her question.

*This is one of the promises we made. The position has been revised and we were able to make the adjustments in October to bring the position into line with the previous position. But in addition—as I have said a moment ago—we also made available a cash amount of R12 million per year to our non-Whites. Of course, this amount has been divided among a great many of them, in the various categories. In the third place, I can give hon. members the assurance that an investigation is being carried out into the general facets of the difference in wages between Whites and non-Whites. The position is under consideration all the time. We have held talks with the various bodies to ascertain which will best be able to deal with this matter. We will have to make certain surveys, because all the statistics in South Africa about these matters which would have made it easier for one to lay down a procedure and a consistent policy in this regard, is not always available.

Is this amount of R12 million you have mentioned also available to the provinces to improve their salary scales for non-Whites?

Yes, but only to a certain extent. As the hon. member knows, approximately 10 per cent of the employees of the provinces fall under the Public Service Commission; the remaining 90 per cent are, of course, their own people who get paid by themselves. In many cases they are being paid according to the standards of the normal wage boards in those places where these people work. It is therefore not a matter for us. We deal with the …

The doctors, the nurses, and so forth?

Yes, let us call them the professional people. They and the technicians and such people fall under the Public Service Commission.

In any case, Sir, I think I have said enough in this regard. I have tried to reply to a number of points and if there are any further questions in this regard I shall deal with them at a subsequent stage. I shall also try to furnish replies to the other matters raised by members opposite yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vryheid took the opportunity to attack the Natal Parks Board and, in doing so, also took the opportunity to attack me personally. I want to reply to some of his points.

May I commence by saying that I have read in the Press of statements the hon. member made as to how I was to be grilled here and how I was to be subjected to a number of questions, which I would be called upon to answer, and so forth. I do not remember that I was grilled, and I do not remember any particular questions. But I want something more than questions from the hon. member. If he is going to attack the Natal Parks Board, he has to give the grounds for his attack. He has to say what his grounds are. He did not attempt to do that yesterday, excepting for two allusions to the very latest report of the provincial auditor. The first was where he quoted from the auditor’s report and said that the Parks Board had made a loss during this last year. The auditor’s report said nothing of the kind, Sir, I challenge the hon. member to show me where it says so. The auditor’s report never said that. The Parks Board cannot make a loss. It is not a trading concern. Not a penny of the Parks Board’s revenue goes to the Parks Board; it all goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the province. The hon. member was a member of the provincial council …

It required additional funds.

I think he sat on the Select Committee on Public Accounts in the provincial council. He should know better than that. Did he not learn anything when he was in the provincial council?

No, not a thing.

Sir, let me repeat that that sort of accusation against the Parks Board is a lot of nonsense. It is a reflection on the intelligence and standing of the hon. member. He did not understand what he was reading. Secondly, Sir, he said that there was a reference there to bad control or lack of control over stores. Again, the hon. member, having been a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, should know better …

I never referred to stores in any way.

You, did.

I did not.

Order!

Do not talk nonsense. He did not understand what it was about.

I am jolly sure the hon. member did; I made a note of it.

I never referred to stores.

The issue of stores?

I never referred to that.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member made any reference to it, then I take it he is withdrawing it now, because I am still hoping to get his Hansard. But let it pass, Sir, The point is that the hon. member should know, when he comes to dealing with finance concerning the Natal Parks Board, that no revenue of its own comes to the Parks Board; it is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the province; and I provided for that when I was administrator, when we passed this Oridinance, so that there is no temptation on the part of the Natal Parks Board to make a profit. The idea is that we are giving a service to the public. We want particularly families and we want children who may not be able to afford high fees to go and take advantage of the facilities that are available in the nature reserves and the game reserves in the province. We hold them in trust not for Natal; we hold them in trust for the people of South Africa. If the hon. member wants to know what some members of his own Cabinet think about it, then let him find out from them. A number of them have been up to those reserves over the holidays.

I know that you do give certain people priority treatment.

The hon. member says that we treat certain people with priority. I am not talking about giving people priority; I say let him find out what accommodation there is and in what way people are treated, including the children, because it is the children we are trying to get to the parks. This then was the total gravamen of the hon. member’s accusation; the sum total of his accusations is that we mishandle money, but then he does not indicate on what grounds he says that. Sir, let me say to him that every one of the accounts of the Natal Parks Board is audited by the provincial auditor.

Since when? Since 1965.

And prior to that?

The hon. members says “Since 1965”. Sir, how long ago is 1965? Is the last seven years not enough for him? It goes back beyond that. But, Sir, he was a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the report of the Provincial Auditor goes to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, in exactly the same way as is our procedure here in Parliament. If the Provincial Auditor and the Select Committee on Public Accounts can find nothing wrong with the accounts of the Parks Board, why then does the hon. member not come here with chapter and verse, with something which is of a concrete character, instead of coming here and making wild accusations? No, Sir, the hon. member for Newcastle cannot help the hon. member out. He does not know anything about it either.

I tell you that it is only since 1965 that the books have been audited.

If the hon. member, by some of his implications, was reflecting on the staff of the Parks Board, then I say shame on him. The staff of the Natal Parks Board are not here to defend themselves. That band of young men and some who are not so young, who have given months and years, and many, many years of service to the cause of conservation. do not happen to please the hon. member for some reason or other. I know what it is, Sir, Jealousy, pure jealousy, and politics. The thinking of the ex-member for Zululand, who stood up in this House and talked about the “Varkeraad”, is in line with the thinking of the hon. member for Vryheid.

That is untrue. He never said that.

They are just wasting your time.

Sir, the hon. member should go to the branch of the Wild Life Society in his own constituency at Vryheid and go and find out from them what their opinion of the Natal Parks Board is. In addition to this, Sir, let me say at once that the hon. member could not resist a little bit of a dig-back into the hate campaign. He had to trot that out also yesterday.

There is not one Afrikaner there.

If there is no other way of attacking the Parks Board, then he is going to do it through racialism and through hate. But, Sir, I have had enough of this. Here is the report of the interview which the hon. member gave to The Tribune three weeks ago. It says—

Well, it is three weeks ago, but that does not matter. [Interjections.]

Shut up and behave.

Sir, I have been waiting for six years while that hon. member and others, for political reasons, have been continually sniping away at the Parks Board. They have not raised one single point to justify any kind of inquiry, but when he talks about graft and corruption I am going to challenge him now. He says that he wants the matter brought out into the open. I am going to challenge him. Would he say that I am guilty of graft and corruption? Because I shall ask for a Select Committee at once to investigate the matter. I challenge him. I will bring the matter out into the open.

He is a coward.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Rather have your commission of inquiry.

What word, Sir?

No, I referred to the hon. member for Umlazi.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I do not want any more nonsense from the hon. member. Let him be man enough …

He is a coward.

… after giving this kind of interview to the Press to show what a big boy he is and what he is going to do to Douglas Mitchell …

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for St. Croix said the hon. member for Vryheid was a coward.

Order! Did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central say that?

Yes, I said that.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member is not the hon. member for St. Croix; he is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

That is what the hon. member meant.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want the hon. member for Vryheid to run away from this. He can go and give interviews to the Press behind my back; he is a big boy; he is going to do all sorts of things when we come to Parliament. Here we now face each other as man to man and I challenge him: Don’t come with stories and accusations of graft and corruption; stand up and say that I am guilty of graft and corruption, with the other members of the board. Does the hon. member say that?

Yes.

Then Mr. Chairman, I move for a Select Committee.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

No. Why?

Order! Did the hon. member say that that hon. member was guilty of corruption?

Today?

Did the hon. member say it a moment ago?

No.

He did.

Somebody is a coward.

Order! I heard the hon. member saying that the hon. member was guilty of corruption.

He asked me.

And then the hon. member said “yes”.

Yes, then I said “yes”.

The hon. member must apologize.

Then I say “no”.

Order! The hon. member must apologize for imputing that to the hon. member.

I do not know why I must apologize, Mr. Chairman.

When the hon. member for South Coast asked whether the hon. member accused him of being guilty of corruption, the hon. member said “Yes”, and he must apologize for that.

He was talking about the Parks Board.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Apologize.

I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member must apologize.

I apologize.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, although the hon. member has withdrawn that, I believe I am entitled to a Select Committee and I shall go into that matter.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn that.

On a point of order, I think if the hon. member asks for a Select Committee he is entitled to it. The privilege is allowed to a member to have himself exonerated where such an accusation has been made against him.

Order!

I am just putting it to you, Sir,

Order! The hon. member may not move such a motion at the present moment; he may do so afterwards.

I will take the necessary steps. [Time expired.]

Sir, I just want to say that unfortunately I cannot take part in this private debate because I do not have the particulars. I should like to come back to what I consider to be of great importance.

[Inaudible.]

He is afraid.

It seems to me there is no doubt that this will again be discussed at a later stage in the debate.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Parow allowed to say that the hon. member for South Coast is afraid?

Mr. Chairman, I was not speaking to the hon. member at all. I was speaking to the hon. member for Durban Point.

Is the hon. member allowed to say that any member is afraid?

Yes, you are afraid.

The hon. member may continue.

In the limited time at my disposal, and after having listened to this private business, I should just like to come back to what the hon. the Minister said earlier this morning in the debate in connection with the Public Service. I think it is necessary, under this Vote, to take note of the very important statement the hon. the Minister made in connection with the difficulties being experienced by the Public Service to recruit, train and retain proper staff. I think it is necessary, in addition, for us to take note of the statement made by the hon. the Minister concerning the number of Government departments and the fact that South Africa actually has an endless number of departments to administer in comparison with the rest of the world. The hon. the Minister added that this results in overlapping from time to time, as well as in duplication. I was glad to learn of the efforts we took cognizance of earlier in the report of the Public Service Commission, i.e. that positive attempts are being made to combat such harmful overlapping. It was the hon. the Prime Minister who said recently in another debate, when the merits of legislation were being discussed, that there will certainly be “overlapping”, but to use his words “it is better to have an overlap than to leave a gap”. I think that we can say of the Public Service that in spite of all the sometimes justifiable criticism there has been from time to time, an efficient Public Service has been built up over the years under the very exceptional circumstances in which our country, with its population groups, finds itself. However, I want to broach another matter that fits in with this, because in its planning the Public Service Commission is continually dealing with the question of other levels of government that are also competing with it in certain respects.

In the establishment of the Public Service Commission, and in the report of the commission, mention has been made of the fact that last year in the Public Service a total of 269 000 persons were employed, 103 000 of these being Whites. In the S.A. Railways there are about 111 000 Whites out of a total of 227 000 workers. Compare with this the fact that in the provinces, where these salaries are not controlled, there are 96 000 White persons employed out of a total of 192 000 from all race groups working there, as against the 103 000 of the Public Service. But, to mention a further aspect, in the South African set-up, with its triple level Government, one often loses sight of the fact that the third level of government, where most of the bottle-necks occur that creep through to the Public Service, is the local authority sector which is indirectly controlled by this Minister as well. Last year there were about 52 000 Whites employed and 208 000 persons were employed by local authorities as against the 269 000 that I mentioned for all race groups in the Public Service. These people’s remuneration is determined by bodies other than the Public Service Commission, with the single exception of public servants in the provinces. I want to say that the hearty co-operation that has existed throughout the years between the provinces and the central Government is something to be grateful for. I think that appreciative note can be taken of the provinces’ honouring of the “gentlemen’s agreement” not to compete with the Public Service when it comes to the remuneration of their officials and the consultation that takes place there. I also have appreciation for the fact that in many cases local authorities try to bear in mind the salary structure of the central Government’s establishment when salaries are fixed. But I think the Public Service Commission is going to be faced with a problem within the next few years, a problem relating to the remuneration, the recruiting and the retention of its officials, if serious attention is not given to this problem of competition, not only as far as the private sector is concerned, but also as far as the semi-State sector and the other two levels of government are concerned. It is alarming to note that in order to balance their budgets, and with particular focus on the paying of salaries, local authorities must announce tremendous taxes and tariff increases, which has a detrimental effect on the economy of the country as a whole. This has been indicated in the past year by new assessment lists to make provision for this kind of staff recruitment and high salaries. This affects the general taxpayer. It does not matter what steps the Government may take to keep taxes or the cost of living low, if this is not done at local government level. If it soars on the local level then every citizen is affected. I want to allege that these finances, which are needed by local authorities and provinces, constitute between 33⅓ and 45 per cent of the budgets of those respective government levels. One can then imagine the kind of problems a Public Service Commission is faced with when it must keep pace with that pattern laid down for it from the lowest government level. I am not very fond of figures, but I just want to mention the figures I have here of the two large provinces. In the Cape Province R133 million is spent per year on salaries, and in the Transvaal R169 million is spent, excluding the additional things that are paid for. This constitutes a tremendous amount of money that must be taken from the taxpayer’s pocket in some or other way, and particularly as far as this Ministry is concerned it creates the particular problem that within the Public Service the retention of staff is not only made difficult, but at times even impossible. In connection with what the hon. the Minister said about the investigation of departments falling under him, the various Government departments, I also want to ask for an investigation to be instituted into, and for attention to be given to, the place occupied by these other two levels of government. I venture to say that the public service officials have the full right to complain about the way they are remunerated when they work for the first level of government and their portion compares less favorably with the salaries, the leave privileges and all the other privileges that are given to the two lower levels of government. I have said that the provinces have been exceptionally co-operative in this respect, and I think this deserves the utmost thanks on the part of the Government and this House, but I believe that the necessary co-operation must also be obtained from the local authorities and that it must be made possible for them, under the Du Plessis formula, or under whatever other legislation must ensue, to act, not in competition, but co-operatively as far as their share of handling the government of our country is concerned. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Witbank touched on some very difficult questions connected with the shortage of skilled manpower in the country, something which has of course taxed this Chamber for many years, and as I am quite sure that it is something which is very much in the forefront of the hon. the Minister’s mind, I hope he will forgive me if I deal firstly with the hon. member for Vryheid.

Just before the adjournment last night, that hon. member made some wild accusations against me, never mind what he said about the hon. member for South Coast. He suggested that it was “laakbaar” on my part, despicable, to have raised the question of whether action should not have been taken by now in the Gouws affair.

“Laakbaar is “regrettable”, not “despicable”.

I have not the time to argue with that hon member. It is quite clear what he meant. Anyway, he said it was despicable of me to suggest that some action should have been taken by the Government by now to ensure that moneys which accrued to Mr. Gouws should have been recovered by the Treasury.

I never spoke of Mr. Gouws.

I listened to that hon. member’s speech this morning on the tape, his second speech, not his first one.

This is my second speech.

I listened to that on the tape this morning and I want to tell him that apart from all else I resent his accusation that my conduct was “laakbaar” as nothing more and nothing less than an impertinence. I do not want to exchange further pleasantries with him, but it was quite clear from what he said that he did not have the vaguest idea of what points had in fact been raised by me. In all seriousness, I cannot write off his lack of comprehension entirely as stupidity. I think—we have seen evidence of that this morning—that among other things he does not have a grasp of the English language and if that is so …

That is despicable!

I would suggest that before he tries to reply to hon. members on this side who speak English, he should perhaps have their speeches translated for him.

That is despicable!

In dealing a little further with the Gouws affair …

Do you say “kous”?

I am referring to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund affair involving Mr. Gouws. One of the points I made in supporting our plea to the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry was that only a judicial commission …

Order! The hon. member for Tygervallei used the word “despicable”. That word is unparliamentary and therefore he has to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir,

One of the points I was making was that only a judicial commission is capable of ascertaining exactly what moneys were obtained by Mr. Gouws in contravention of the provisions of the Public Service Act by way of commission or raising fees or from any other benefits. This money belongs rightly to the Government. The Public Service Act makes provision that if money is accrued in this way, illegally in terms of the Act, it is the right of the Treasury to take action against the person who has obtained the money and to recover it so that it can be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

There is an element of urgency about this. It is quite clear that the department of the hon. the Minister of Transport has been very tardy in this matter. In fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport said a short while ago in the Other Place that this was not a departmental matter, not a matter for a departmental investigation. He said this when he was taxed by the hon. Senator Getz about what departmental steps had been taken. If it is not a departmental matter, what sort of matter is it? One thing is quite clear—it is not entirely a Police matter. Here we have the prospect of the State possibly through the lapse of time losing money which it is entitled to claim. This money —I think it is common cause—could run into a very large sum indeed. Certainly, the suggestions made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport in this House about the nature of Mr. Gouw’s activities suggest that a large sum is involved.

I was even more surprised to hear the hon. member in his speech last night trying to defend Mr. Gouws.

I never mentioned Mr. Gouws.

I could barely believe my ears, and therefore I took the trouble of listening to a replay of his speech this morning.

And you never heard Mr. Gouws’s name mentioned once.

The hon. member said that I had made allegations against a public servant who, he said, had been discharged in this matter. He made the point and he took me to task on the fact that the allegations made against Mr. Gouws had not been proved.

I never said “Mr. Gouws”.

He never used Mr. Gouws’s name, but of whom else was he talking?

That is reprehensible—“laakbaar”!

He was taking me to task for what I said about this Gouws affair. No, he cannot get out of it that way. Frankly, I have had enough of that hon. member’s double talk.

In the few minutes still at my disposal I want to turn very briefly to the whole question of censorship which has already been debated in this House. It is quite obvious—we have said it many times—that there must be some effective form of control to ensure that things such as pornography and subversion can be eliminated.

Why?

The hon. member for Rissik asks why. Is he against control? Does he want this country to be inundated with pornography? It is obvious that there must be some control. He might disagree with me, but then he must have his disagreement with the Minister. We have repeatedly put our point of view on the need for control and the hon the Minister will remember that in the debates which we have had since I have been in the House, at least, we have constantly warned that the body entrusted with controlling publications, entertainment and such things should go out of its way to gain the support of the people who are affected by it: not only the public at large, but also writers, journalists, playwrights, film-makers. What has this Publications Board done? It has certainly earned the hostility of writers, journalists—even journalists of the hon. the Minister’s own Press—and it has made itself look ridiculous in the eyes of the public. What is more, the Publications Board has set for itself a record of extreme arrogance in the carrying out of its work. You see, even Judges have voiced their displeasure at the way in which the board goes about its work. I refer to what Mr. Justice Diemont said some time ago. He said—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not deal here with the matter in connection with Mr. Gouws. I think the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to that better than I can. In connection with the Publications Board, a matter the hon. member for Kensington raised here, I want to say that the hon. member’s references to the Board form part of the process of discrediting the Publications Board, as other hon. members mentioned here. It is not only the Publications Board that has been discredited by those hon. members. In the past we have the same thing in connection with the Group Areas Board and in connection with Bantu education. In 1968 a question was asked about who the members of the Group Areas Board were. The same kind of question is now being asked again: Who are the members of the Publications Board? That is disparagement.

They are tackling the people concerned!

We also had this when we began with Bantu education. The same kind of question was asked: Who are the members who must carry this out? Now they have again got hold of the Publications Board. The Publications Board was criticized here about certain decisions it took. A few years ago a certain case came up before the Supreme Court in Cape Town. It was an appeal against a decision of the Publications Board. Two Judges sat, and they disagreed with each other. The result was that the full Bench had to sit in judgment of that case. This shows that even when it comes to the Bench there can be disagreement about the interpretation of the Act and about the concept of “spiritual assets”. Why was that the case? I think that the matter in question was Where the lion feeds.

The Publications Board decision was that it may not be published. The matter was then referred to the Supreme Court, where two Judges sat. The two Judges disagreed and the full Bench of the Cape Division of the Supreme Court then had to sit in order to pass judgment in that case. Now the Publications Board is being blamed, while even two Judges disagreed about a matter that was referred to them on appeal.

Hon. members opposite have not yet made any concrete suggestions about how this Publications Board should function. They want it scrapped.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. They want absolute licence here in South Africa. The Publications Board must be scrapped. This is the first time we have now heard flatly that the Publications Board should be scrapped.

And the courts must take its place.

Oh, the courts must take its place! And when the courts themselves disagree, as in the case I have just mentioned, must the matter go to the Appeal Court? It can happen that two or three Judges in the Supreme Court must decide that case and it is possible for them to disagree. Then five Judges of the Appeal Court sit, and there can also be a difference of opinion there. Who will then be right? It happens on numerous occasions that three Judges on the Bench disagree on a two to one basis. Then the case is heard by five Judges and they can disagree on a three to two basis. A decision must subsequently be given about that specific matter.

Is that the confidence you have in our Supreme Courts?

Must the Bench be inundated with more work than it has to deal with at the present moment? But I want to go further. There will always be a difference of opinion. Do we not have it at the moment as far as the Academy is concerned? There has been criticism in various newspapers, inter alia, Die Vaderland, about Siener in die Suburbs. There was criticism of Etienne le Roux’s Sewe Dae by die Silbersteins.

What is wrong with that?

I do not say there is anything wrong with that. All I am indicating to the House is that there is a difference of opinion about these matters. There will always be a difference of opinion about this. The Academy is the highest ranking body when it comes to matters of this nature, and even as far as the Academy is concerned there was a difference of opinion about these two books. Hon. members themselves know this. Yesterday there was another article about Siener in die Suburbs. There was also a difference of opinion in the Academy about Etienne le Roux’s book.

What about it? People disagree about you too.

Of course, but people disagree more about you than about me. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to another aspect of this matter. Recently a new word has cropped up, i.e. “bureaucracy”. It is a word that has suddenly been discovered, and everything is now discredited by calling it “bureaucratic”. We can understand something like this happening in individual cases. It must happen when one is dealing with a large organization like the Public Service. But I want to say that the Public Service has always been the conservative factor in any State. From 1870 to the assumption of office by Gen. de Gaulle, French Governments have come and gone, but the Public Service was the bulwark. The Public Service was France’s salvation. I think it was Mr. Eric Stockenström who said in about 1930, after the fall of various Governments: “It was a kaleidoscope of chaining ministries.” But the Public Service was the bulwark for the salvation of the French people and the French Government.

We pass new acts in this House of Assembly. It is not always easy to implement those acts in practice. If hon. members go back in history to 1910 they will see that whenever new Acts are passed they are subsequently amended, after it has been discovered in practice how those Acts work. Here new Act are now being passed, and the public servants have to implement them in practice. When they do so they find that there are certain loopholes in that legislation that have to be plugged again. Then that legislation has to be amended. That is why there has always been legislation that has to be amended throughout the years, whether in this Government’s time or in the time of any other South African Government. When new legislation is passed one does not always know what the practical implications of that legislation will be. That is why amendment Acts are passed. In the drawing up of Acts in 1915. for example, there were precedents that could serve as clues. Consequently there were not so many amendments necessary as far as that legislation is concerned; but when it comes to new laws, the amendment of those laws inevitably becomes essential. It will also be found in the private sector that wrong decisions are taken, because the officials in the private sector are also only human. The same thing will happen in the Public Service. This must take place where one is dealing with a big organization. The South African Railways does not, for example, form a part of the South African Public Service. Neither is the Post Office a part of the Public Service. Mistakes are made. But how many mistakes do hon. members on the other side not make? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one reads through the debates that have been conducted under this Vote in the past, one finds that attacks have been launched on a wide front and in respect of several aspects that this department handles. It is interesting to note the pattern that has been adopted this year in this House. The attack is mainly centred on the Publications Board. I do not want to go into the merits of the arguments used against the Publications Board. It is interesting that in certain circles recently a great deal has been said about the Publications Board. A great deal has also been written in newspapers about the Publications Board. The reason why the attacks this year are being concentrated on the Publications Board is simply because the United Party is of the opinion that such an attack on the Publications Board will be popular as far as the general public is concerned.

Your newspapers write about it.

Mr. Chairman, here the hon. member is now letting the cat out of the bag. He says our own newspapers are writing about it. That is the very reason why they think it is a popular topic to speak about. This is further proof of the opportunism of the United Party.

Do you not agree with them?

The standpoint they adopt is an opportunistic standpoint without consideration of, or I can almost say, without caring two hoots about, the morals of our people in this country.

I want to come back to the Public Service and express a few ideas about it. In this country a great deal is being said about the productivity of our people. A great deal has been done by the Public Service Commission in this connection, as was also indicated here by hon. members and by the hon. the Minister. There is one very important aspect that indicates that the Public Service is meeting with success in their attempt to increase productivity. This is as a result of the emphasis that is being placed on efficiency. If emphasis is not placed on efficiency, higher productivity cannot be obtained. To obtain efficiency the Public Service trains its people. They create the opportunity for academic and technical training. What is of particular importance —and in this the Public Service takes the lead today—are the courses they offer and the techniques they employ for in-service training. And this training by the Public Service is already known today in sectors outside the Public Service in this country. I am aware that there are already several large financial undertakings in our country that are making use of these techniques and courses of the Public Service, and doing so with great success. Together with the courses being introduced for in-service training, the Public Service also has a special system that is almost the only one of its kind in the world, a system that is closely related to this and that stimulates training as far as the individual is concerned, i.e. the system of advancement on merit. As far as I know, South Africa is about the only country in the world that has this system in its Public Service.

Previous speakers have referred here to the officers of the Public Service that are drawn off by the private sector. One of the most important reasons why people are drawn from the Public Service to the private sector is the fact that our officers in the Public Service have had this thorough training and that the private sector is not prepared to spend the money and take the necessary steps to provide similar training as far as their people are concerned. As a result of the fact that I am aware that there are institutions in the private sector that make use of the techniques and courses of the Public Service, I want to ask the Minister today that this knowledge, which the Public Service has at its disposal, should be made more freely available to the private sector. It would pay the Public Service if we were to release officials to give the necessary training and guidance when private bodies want it, and to equip them in the training of staff. If this were to happen I think greater co-operation would ensue between the private sector and the Public Service. In addition, the Public Service would be able to make a tremendous contribution to the economy of the country. To show what an incentive the Public Service’s training has for its people, as far as their advancement on merit is concerned, we may take note of the number of persons that have qualified for it in the Public Service over the past year, the year ending 31st December, 1971. 914 officers qualified for it. The achievements of 559 of the officers were such that the merit advancement was given to them before the due date for their promotion. I say that this is proof of the success the Public Service is achieving today. I would like to see attention given to transferring to the private sector, or to whoever wants to make use of that service, this experience and the knowledge that the Public Service has gained. This can only be to the benefit of our country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to what the hon. the Minister had to say this morning on the Public Service. I must say I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him that we really have a tremendously high percentage of gainfully employed people directly and indirectly in State employment, in a so-called free-enterprise country. I think that the figures he gave us this morning probably exceed the number of people in the employ of the State during Mr. Wilson’s socialist government. For a country that prides itself on being a free-enterprise country, an anti-socialist country, it seems to me astonishing that more and more people are being taken up in State employment. Of course, the reason is clear; the hon. the Minister mentioned it himself. It is the fact that everything in this country is ethnically divided so that there is quadruplication of services. I do not think that his explanation that we do not need to quadruplicate because we need fewer people for the Indian section, carries any weight at all, because those persons, whether they are Indians or Whites, are still in the service of the State. Therefore it is still a quadruplication of services. Everything is divided up. Education, welfare, and every single facet of life has to be repeated in different colours in South Africa. This is of course a tremendously expensive exercise. It is one reason why we have so many people in the employ of the State in this country. That is another reason why the State expenditure is so enormously high. Until we change our basic ideas on this, there is not going to be much improvement.

I was also interested to hear what the hon. the Minister had to tell us about the change in ratio and narrowing of the gap in the pay of the different racial groups in the State service. Although it is true that R12¼ million was made available with retrospective effect from the 1st October, 1971, to be divided among the three groups, the Coloureds, the Indians and African employees, we still have a tremendous way to go before we can say that the gap has narrowed to any appreciable extent, to an extent which is going to satisfy, for instance, the African and the Coloured nurses.

The African and Coloured nurses’ salaries are so far below that of their White colleagues, particularly when these women know full well that they received the same training, they hold the same qualifications and they carry the same responsibilities. To think that African nurses have a ratio of 45 to 100 vis-à-vis their White colleagues and that Coloured and Indian nurses have a ratio of 61 to 100 vis-à-vis their White colleagues, is an appalling situation. I think the teacher situation is also very bad. As far as the African teachers are concerned, they get only 52 to 100 as against the 72 to 100 of the Coloured and Indian teachers. Radical changes need to be introduced there before any satisfaction is going to be felt by the professional people. I get many letters from them. Very often these letters are anonymous because they say they are scared of being victimized. This is a pretty sad reflection on the existing state of affairs. Then of course, in regard to university teaching staff, there can be no explanation for the fact that a White lecturer or a White professor gets so much more than a Bantu, a Coloured or Indian professor or lecturer at the ethnic universities. Of course, the situation in the case of doctors has always been appalling. I can never ever find any rationale for government thinking in the case of doctors, and professional people generally. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to redouble his efforts so that he can report to the House next session that very much more extensive improvements have been made than have so far been achieved.

Last night I was trying to develop a point about the confiscation and withdrawal of passports. I know the hon. the Minister has not yet replied to that part of the debate, and that he is going to do so, so I am glad of the opportunity to say a few more words about this before he does reply. He was good enough, unlike his predecessors, to give some basic criteria which apparently guide the Department of the Interior in the removal or withdrawal of passports although, as I said earlier, I rather think that to a large extent all this is really governed by the Special Branch and its activities. He told us that there were, I think, five or six points which guided them.

Eight.

Well, I must have missed out some of them, and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me what they are. The points I have listed here are: the possibility of a person being a financial burden; the fact that he may cause embarrassment to himself or the society to which he is moving; the fact that he is a communist or a supporter of banned organizations; the fact that a person is a known terrorist or has helped terrorism, revolution, sabotage and so on—that is quite understandable; persons who undermine peace and quiet in this country; and people who besmirch and slander their own country overseas.

Those are the eight.

Well, what are the two I have left out?

You have mentioned eight.

Oh, I see; you mean I have simply correlated them; in other words, I have all the major points?

Yes.

I should like the hon. the Minister then to give this Committee some information as to why all these Nusas executive members have been deprived of their passports. I do not see what category they fall into. The fact that they disagree with Government policy is not necessarily a besmirching or a slandering of South Africa. For instance, I happen to disagree with the hon. the Minister on almost every basic principle of this Government. I do not, whatever the Minister may think, besmirch or slander South Africa. What I do is to put my own point of view and say that there are many thousands of people who happen to agree with a point of view which I think is enlightened, and that does South Africa a great deal of good overseas. It does it much more good, I may say, then trying to defend Government policy, which is indefensible to most of the Western world as far as racialism is concerned. Now these young people certainly disapprove of Government policy, and they say so, but that is not slandering South Africa. That is disagreeing with the Government. I do not think it can be said that any of the young people are terrorists or that they support sabotage. There are many laws in this country and presumably they would have been hauled before the courts long ago if this could be proved in any way. They are not communists; they do not support banned organizations; they are certainly not an embarrassment to themselves or to the countries they visit and they are not likely to be a financial burden. So, I should like to know on what grounds the hon. the Minister is doing this. I know that there was one Nusas student who went to Ghana in order to plead for the abolition of arms sales to South Africa, and to put that point of view, but he never even got as far as doing so. In fact, he was turned back by Ghana.

Mr. Streek?

Yes, Mr. Streek. As I have said, he never even managed to do that. The point is that he has never ever besmirched or slandered South Africa abroad and he does not fall into any of these other categories. Even asking for an arms boycott of South Africa is not asking for the use of force against South Africa and it is not asking for sabotage. It is not asking for terrorism or communistic activity. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, since he is far more reasonable than his predecessors on this particular score in that he is prepared to give some reasons for this, to give some rationale for the withdrawal of these passports. Failing that, I am afraid there is only one conclusion which can be drawn—it is certainly the conclusion that I have drawn and that many others have drawn—and that is that this is sheer intimidation of some of our young men, or women, for that matter. Some women have also been denied passports. It is an attempt to intimidate young leaders of South Africa, for these are leaders of South Africa, from taking executive positions in one of the major student organizations of this country. This is certainly how the students view it, and unless the hon. the Minister can give us some startling disclosures to justify the withdrawal of passports and the refusal of passport applications by these young people, I am afraid there is no other conclusion which can be drawn. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I do not follow up on what she said. I just want to tell her that I fully understand her policy; it is very clear to me. I differ with her in principle, but I should prefer to carry on a conversation with hon. members of the United Party, because their policy is not always as clear to me as that of the Progressive Party. Sir, on 10th June last year I said the following to hon. members of the Opposition, inter alia—

I went on to ask—

I went on to ask—

I ask these questions, Sir, because it is very important that the United Party, as the so-called alternative Government in South Africa, should tell us in what place the non-Whites in South Africa can be incorporated in the State administration, bearing in mind the approach of the United Party that they will maintain White leadership over the whole of South Africa …

May I ask a question?

I am sorry; I am afraid I do not have time to reply to questions in my short ten minutes. The United Party must tell us in what places the non-Whites in South Africa can be incorporated in the State administration, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the approach of the United Party that they will maintain White leadership over the whole of South Africa, and, on the other, their attitude that in order to be able to face the world the Bantu people and other non-White groups will be incorporated in one integrated South Africa, in such a way as to recognize their human dignity.

What are you doing in the Coloured Department?

Sir, I am not only asking this because I am in doubt about it, being a Nationalist. In last night’s Star we read the following, inter alia—

Then the report goes on to say—

Well, it does not give me grey hairs, for to me it is just a subject for study. The report goes on to say—

I agree with Mr. Gordon—

And then, in quotation marks—

Then the following, also in quotation marks—

And then reference is made here to an Afrikaans-speaking person, Mr. T. D. Jooste; perhaps he is also a Daniel—

Then, at the end of the report—

Most probably it has to be much simplified for me to understand it, because the whole concept of race federation is not only the question of the representation which the various race groups are to get in this Parliament, but also the part which the Public Service and the Public Service Commission will play within that framework. I asked all these questions in all modesty, because I should like to conduct a debate here with the hon. members of the Opposition. But then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke after me and said it was not I who was asking the question, but the Herstigtes, and he spoke of my so-called leader, the hon. member for Waterberg, and then said the following—

Now. Sir, a question is never stupid. I have been a teacher myself. A question is never stupid; it is only the reply which can very often be stupid. I looked at this little book very carefully, because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had said: Van der Merwe, go to the little yellow book and those questions you want to ask have all been recorded there. I did so. I took up the little yellow book, “The Answer: You want it. We have it”. I looked at the index first. In the index it says “Our policy for the Whites; our policy for our children; our policy for our workers; our policy for our farmers; our policy for racial harmony; our policy for old age and sickness”. That will probably interest the hon. member for South Coast. Then they talk about houses and then “our policy for State Departments, page 25”, and they mention the Public Service, the Post Office, the S.A.B.C., Transport and the Police. So I turned to page 25, because I should like to have these stupid questions of mine answered, for I too, am keen to ensure the survival of my people, as also of the various other population groups in South Africa, and therefore I listen seriously to what is said by the hon. members of the Opposition. Now, on page 25 there is “Our policy for State Departments”, and I was looking for the reply to the question concerning the place which the non-Whites were going to occupy in the State administration in the Republic of South Africa. I looked at page 25. and it did not say a word about it. I looked at pase 26, and it did not say a word about it. I looked at page 27, and it did not say a word about it; page 28 is a blank page. Perhaps the hon. members still wanted to write something on it. Once again, a year later, I am coming to this House in all seriousness because your programme of basic principles says that your view of the survival of the White man in this country is different from that of the hon. member for Houghton, and I completely disagree with her in matters of principle, but I know what she believes and thinks and what her policy is, and therefore I leave her alone. But you go to the people and you go to the younger generation and I can understand that the young people do not understand your policy.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

With all respect, we Van der Merwes often reprimand one another. I do not want to embarrass the United Party now because young people say that they do not understand all aspects of it. It is understandable. I should like hon. members, since they say with us that they, too, see the survival of the White man in South Africa, to tell us with regard to the administration of our country, in the first place, what kind of place the non-White will occupy in the State administration without endangering the position of the White man, and, in the second place, how they will provide for all the aspirations of the non-White, also in the field of State administration.

But non-White Police are also fighting on the borders now.

Mr. Chairman … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik arrived in this debate at the eleventh hour, read his previous speech from Hansard, read a report from The Star and then posed some questions. I hope he will forgive me if I merely quote back to him and then leave it at that stage. He asked us what our view was in regard to the use of Coloureds and other non-Whites in the Civil Service and to their increasing number. I should like to read this to the hon. member—

I quote further—

What book is that?

In other words, this is a position which will develop, it is pragmatic. The words which I quote are the words of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member will find them in the address of the hon. the Minister to the Public Servants’ Association. The hon. member must therefore not come with these smart aleck “Yes” or “No” questions when his party, or at least the Minister in his intelligent way, accepts that the whole position is fluid, pragmatic, and that these matters must be sorted out as development takes place. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to deal with one aspect in regard to passports, with which the hon. member for Houghton dealt. If I understand her correctly, she feels that the advocating of an arms embargo on South Africa was not necessarily a reason for withdrawing a passport.

No, I said it had not happened. I said it would not necessarily be a reason.

Oh. I see. It would not be. I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister that, as far as I am concerned and hon. members on this side of the House, we will accept any proposal of or assistance in the development or extension of an arms embargo on South Africa, as full justification for the withholding of a passport. We hold this view because it has two adverse national effects. The one is that it places us in a financially difficult position to acquire arms if we have an arms embargo and we have to procure them ourselves by some other means. In the second instance it is an attitude towards this country which is adverse to our security and certainly one which we on this side of the House will not support.

I want to say that I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. the Minister this morning which was just on or just over 60 minutes. If ever there was justification for our request that there should be an annual report from the secretariat of the Department of the Interior, it was supplied this morning. The facts and figures which the hon. the Minister gave are most interesting and I am sure that we could have had a fruitful debate had those figures been available by way of a report before we came to this House or before we started debating this issue. I hope that it will be a practice which the hon. the Minister will introduce, that we do have a report from the secretariat of the Department of the Interior in addition to the report which we received from the Public Service Commission.

I admit that he answered several questions which we put to him, but one which I hoped he would deal with specifically was a request which I made and which was mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington twice. We believe that there is an urgent necessity for the appointment of a judicial commission into the activities of Mr. Gouws in so far as they may give rise to an obligation to repay funds into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the productivity of public servants. This is a matter which is being handled by the Public Service Commission. We welcome what he has said. We note with interest the claims which he makes about the improvement in productivity. However, that is not the inquiry which the Public Servants’ Association wants. Quite naturally the question of increased productivity is a question for the Public Service Commission. But the Minister’s frank statement to us, that we in South Africa have 43 state departments, which is approximately double the number required by the government of the United Kingdom or of the United States of America, has revealed the matter which needs investigation; and not investigation from within the department, but from without. As the Public Servants’ Association in their resolution said—

In 1970 the Public Service Commission’s reply in their report was that the matter was receiving attention. It is this matter which requires investigation. How much labour, how much money and what personnel are being wasted because of the duplication of departments and of heads of departments? What about the wasted time for consultation between four different departments, each doing the same job, but for different sections of the community? These are the matters that need to be investigated, e.g. the interdepartmental cooperation, overlapping between departments and the proliferation of departments. I believe there is still a good case for that investigation by persons outside the Public Service Commission itself.

The hon. the Minister disappointed me tremendously this morning when he indicated that it had not been possible yet to raise the maximum loan limit of R15 000 provided by the Community Development Department for public servants. This is a matter that I do hope can be dealt with. Public servants themselves have asked for it over and over again. I hope that between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Community Development this matter can be looked at, so that that limit can be raised and these housing loans be made of greater value to public servants.

There is another matter which the Minister mentioned, and that was the question of allowances. I want to deal with just one of them. The Parliamentary allowance for civil servants at present is R6 per day for a married man, irrespective of the size of his family and R3,50 per day for a single person. I do not think there are any Members of Parliament who have to come to Cape Town from other quarters who will not agree that these Parliamentary allowances to the public servants are totally inadequate. The hon. the Minister spoke generally of an adjustment of allowances. I know some have been adjusted. I do hope that this is one that can receive urgent attention. I do not think it involves a considerable sum of money, but it certainly means a considerable amount to those members of the Public Service who are involved.

Then I want finally to comment also on the Minister’s statement in regard to closing the gap. Our difficulty is this: He limited his remarks to the Public Service Commission itself; and quite correctly, because it is the department which he controls. But the vast majority of the doctors, nurses and paramedical personnel are in the employ of the provinces. The provinces are in the position of having, first of all, to fix salaries which conform to those stipulated by the Public Service Commission, and then, they will now be dependent on the Treasury for the necessary funds to implement the adjustments. The difficulty that we are in today is a difficulty into which we slid back from what was decided in 1964. The hon. the Minister was then an administrator and a member of the Executive Committee in Natal, and served on that co-ordinating committee. In 1964 it was agreed, so far as doctors were concerned, that the ratio would be 10 for Whites, 9 for Coloureds and Indians and 8 for Bantu. We got up to that stage of closing the gap. From 1964 the gap just widened. Now the Minister claims that he is doing a great deal by bringing it back to a 10 : 8 : 7 ratio. Sir, that is not back to where we were in 1964, eight years ago. I know the Minister has a big job.

Not too bad for one year.

Yes. Unfortunately, I know he is trying to put right what his colleagues did wrong over seven years. But I do hope that the hon. the Minister, if he has done this in one year, will try and get back at least to the ratio of 10 : 9 : 8, which at that stage I personally found was acceptable to the non-White doctors. They accepted it then. They did not regard it as being completely just. I do not regard it as being completely just that there should be a differentiation. But they would have been prepared to work on that basis. If the hon. the Minister can extend this a little bit further, to get back to what we had before, he will be doing a great service and make it possible. through consultation with the provinces, for the provinces to apply the same ratio as he is prepared to apply to the Public Service Commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if it is possible I should very much like to conclude my speech by 12.45. This would in any case enable us all to conclude the debate shortly after two, I hope.

Now I have quite a number of shorter replies which one cannot, of course, deal with comprehensively on an occasion such as this. Perhaps I can just start at the beginning with what I have in front of me here. This is a question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He asked whether we were going to keep the famous or infamous statue in front of the building of the Department of the Interior. I think my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has stated the position. He has also indicated that he is responsible. The hon. member knows that his department is responsible for that. I suppose I need not reply on his behalf again to what the hon. member asked.

Was it not before the Cabinet?

But you have received your answer, after all.

Then there is a question here by the hon. member for Houghton, which refers to the question of the four different points which I mentioned in my speech when she was not here. I want to reply to the hon. member right now, because these are actually four of the questions which concern broad national politics, or party politics more particularly. If I may remind her, she indicated in the first place that she cannot be held responsible for questions put by her which then receive publicity.

Oh, I don’t mind at all.

You don’t mind publicity, I know; we all know. The mere fact of the case is that the first question I put to her in respect of a question she put to me, was this: Was it necessary at the time, when South-West Africa was under discussion in all the newspapers and other news media right over the world, to ask— this was the fourth question she asked me— how many passports were still held by the department since 1971? That was what she wanted to know at the time. Obviously she wanted to know the figures in respect of each of the four races. It is practically impossible to reply immediately to that question, for the simple reason that we do not keep those figures. Secondly, it would have indicated who had made application and who had wanted to leave or come into South-West Africa. We have these passports and at the time it was very important information for the hon. member or anybody else to have. All this information I could have supplied to her at the time, would have been given to the newspapers and publicized overseas. So naturally I said to her that I felt it was rather an unusual question to put. Then she asked why we could not keep statistics in respect of the number of passports withdrawn and whether these statistics were only kept by the Special Branch. I indicated to her that that was not so. If we wish to do so we can spend a little more money and a little more time on extending the work that is done in this department by keeping a record of all passports. That is quite possible if you want to apply your mind to it. In fact, it would be a waste of time of two units, furthermore, but it can be done. In any event, there is no reason why it should be done. Really, I think it is a waste of time.

Thirdly, the hon. member asked me about the case of the young Douglas-Home, whom the hon. member protected in her speech at the time …

I never did.

… and later on the hon. member indicated …

I laughed at the thought of Parliament debating such nonsense.

The hon. member’s attitude was that this was not a matter of great importance. From her point of view Parliament should not have wasted its time on the matter, and so forth. We thought otherwise. The hon. member also asked me why the reasons for this could not be given. As the hon. member knows very well, we have reasons which we cannot supply. The hon. member mentioned seven or eight reasons which I gave her last year as to why we do act at times. I said at the time that we should not and that we will not disclose which reason applies in every particular case. We had sufficient reason to get rid of him as soon as possible.

Why did you wait for the lavatory joke to do so?

The hon. member also said that 83 requests by people to visit South Africa had been refused. She asked me whether Owambo was included in this. The answer is, “Yes, Owambo was included.” It included the whole of South-West Africa.

The last question which the hon. member put to me this morning concerns the differences between the salaries of professional people who are in the Public Service. She asked me why the ratio was so low in the case of nurses. She particularly mentioned the Bantu, Indian and Coloured nurses. As the hon. member knows, an investigation was undertaken last year. A special committee was appointed to investigate the possibility of increasing the salaries of non-White nurses. As the hon. member quite correctly said, the ratio is now much lower than it was in 1971. That investigation is still proceeding and I hope that it will be possible for me to tell this House in time what the Government has decided in this respect. I think that disposes of the questions the hon. member put to me.

The hon. member for Parow put a few questions to me which I should like to reply to.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he includes in his general reply on the question of passports, the reply on the withdrawal of the passports of Nusas executives? Is that included in the hon. the Minister’s general reply on passports? Does the same thing apply to the withdrawal of the passports of the executives of Nusas?

No, I never indicated in any way that this applied to the members of the Nusas executive. Neither did I indicate that it applied to a clique, the hierarchy of this group. The cases of those people were dealt with on merit. We have a file on each of these people, because they were leaders of Nusas. We had every reason to withdraw their passports, also on account of the investigation that is taking place. I think that it would have been unwise for that hon. member to have suggested that those people should be allowed to go overseas at that particular time. It may be that the committee that is inquiring into this matter may need evidence from some of these people. We do not know. It is impossible for us to say beforehand. It is wise, in any event, to take precautionary measures and make sure that those people will be available should they be needed to give evidence before the committee.

Were some not withdrawn before the appointment of the committee?

No, the hon. member is wrong. She has forgotten her dates. The passports of some of them were withdrawn before the committee was appointed and the passports of others were withdrawn after the committee was appointed.

I say some were withdrawn.

I indicated to the hon. member that it is a question of merit. Each case is dealt with on merit.

Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the Votes of the Minister of the Interior this morning, the hon. member for South Coast asked me whether I would say he was guilty of “graft and corruption, with the other members of the Board,” to which I replied: “Yes”. I was instructed by the Chair to withdraw the accusation and to apologize, which I did.

After further consideration of the matter, I should like to make a further statement. I again unconditionally want to withdraw any suggestion or accusation of corruption against the hon. member for South Coast, and I record my sincere apologies to him. It was not my intention at all to cast any doubts on his integrity and honesty, and I trust he will accept my apology in the spirit in which I offer it to him.

I accept the apology. The matter is ended as far as I am concerned.

Just before we adjourned for lunch, I was replying to a few questions which were still outstanding. I had come to the questions put by the hon. member for Parow. In the first place he asked what steps were being taken in regard to foreign entertainers. He indicated that he was not very happy about the fact that a large number of these people were visiting this country. In addition, he referred to Percy Sledge and said that since then matters had worsened to a considerable extent in the sense that we had had a number of artists here who did not know how to behave themselves and who had also been allowed to appear in front of Whites. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that in the past month the departmental policy in regard to this matter has in fact been made stricter and that in future it will be more difficult for this type of person to enter the country. Furthermore, we shall see to it that persons of Percy Sledge’s calibre will in any case not have the opportunity of appearing before Whites. It is important to know that we all feel that we should encourage our own artists, and that the development among non-Whites of musical talent, or whatever talents they may have, should also be encouraged. For that reason I can give hon. members the assurance that we shall act a good deal more strictly in respect of those people who are not outstanding artists from abroad, and who try to enter this country.

The hon. member also put another question to me in regard to the possibility of an annual report. I think I have already replied to that in part by saying that we shall consider it. Not only that, but I think I can give the hon. member the assurance that in future we shall have such a report. The difficulty is, of course, to have such a report published in time and with the necessary information which hon. members want. In any case, we shall investigate that matter.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that voters who did not register and therefore failed to comply with the Electoral Act should be prosecuted. The difficulty is that at present the Electoral Act does not make provision for action to be taken in the case where changes of address are not notified.

Will you have it changed?

No, I am not willing to give any assurance of that nature. However, it is important to note that the Electoral Act imposes the obligation that all 18-year-olds should see to it that they register. Whether we are going to take further steps will depend on whether the new system of population registration will make it possible to keep ourselves informed of a person’s change of address. If this is the case, it will, of course, be much easier to act.

The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the loading and deloading of constituencies. He drew comparisons between the rural and the urban constituencies, which, according to the latest figures we have, are very large. Furthermore, he asked whether this particular matter could be considered when we reached the stage next year of investigating amendments to the Electoral Act. At the moment I do not want to express a personal opinion on this matter, but some of us are of the opinion that the surface constituency, as we call it, should be taken into account to a greater extent in the loading and deloading process than is the case at present. He also referred to the fact that it is done in the United Kingdom and in a few other countries, and that there was no reason why we in South Africa, with our vast plains and our small number of cities, should not consider it. In any case, it is for the Government to consider whether or not that provision should be incorporated in the Electoral Act next year, when draft legislation must be prepared—it can, of course, be referred to a Select Committee subsequently I can nevertheless give the hon. member the assurance that this is a matter which will be taken into account.

The hon. member also requested that the old system—i.e. the system which did not make continuous registration possible— should be reintroduced, if I understood him correctly, and that registration over the years or from time to time should again become the responsibility of the voter. The difficulty with the old system is that it is going to be replaced as a result of the new population registration and the identification changes. We shall now be able to know where a person is: we shall know his address and what changes may occur. We shall be able to locate him exactly. In actual fact it will mean that we shall not need to have a continuous registration such as we had in the past. To tell the truth, once the new system is in force, the system of continuous registration will obviously become unnecessary, for the simple reason that it will be possible to trace a name or address at any time.

The hon. member for Malmesbury also asked whether it should not be made compulsory to produce identity cards at elections. This is laid down in the Electoral Act at present, but for certain administrative reasons it has apparently never been applied in the past. There are reasons why this was not put into effect, but there are also good reasons why it should in fact be put into effect, and I personally agree with the hon. member that it should be done; it is an obligation which should be imposed on those people who do not fulfil that responsibility. In other words, what I want to say to the hon. member is that the provision does exist in the Electoral Act, but that for administrative reasons it is not in operation.

The hon. member for Green Point put various questions to me, to which I have replied in the course of the debate. One of these was the request whether the passport could not be done away with when we had the new identification documents.

It could fall away automatically.

Yes, whether it could not happen automatically. This matter has been discussed by the Government. This possibility has been considered, but the Government decided against it because in the course of time it should be possible for the document itself to be converted into a document which may be a passport as well. In other words, it could take the place of a passport, and this would have the same effect as doing away with the passport completely, because there would then only be the document.

The hon. member for Pretoria District made a plea in regard to grievances. I agree with him that the matter should be investigated. I do think there is reason to take cognizance of the fact that there are people in the Public Service who do not always have the opportunity of putting their case. It is very difficult to have these matters handled only by the Public Service Commission. I think this is acknowledged. This is a request which has been considered on various occasions, but which we have not yet acceded to or put into operation. We can look at the matter again and consider how a grievance commission could be composed and whether it is necessary. In any case, I hope I shall be able to inform the hon. member next year what the views are of not only the Public Service Commission, but also the Public Servants’ Association.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked whether I could supply a time-table in regard to when the next delimitation will take place. The hon. member is a former organizer of his party and probably knows the Electoral Act very well already. He knows that this cannot be done and that the Constitution also provides that there must be a general delimitation every five years. This should enable the hon. member to calculate when the next one will take place, since the last one was in 1965. I just want to make it clear that it may not take place before a period of five years has elapsed and that it may not take place later than ten years after the previous one. He must simply do his own guesswork and see if he can come to a decision when he works it out for himself.

But you have the right to decide.

The Electoral Act provides that it must take place between 5 and 10 years after the previous delimitation.

And the Minister decides.

Yes, the Minister may decide, and therefore I shall give the hon. member the answer now. It will be within the next 5 or 10 years.

That cannot be.

Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the State President to appoint the delimitation commission on the advice of the Executive Council. The hon. member wants an assurance from me that the delimitation of constituencies will take place before the next general registration. I think the same answer I gave him a moment ago, applies here, i.e. that he, as a former organizer of his party, should know that there is no chance at all of doing something like this. In addition, there is no reason why we shall do so. Furthermore, it is a matter about which the State President himself must decide and I cannot answer on his behalf in respect of such a matter I think the hon. member knows very well that we cannot give a reply to that. It will be considered by the State President and by the Cabinet in due course.

He asked the same question as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, that is to say, he asked that people should be prosecuted when they committed offences. The hon. member for Durban Point, who knows the electoral system very well too, knows that many irregularities occur in respect of which no prosecutions are instituted. On the other hand, it is not the prerogative of a party or a Minister to do that. It is the sole prerogative of the Attorney-General, who may decide on that. There is an obligation on hon. members and on myself to bring any irregularities of which we know, to the attention of the Police. This is virtually the only obligation resting on one, i.e. to bring irregularities to their attention. Then the Attorney-General must decide whether prosecutions are to be instituted or not.

Then there is another question to which I must reply. It is in connection with the fees which will be payable to the enumerators as from now. In the past the fee was R3, which it remained until 1964. Subsequently, in 1969, it was increased to R6. At this election the enumerators will receive R7-50. As a result we should attract a considerable number of interested persons.

How many do you have already?

Is the hon. the Minister not going to reply to our representations about a judicial commission to deal with the Gouws affair?

I have already indicated to the hon. member that I have no rights under the Act. This is a matter for the Department of Transport. You have been given the reply by the Minister on, I think, two or three occasions and you should know that it is not a matter we can deal with in this department.

Is the hon. the Minister now telling the Committee that he has nothing to do with the implementation of the Public Service Act? These are specific provisions in the Act.

We have the right to take steps if a person is prosecuted or when he is found guilty. If he is found guilty we have under section …

No!

Under section 24 of the Act we have the right to take the matter further.

You have a duty and not a right.

Mr Chairman, does the hon. the Minister not know that in terms of the Public Service Act it is immaterial whether a person is charged, or if he is found guilty or acquitted? Provision is made for the departmental prosecution of a person, and indeed, for the application of the provision that any moneys illegally gained by such a person can in terms of the Act be recovered by the Treasury. Is he not aware of it?

I want to tell the hon. member that it is a matter for the Department of Transport. If any prima facie evidence is put before me to take further action, I shall study the matter in terms of the law. That is all I can say.

The hon. the Minister intervened in this debate right at the commencement to make certain statements to direct the debate in the line which he would perhaps have liked it to go. He then intervened this morning for a period of 60 minutes with a discursive discussion on facts and figures relating to the Public Service Commission. He has now stood up to reply to this debate and he has left unanswered a vast number of questions which have been posed by this side of the House. One of the questions which we have asked him—and I asked this question originally—was whether he would take cognizance of the debates which have taken place in this House and of what has been said by the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. Deputy Minister of Transport and whether he would recommend the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the activities of the manager of the M.V.I. The Minister now says that he will wait to see whether recommendations are made. The hon. the Minister knows that in his department the manager of the M.V.I. superseded 11 other officials in that department. The appointment was his responsibility and in so far as that appointee is responsible to repay, it is the responsibility of this Minister to see that the facts are ascertained.

Then there are other matters of vital importance to the Public Service which were just glossed over and in respect of which we did not get a reply. We have asked him questions in regard to certain allowances, particularly Parliamentary allowances, but the Minister gives no reply. We have asked him whether he himself is to give effect to the statements which he has made in public about closing the gap, whether he is prepared to make recommendations to make this possible within the provincial councils and whether he will do so through his co-ordinating council. We have asked him whether he will make it possible for funds to be made available to the provincial councils in order to close the gap. We can only note at the end of this debate that these questions remain unanswered. We can only judge the hon. the Minister’s public utterances of intention in the light of what he has said in relation to the practical application of them in the department which he governs.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say I am sure that he as an old Parliamentarian will accept that it is not for him to determine what I have to do and what I have to reply to. I say this with all due respect to the hon. member. If he wants to know what my public utterances may mean in future and if he wants to know what I am going to do, and I do not wish to reply to that, it is my prerogative and surely not that hon. member’s.

[Inaudible.]

I will reply to those very questions. The hon. member has mentioned three possible questions now. It has been put to me that I did not reply to them. I said from the outset that it was not my duty or prerogative to reply to the question or to act in terms of the Act. This is the way it was interpreted to me by legal advisers. I am not responsible for taking action in the case of Mr. Gouws. I said that at the beginning. Now the hon. member accuses me of not having replied to his questions. The third point the hon. member raised was in regard to the question of allowances.

Yes, that was one.

The finding was that there is no reason for improving the allowances paid at the moment any further. This matter has been discussed during this session by the Public Service Commission. That is what the hon. member asked for this morning. I say that this matter has been considered by the Commission and it has not been found necessary to give a further increase. Surely that is a good reply. That is all I can tell the hon. member at the moment.

Sir, the hon. members for Green Point and Kensington are conducting a personal vendetta here against a certain public servant who has been suspended from the Service, and they are doing so only because this person, when he was originally appointed to this position, was apparently promoted over the heads of certain other officials.

Yes, on the recommendation of the department.

The merits of the case, or misconduct, or theft or whatever may have taken place, is not the issue here at all; this is merely a vendetta which is being conducted here by two hon. members against a decision of the Public Service Commission and of the department that a certain person should be promoted to a certain post. I want to say to the hon. member for Kensington that he in any case gave a total misrepresentation of the case to the Committee. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Gouws has already been suspended from the Public Service. What can the Public Service do to him now? They cannot go and catch Mr. Gouws and lock him up; that is the work of the Police.

They can recover the money.

Sir, there we have the same simple reasoning again. What money must they recover from Mr. Gouws? Sir, it was proved here in a previous debate that Mr. Gouws had taken no money from the State or from the fund. No State money came into the hands of Mr. Gouws. The hon. members want to create the impression here now that Mr. Gouws stole money from the State or that he stole money from the fund.

He received commission.

There is the possibility that he received commission.

He should pay it back.

Sir, it is not commission which is due to the fund. If Mr. Gouws received commission, it was over and above any other commission which was payable; it is not commission which is due to the fund. The fund suffered no loss here. How on earth can the hon. member for Kensington say that funds which were not due to the State should be recovered? The hon. member is giving the Committee a misrepresentation. Mr. Gouws has already been suspended from the Public Service. It is now for the Police to prove that he unlawfully received money which was not due to him. In any case, if he did receive any money, that money was not due to either the fund or the State. Therefore the State cannot seize it, because it has nothing to do with the State. Sir, those hon. members do not know what they are talking about. The fact of the matter is that they are conducting a vendetta here against an official because he was promoted over the heads of other officials. Mr. Gouws was a good official, as we heard in this House; he was a top official and he was promoted on merit, but hon. members are attacking him because he was a competent official who was promoted over the heads of other officials.

Sir, I just want to read out a note I have received from my department a moment ago, and I want to ask the hon. member to reply to it then and to show me where the Public Service Act gives me as Minister of the Interior the right to act before the Department of Transport has charged Mr. Gouws in terms of the Public Service Act. Only then could we act, if it should be necessary then. I am asking the hon. member to show me where we have that right in terms of the Public Service Act. In the meantime, in order to give the hon. member time to consult the Public Service Act, I should like to reply to a question put to me this morning by the hon. member for Witbank in regard to the position which has arisen, as a result of the financial relations between the provincial administrations on the one hand and the municipalities on the other, in respect of the payment of salaries to their officials, and the difficult position in which the provincial administrations find themselves as a result of the fact that some of the municipalities pay and offer higher salaries than those which the provinces are able to pay their officials, with the result that the provinces lose some of their officials to the local authorities. I can merely inform the hon. member for Witbank that a few years ago the provinces considered the possibility of requesting that legislation be introduced by the Central Government in order to place the third level of government. namely the local government level, on the same basis as the provincial administrations and the Central Government as far as salary scales are concerned. But the local authorities, in the Transvaal as well, felt so strongly about it that we did not take that matter any further. But I want to agree with the hon. member that if the salaries of officials are controlled on two levels of government, we probably have the right to investigate the possibility whether officials in the service of the local authorities should not be treated in the same way. In any case, it would eliminate the competition existing at present between the local authorities and the provincial administrations and would greatly facilitate matters from the point of view of the two higher levels of government, namely the provinces and the Central Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have never seen such a strange attitude as that adopted by the Opposition. They have actually judged and found a man guilty while the Police investigation is still taking place. They want to blame my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, for not having instituted an inquiry into Mr. Gouws’s activities. But surely the initiative rests with my department. My department must take the initiative to ask for an inquiry into the misdeeds, or whatever you might wish to call it, of any member of my department, but that can only take place after the Police inquiry has been completed. Hon. members opposite have judged Mr. Gouws and found him guilty before the Police investigation has taken place. They do not know what actually happened in regard to the commission that Mr. Gouws received. They do not know from whom he received the commission; they do not know the amount of the commission, but they want my colleague to institute an inquiry. I have never heard of such a silly demand.

But you can get the money back.

What money? What evidence have those hon. gentlemen that Mr. Gouws received any commission, apart from what I told them?

Then why did you tell us?

I told hon. members because the Police inquiry is still taking place. Surely elementary justice demands that the Police inquiry should be completed first. If Mr. Gouws is guilty of any misdemeanour he will be charged before the courts, and when he is charged before the courts, the department will take the necessary action. But why draw my colleague into it? He has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.

But Mr. Gouws was a public servant.

Sir, I have been a Minister for 24 years and at least I should know what the procedure is. If any officer of a department is guilty of any misdemeanour, the initiative in regard to his discharge or any disciplinary action against him rests with that particular department, not with the Minister of the Interior. He has nothing to do with my department. If, as soon as the Police inquiry has been completed, there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Gouws should be charged before a court of law, then that will be done, and then and then only will the department take the necessary steps to take disciplinary action against Mr. Gouws. I simply do not know why hon. members opposite are condemning my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, for not taking action. It has nothing to do with him. If they have a quarrel it is a quarrel with me, not with him.

Sir, it is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the House was not here when this matter was discussed. There is no question of having judged and found Mr. Gouws guilty of any crime. That is a matter that is being investigated by the Police. What we were concerned with was section 24 (3) of the Public Service Act. The hon. the Minister will know that during the course of the debate on the Transport Vote it was confirmed that certain commission had been paid to Mr. Gouws. You will agree with that. We are concerned with that under this Minister’s Vote. Section 24 (3) of the Act requires that any remuneration or allowance whatsoever received by a public servant—and Mr. Gouws was a public servant—over and above his salary, should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund; it does not deal with whether he was guilty of a criminal offence. That is correct; that is something for the Police to investigate. But this Minister, who is in charge of the Public Service, has a duty to find out what this man has received. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kensington, if one looks at one item alone, R23 million was invested with building societies. The hon. the Minister of Transport will know as well as I do that it is customary with investments in building societies for a half per cent commission to be paid, and that in itself would amount to something like R115 000, on just one year’s investment with the building societies. I believe it is the duty of this hon. Minister to find out where that money went to. The Police cannot find that out. But if the Minister recommends to the State President that there be a judicial commission, that commission can cause each one of those building societies to find out if and to whom this normal introductory fee was paid. And that is just one year’s investment. We are not concerned about criminal actions under this Minister’s Vote; we are concerned with the fact that he has an obligation under the Public Service Act to see that moneys received by any public servant over and above his salary are repaid, and we ask him under that head to have a commission appointed to investigate all these people who receive moneys. We have reason to believe, and we have said it before, that one of these building societies in fact received money on condition that it made another loan. Did this servant at the time receive any raising fee in respect of that other loan? We are concerned here with purely the financial obligation to repay money. That is what we ask the Minister to have investigated. We are not concerned now with the criminal aspect. It may or may not be a crime, but there is the obligation to repay.

I frankly do not understand the hon. member for Green Point. He should really know better than to make a claim such as that. He now wants the State President to appoint a commission to do the work that the Police are doing at present. The Police have to find out who paid commission and what amount of commission has been paid to Mr. Gouws, if any. That is their job. They first of all have to find out who paid commission to Mr. Gouws and, if any, what the amount of the commission was and then they have to find out What happened to that commission. That is the duty of the Police. Now that hon. member wants the State President to take over the duties of the Police. Surely he ought to know better than that.

It is not a criminal matter.

What is the criminal matter then?

The criminal matter must be something else.

Whether it is a criminal matter or not, the Police are investigating the whole matter and the Attorney-General will have to decide whether it is a criminal matter or not, not the Police. The Police are conducting an investigation into the activities of Mr. Gouws to find out whether he received commission for investments made with certain building societies, and if so, what the amount of the commission was which was received, and further what happened to that commission which Mr. Gouws received. Only when that inquiry has been completed, can steps be taken to recover that commission from Mr. Gouws, if he is not entitled to it. But my colleague over there has nothing to do with it. I am responsible and not the Minister of the Interior. I am quite prepared to answer to Parliament directly that Police inquiry has been completed.

That is quite unsatisfactory.

The hon. member does not understand the position.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Under Vote 14 there has been a considerable increase of R2 million. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the reasons for this increase are.

Mr. Chairman, the Government has decided to reduce the price of butter by 10 cents per 500 gram. This will result in a total cost of approximately R4 million, R2 million of which has been contributed by the Government and R2 million by the Dairy Board from its funds. Hence the additional R2 million.

Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a special subsidy in connection with the reduction of the inland selling price of locally produced butter. This is what one might call a consumer subsidy, the effect of which is to make butter available to the man in the street at a price which he can afford and is prepared to pay. At the same time this consumer subsidy makes it possible for the efficient producer to be assured of a price which gives him a reasonable return on his capital investment and for his enterprise. It also takes into account the risk factors which are always present in an agricultural industry. Because we on this side of the House for many years have pleaded for this very policy which the hon. the Minister is now implementing, we welcome this appropriation. We are sure that this amount will not only stimulate that consumption of this essential foodstuff, but that it will also tend to stabilize the dairy industry as a whole. We therefore welcome this measure.

Could the hon. the Minister give the reasons for the increase of R7 million under item E?

Mr. Chairman, we have on the Estimates R30 million in respect of the subsidy on maize. It was increased to R35 million on account of the bigger estimate for the new crop. As a result the subsidy was increased by a further R7 million to enable the Maize Board to pay out to the farmers R3-51½ per bag of 200 lbs. The additional amount is required in order to be able to pay the price of R3-51½.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now told us that the R7 million increase is because of the necessity of subsidizing the export of our mealies. I am not going to discuss the rights or wrongs of fixing the price of maize. It is quite right too that we should export our surplus maize. I understand that we are exporting at a loss. But we must export as we have to get rid of the surplus. In addition we need the foreign exchange. But what is perplexing to us is that the producer seems to get less for his maize while the consumer has to pay more. I understand that the producer’s price in 1971 was R3-65 for a 90 kg bag. The 1972 price to the producer is R3-51½. The consumer, on the other hand, in 1971, paid R3-70 while now he has to pay R3-91½. The price gap in 1971 was 5 cents, while in 1972 it is 40 cents. The producer’s price is down by 13½ cents but the consumer’s price is up by 21½ cents.

I understand, too, that of this 21½ cents increase in the price to the consumer, 10 cents go to the Stabilization Fund and 11½ cents to the increased price of the bag. As far as the price of mealie meal is concerned, the consumer’s price in 1971 was R4-73 for an 80 kg bag, but now it has gone up to R5-06 making a difference of 33 cents on 80 kg. Now, who has to pay for this? This increase in the price to the consumer, for him to subsidize the export of maize, amounts to a sectional tax. In this case it is a tax on the poorer people, the people who can least afford to pay; because the consumers of maize are the poor people, mainly the Africans, and to a certain extent the Coloureds and the poorer Whites. I made inquiries at a supermarket today and bought this bag of mealie meal. This bag of 2,5 kg costs 22 cents. It used to cost 21 cents. Now, one cent may not seem such a difference for this bag of mealie meal, but consider the people in Dimbaza and Sada.

The hon. member for Walmer asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—he is smiling nicely at the moment—what the rations were for the people living in those two resettlement areas. I understand that the rations are fixed at R2-50 per month per adult. He told us how the rations are divided up. For one month they get 9,07 kg of mealie meal and 3,628 kg of mealies. If you take the increase in the price of mealie meal at the supermarket, where the profits are cut, of one cent on 2,5 kg, it means that the rations to these people are now going to come down from 9,07 to 8,6 kg. Now, that is a big difference when you are living on rations of this nature, barely existing. I say that it is quite wrong, and we want to lodge our protest at this increase in the price of mealies and mealie meal, which is going to hit the poorer section of the population. We have to export—with that I agree—but we do not agree that the poorer section should have to subsidize the export of maize. I want to lodge our protest against it.

Mr. Chairman, the main question is: Is the Opposition satisfied? The hon. member asked: “Why bring down the price for the producer?” We have stocks carried over from last year. This year’s crop will be 130 million bags. Our consumption is 55 to 57 million bags. If we export the lot, the loss will be more than R60 million. Must the Government pay the R60 million, or should we accept the proposals of the Maize Board and let everyone make a contribution? The price of a bag has increased by 11½ per cent. We keep the price for the producer at R3-70. Add the price of the bag, and you get R3-81½. He contributes 30 cents to the Stabilization Fund. That brings the price down to R3-51½. The consumer has to pay more. 11½ cents for the bag, plus 10 cents to the Stabilization Fund for export losses. Everybody has to make contributions. I fully agree with the hon. member.

The Government, too.

The Government as well. In toto, the subsidy will be R38 million plus. The question is whether the Government should subsidize it even more. Already there is the subsidy of over R30 million on bread, which is also for the poor man. Even poor people eat bread: The hon. member for Walmer thanked us for the subsidy on butter …

Whose money is that?

The taxpayer’s money. Do hon. members suggest that we should increase the subsidy and keep the consumer price at what it was before? We discussed this matter for hours and hours, because it is not easy to subsidize to this extent. We may have another 100 million bag crop next year, which may perhaps cost the taxpayer R20 million extra. Must I take it that the Opposition feels that we are subsidizing too little, or what is their suggestion? We cannot have it both ways. The hon. member said that we must not bring the price down for the producer, but what can be done when we have exported at a loss of R60 million? Who must pay for it? We are not unsympathetic towards the small man or the poor man. As it is, it is of the cheapest food in the world.

*It should be borne in mind that with this subsidy the Government has enabled the Maize Board to stock-pile the maize for two and perhaps three years. The Government pays the storage costs as well as the handling costs, losses and other costs of stock-piling the maize. It is not a pleasant thing that the price should drop when there are spiralling costs. What I want to ask the Opposition is this: If they are not satisfied with this subsidy of R38 million, because, if the crop is a little more, which I believe it will be, the subsidy will have to be R40 million, how much should it be then? Let the hon. member tell us what subsidy the Opposition suggests in respect of mealies.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has misunderstood me. I am not arguing about the price being paid to the producer. I am not arguing about whether the producer is getting too much or too little and whether there should be a reduction in his price or not. What I am arguing about is who is to pay the subsidy for the export mealies.

All three.

I am surprised to hear an interjection like this. He said the Government is paying its share, but who is the government? The government is the taxpayer. But now you are making the poorer section of the people, those who cannot afford to pay taxes and who are living at subsistence level, subsidize the export of maize. If the Government has to give a subsidy for the export of maize it must get it from other taxpayers and not take it from the poorer sections of the population. This is the point I am trying to make. The people who cannot afford to pay are made to pay, not for luxuries and not for clothes, but for food. If one looks at the list of rations given to us by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, one realizes that they can barely exist on those rations.

Do you want the Government to give higher subsidies?

If a higher subsidy is necessary the Government must give it and not make the poor people pay for it. The Government must pay for it.

Oh, you said the taxpayers.

But who is the taxpayer? The Government. What I object to is making the poorest section bear the cost of the subsidy. It is all right for that Minister sitting there with his hands in his pockets, because he does not have to live on 9 kilos of mealie meal and 3 kilos of mealies a month. He probably does not even eat mealie meal. He will be paying nothing towards the special levy paid by people who eat mealie meal. My protest is not that the producer should get less, that he should get more, or that we should not export our maize. My sole objection is that the poorest people are being made to pay and I want to record our objection to that.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in this regard. Earlier this year I asked him about the export of maize which also falls under this, and at that time he indicated that a considerable quantity of our maize were being exported to Zambia. Does this amount also represent exports to Zambia and to Red China?

No, Mr. Chairman. We have had inquiries from the Zambian Wheat Board as to whether we had any maize available but the price they offered was not acceptable to us.

Mr. Chairman, sub-head W of Vote 17 is obviously a new sub-head. It is called “Soil Conversation”. I have often talked of the soil in this hon. House, but I have never had a conversation with the soil. I will attempt to do that now. Provision is made here for R6 149 000. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to the House why he has found it necessary to ask for this extra amount.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer is aware of the fact that we have introduced the stock withdrawal scheme, but that we did not know at that stage what interest would be shown in this stock withdrawal scheme. In the course of time we have found that more and more interest was being shown as a result of various factors of which the hon. member is aware. The Cabinet was kind enough to agree that an additional amount be voted so that the stock withdrawal scheme may be implemented further.

60 per cent?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the stock reduction scheme prove more attractive to farmers than the Government originally expected. There are more participants in this scheme than the Government expected and this is obviously why this extra amount has to be provided. On behalf of this side of the House, I just want to say that we fully support the extra expenditure that is involved. We believe the stock reduction scheme to be probably the best measure yet introduced to ensure the protection of our country’s greatest heritage, viz. its soil. It is also probably the best long-term measure the Government has yet introduced. I might say that we on this side of the House, have pleaded for this measure. We feel that we also have a share in its implementation with a view to rehabilitating the small-stock industry in South Africa. Because there are, I believe, certain misconceptions about the stock reduction scheme, I want to take this opportunity to say a word or two about it. Firstly, there are those especially in the cities where most of our mutton is consumed, who think that the mutton shortage which is prevalent in the country at the present time, has arisen directly as a result of the introduction of the stock reduction scheme. I do not believe this to be the case.

Tell that to your United Party candidates.

I am telling the hon. the Minister what the United Party’s view is in respect of the stock reduction scheme. When I have finished, he will know exactly what our view is. I do not believe that the introduction of this scheme was responsible for the shortage of mutton. One of the factors that have effected the shortage of mutton and the present high price of mutton is the unprecedented drought which we have experienced during the years 1960 to 1970. The stock reduction scheme may have disrupted supplies in the short term, but it is interesting to note and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me, that during the last two years we have been slaughtering in the region of 9 million sheep per annum, which is the highest slaughtering the country has done in spite of this stock reduction scheme. I think it is wise to say this year so that the people in the cities will realize that the introduction of this scheme is not the reason why they have to pay higher prices for mutton at this stage. What is important, especially in the long term—I believe this ought also to be said—is that another drought will come as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow and had this scheme not been introduced, we would have been faced in the pastoral industry with very severe losses to our small-stock in the country.

The country had got into the state where, unless something drastic was done, our veld would not have been able to sustain the sheep that were running and grazing there. I believe that, because we have had the scheme and because the farming community have co-operated—I believe they have cooperated very well—we have got the situation where, because of the bounteous rains we have experienced and the lesser number of sheep on the farms, there has been tremendous restoration and improvement taking place in the pastoral areas of our country. I say that, if the Government had not introduced this scheme, they may well have been confronted with far greater expenditure in trying to rescue drought stricken sheep in the future than will now be the case with the money they are appropriating. I believe that the total amount which will be spent, could be in the region of R12 million per annum. If one thinks that we are spending probably R250 million per annum on our physical defence and our security, then I say that the R12 million the Government is now spending on this scheme to protect our soil, which is after all basic and essential, is not really a very big investment. I believe it is not only an investment in the soil of South Africa by the State, but I think that, by introducing the scheme, the government has given every citizen of South Africa the opportunity to make an investment in the soil of South Africa. I believe that, for this reason, this scheme should not be done away with too hastily. I was not pleased when the Minister decided to terminate it, when he gave notice that there would be no new applicants allowed after the beginning of March, this year because I believe this scheme is so important that the Government must think very seriously before they terminate it altogether. I think it is a scheme that is of real value to the farming industry of South Africa.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for the increases under subheads N and O? The increase in respect of N is very small. It is a matter of only R7 000 in R35 million, but there must be some special reason for this small increase being asked for. We would also like to know the reason for the increase in respect of subhead O, which is fairly large.

Mr. Chairman, the increase under subhead N is in respect of allowances to be paid out to the Bantu government of the Witsieshoek area. They are not yet financed in accordance with the new formula. Their finances still go through the South African Bantu Trust, but as from next year they will fall in the other group.

When next year?

I hope from 1st April, 1973. They will then fall under the same group as the others, which falls under subhead O. The increase under subhead O is in respect of pensions of the seven Bantu governments concerned. These pensions must increase because of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance during his Budget debate. It makes it necessary to increase the pensions and children’s allowances, in respect of children’s homes only, for the seven Bantu governments concerned. The total amount involved is R1 383 000.

I understand that the R7 000 is for an allowance …

The R7 000 is for Qaqa in the Witzieshoek area only.

Is that only for next year then?

No, I said that at present the Qaqa government, i.e. the Witzieshoek government, still gets its money through the Bantu Trust. That is for this year. It is an allowance through the Bantu Trust Account. As from next year, as I have said, they will come under the new scheme, i.e. under subhead O.

Mr. Chairman, on subhead H an amount of R159 000 is required as a grant-in-aid to the National Council for Mental Health. I should like to know from the Minister of Health whether this possibly relates to the announcement of the Minister of Finance earlier this year.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount of R159 000 relates to the announcement in connection with day centres. In terms of the announcement of the Minister of Finance the amount there is being increased from 25 cents per scholar per school day attended to R1 per scholar per school day attended. It affects 19 of these centres registered in the Republic and a total number of 1 090 such children. It is exclusively for that reason that this amount is being made available to the National Council for Mental Health. They have to defray the costs from this amount.

I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what this increase of R4 875 000 in regard to the export trade promotion services is for?

Mr. Chairman, the Reynders Commission of inquiry into the promotion of our exports recently submitted its first interim report. In that report it deals with the financing costs assistance scheme which was started in the past, in 1970. The Reynders Commission has come to the conclusion that although proper provision exists for long-term exports, in other words, that the reinsurance scheme existing within the Department of Trade makes proper and effective provision for long-term projects, no proper financing scheme exists for the ordinary short-term exports. For that reason the Reynders Commission has suggested now that means be found of affording exporters the opportunity of being able to grant proper credit facilities to the persons to whom they export. Today I am not in a position to set out the details of this project as they still have to be worked out. What we are doing at this stage is to vote the necessary funds for that purpose. This project enables the exporters to provide proper credit facilities to the persons to whom they export. As I have said, full details in this regard will be given at a later stage. The amount of R4 875 000 for which provision is now being made, is supplementary to an amount of R1 125 000 already included in the existing Budget. It is the view of the Reynders Commission that the scheme they envisage will cost approximately R6 million. Therefore this additional amount of R4 875 000 together with the appropriation in the Budget makes provision for that amount of R6 million.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether we can have a breakdown of the allocation of funds to the Coloured Representative Council? Could he perhaps explain the reason for this supplementary amount of R2 716 000 under this Vote?

Mr. Chairman, the account of R2 716 000 is, of course, the amount which is to be used by the Coloured Persons Representative Council to make provision for the increases in social pensions and allowances. These include old age pensions, the pensions for blind persons and the disabled as well as war veterans’ pensions. Provision is being made for approximately 101 000 cases. In addition there are the parents’ allowances and the childrens’ allowances. These things come to a total amount of R4 937 783 per annum. Then there is the extension of the means plus pension limit, which makes them qualify sooner for pensions at R30 per annum. This will have the effect that some people who did not qualify for pensions before will in fact qualify now. In this regard the amount is R219 300; and in addition we are making provision for an increase of approximately 5 per cent in the number of beneficiaries. This is calculated to come to a total of R5 432 000, but because the allowances will be paid as from 1st October, in other words, for six months only, the amount is R2 716 000. Exactly the same principle applies in South-West Africa. The only thing is that it is, of course, a much smaller amount.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Coloured Persons Council is entitled to amend payments; in other words, to pay more to one group and less to another group, or must payment be made exactly in accordance to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just outlined?

The details I have just given here were provided by the Coloured Persons Council. They have already decided how the money will be paid out. They draw up their budget in detail …

Who draws it up?

Their executive draws it up itself. We use the details they give us to arrive at the amounts concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the long title it will be possible to deduce that the Bill deals with amendments which are for the most part of an administrative and internal nature. The exception is clause 6 which deals with the establishment of a Police Reserve.

The principle of course is by no means a new one. Hon. members will recall that I mentioned during the discussion of the Police Vote on 2nd June, 1971, that the Police were working on a scheme which could result in a far larger Reserve Police Force, but that I also warned hon. members not to conclude that the establishment of such a scheme was an accomplished fact.

Since then, and even before that time, hon. members on both sides of the House corresponded with me on the possibility of allocating a percentage of the national servicemen who are called up annually in terms of the Defence Act for military training, to the Police for basic police training and for subsequent national service in the South African Police for at least the periods to which they are liable to peacetime service in the South African Defence Force. This matter has been thoroughly researched, but for the present we have decided on the procedure as contained in the measure which is now before you.

The hon. the Minister of Defence and his department is thoroughly aware of the problems with which the Police have to contend, and I have reached an agreement with the Minister of Defence to the effect that all persons who have served for a period of not less than six months in a permanent capacity in the Police Force will be exempted from compulsory military service, provided they are acceptable to the South African Police and are in fact incorporated in the proposed Police Reserve. There will obviously be those who are not suitable for Police service, and they are not in any way being exempted from compulsory military service. The proposed section 34A (9) relates to such persons.

Of course the principle in respect of a Reserve Police Force is not a new one either. Hon. members are aware that such a Reserve, consisting of civilians who are prepared to assist the Police Force voluntarily in time of emergency, and even in normal times, has existed since 1961. These persons are rendering excellent service, and statutory provisions which apply to the said reserve remain unchanged. Membership is of course confined to volunteers. In addition a Police Reserve of Officers has existed since 1964 which includes all persons who held the rank of officer in the Police.

Clause 6 provides that the existing Police Reserve of Officers be replaced by a Police Reserve. As has already been mentioned, a distinction must be drawn between this Police Reserve and the Reserve Police Force. The proposed Police Reserve will include all persons up to the age of 65 years who have served in the Force in a permanent capacity for a period of not less than six months. Subject to certain provisos, with which I shall subsequently deal, national service in this Reserve will be compulsory, but no person will be compelled to serve in a rank inferior to the rank in which he served in the Force in a permanent capacity—cf. the proposed section 34A (4).

As hon. members know all citizens between the ages of 17 and 65 years, with the exception of some who hold specific posts may be called up for compulsory military service in the Defence Force. Under certain circumstances this may also include Police duties. Section 3 of the Defence Act (No. 44 of 1957) relates to this and, inter alia, section 97 of that Act grants exemption from military service to members of the South African Police Force. Since persons who are in fact incorporated in the Police Reserve will be members of the Police Force in terms of the proposed amended definitions of the “Force” and “member of the Force” (clause 1), they will therefore be exempted from military service.

The provisions of clause 6 are therefore in no way unfamiliar. All that is in fact being decreed is that instead of persons terminating their service in the Police Force and then being incorporated in the Defence Force or its reserves, they are now being incorporated in the Police Reserve and remain subject to the provisions of the Police Act. The essense of clause 6 is that—

1. (a) a member of the Police Reserve may be called up for Police service, if the Minister deems it necessary, for a period of not less than 30 days per annum within the first five years after he has terminated his permanent service in the Police Force;
2. (b) if the Minister is of the opinion that the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the protection of lives or property is seriously endangered, he may order any member of the Police Reserve, regardless of whether or not the period of five years has already elapsed, to report for service; and
3. (c) any member of the Police Reserve must notify the Commissioner of Police of his address or of any change of his address.

The practice at present is to notify the South African Defence Force of all persons leaving the Police Force before attaining the age of 25 years, and in those cases the South African Defence Force acts in accordance with the provisions of section 67 of the Defence Act, i.e. they are incorporated either in the Citizen Force or the Commandos, and may also be called up for further compulsory military training and service. The average discharge figure (whether through resignation, retirement or for other reasons) amounts to 1 480 per annum, calculated over the last five years. Of this number approximately 300 return annually to the Force. The number of members who buy themselves out of the Force before having completed five years’ service, and who do not re-enter the Force, is calculated at approximately 700 per annum. Of the latter number approximately 300 annually are still liable to compulsory military training and they are, in terms of the existing arrangement, incorporated either in the South African Defence Force or with the Citizen Force or the Commandos. The remainder, i.e. those who are between the ages of 25 and 65 years, become part of the National Defence Force Reserve, and for all practical purposes are exempted from national service. Unless of course they are called up in time of war they are not specifically incorporated anywhere to render any service in the national interests in peacetime.

According to estimates the basic training of only one Police officer costs the State approximately R1 829. If an average number of only 500 persons annually, whose basic training cost R914 500, were added to the proposed Police Reserve, it would be possible to build up a strong Police Reserve of at least 2 500 over a period of five years, and the great expenditure would to a considerable extent have been justified.

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with clause 6 first because, as I have already said, it contains the main amendment. Clause 1, to a certain extent clause 5, clause 7 and 8, all have a bearing on clause 6.

Clause 7 defines the obligations of employers of members of the proposed Reserve, makes provision for facilities to be afforded to a Reserve member so as to enable him to render service, and protect him as well as the employer against being prejudiced in any way. Here, too, there are no new principles at issue. In fact, these agree basically with the provisions of section 4 of the Defence Act, and section 11 of the Civil Defence Act, No. 39 of 1966.

Clause 8, i.e. proposed section 34C, is in fact a repetition of the provisions of the existing section 34bis which is substituted by the new section 34A (clause 6) of this Bill. This deals for the most part with remuneration and conditions of service which may be prescribed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and with approval of the Treasury.

The clauses which do not relate to the proposed Police Reserve, are the following:

Clause 2, which makes provision for replicas of the signatures of the State President and the Minister on commissions issued upon the appointment of officers. This will obviate large numbers of commissions having to be signed personally by the State President. Section 83 of the Defence Act already contains a corresponding provision.

Clause 3: With a view to the establishment of a Police Reserve it is essential that the failure to comply with notices issued in terms of clause 6 should be punishable. Furthermore, the powers of the Commissioner in respect of the application of discipline are being expanded. In departmental disciplinary hearings his competence in respect of appeal or revision of conviction and sentence is at present restricted to the quashing of the conviction or, on the contrary, the confirmation or reduction of the sentence. For example he has no power, in the case of a main and alternative charge, to amend a conviction on the main charge to that of the alternative or, where a divisional commissioner has reduced a sentence, to bring it into line with the sentence of the trial officer if he is of the opinion that the correct sentence was, on the basis of the evidence, imposed in the first place. The proposed amendment will bring the review and appeal competence in regard to disciplinary hearings into line with those which apply to criminal cases in terms of section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 56 of 1955.

The amendment in clause 4 is necessary because articles which are sold in Police canteens are not exempted from sales duty, and to ensure absolute clarity in regard to the intention of the legislature.

Clause 5 extends the powers of the State President to make regulations in respect of—

1. (a) the research laboratory of the South African Police which deals, inter alia, with the analysis of hair and other exhibits which are of importance in regard to the solution of crime;
2. (b) registers for, and the duties of members of the Police Reserve on which clause 6 has a bearing; and
3. (c) the more effective control of funds, such as the Widow and Orphans Fund, established for the South African Police.

Clause 9 contains the short title of the Act and provides that various provisions may come into operation on different dates, as fixed by proclamation.

After what I have just said, you will understand that by far the most important objective of this measure is that the Police Force should have a Reserve which has been specially trained for Police tasks and which will be available in a time of abnormal disturbances.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has the support of this side of the House. Indeed, any attempt to boost the reserves of our Police Force in these troubled times will have our support. This is in many ways a compromise, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, between the thoughts which have been expressed from both sides of the House, apparently, that one should use a number of the trainees under the Defence Act and train them in the Police Force; so that they do their basic training there and their camps every year as well. This is a compromise which has been arrived at, and it has our blessing and our support.

What this Bill really does, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is to provide for a new Police Reserve, as opposed to the reserve police force, which is known as a Police Reserve at the moment, comprising those persons who have retired from the Force and those who have resigned. So we are going to have a force, Sir, of the “old and bold” who have retired and the “young and unsung”, who have resigned early. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister’s estimate of the number he is going to have, which he thought would be thousand, is going to remain at that figure. I think one thing is clear: As the hon. the Minister has indicated, a number of people have joined the Police Force, stayed there for a certain minimum period, and thereby avoided having to do any military service thereafter for the next ten or 16 years, or whatever it may be. I believe that the effect of this measure, namely that you will not be able to escape your responsibility any more—you can be called up for the next five years for 30 days at a time at least, and in addition for other periods, if the Minister deems it necessary —is going to be that those persons who joined the Force in order to avoid military training, will be dissuaded from doing so in the future. So I think that that number is going to come down. I hope that indeed it will have that effect. But it is going to affect the strength of this extra reserve.

There are a few points which we would like to suggest in the Committee Stage, which will improve this Bill; but at this stage we support it. Our experience is quite clearly that in matters of internal disorder, the best vehicle for maintaining and restoring law and order internally, is our Police Force, to whom I would like to pay tribute this afternoon for the manner in which they have done their duty internally in the most difficult circumstances. We are pleased that the service of persons experienced in and subject to the discipline of this Force will be retained for at least five years. We will support the Bill in this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the words of my hon. colleague here and to welcome the Minister’s most lucid explanation on introducing this Bill. Apart from updating and streamlining the Police Act with a view to improving efficiency in the relentless fight against crime, this Bill deals also with the maintenance of law and order. The idea of the establishment of a Police Reserve as provided for in clause 6 we welcome whole-heartedly. As the Minister has said, it is nothing new. Sophisticated countries overseas have had Police reserves, and the example of Great Britain in this respect is a very good one. We know that there they perform full-time in the case of local and national emergencies. Indeed, this Bill also serves to extend the existing Police Reserve of officers which the Minister mentioned, to all ranks of ex-members with service of not less than six months and not over the age of 65 years of age. We see this reserve of fully-trained, experienced and professional men as of inestimable value to South Africa’s first line of defence, viz. the Police. Furthermore, we welcome the limitation of service to five years as from the date of discharge or retirement, as this will ensure a constant flow of fresh blood into the reserve, thereby minimizing the possibility of any stagnation. According to present figures, as the Minister has shown, there will be an annual inflow of over 1 000 Whites, and I take it this reserve is going to be extended to the non-Whites as well. We welcome this aspect of the measure as well. This is going to be a Force of specialists not to be trifled with and of great value to this country.

We also welcome the provisions made regarding the duties of employers towards reservists, as well as the obligations of the reservist towards his employer. Without these, the whole scheme would be placed in an unfavourable light.

Last, but by no means least, we welcome the provisions made for the remuneration of members of the Police Reserve and trust that not only adequate, but also generous provision will be made for those who might be injured or killed in service of their country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the support this measure has received. I think there is in fact only one important point which was raised by both the hon. gentlemen who spoke, and in regard to which I can in any way comment, and that is the expected number of persons we will have in this Police Reserve. The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned that since they are now required to serve on the Police Reserve it may perhaps have a prejudicial effect on the numbers recruited. I have another expectation. I want to argue that persons who have joined the Police and then retired, were not previously exempted from national service altogether, and they should have rejoined one of the military units. We are now giving the assurance that the person who joins the South African Police and receives training for a period of not less than six months—it may be more than six months—will subsequently be incorporated in the S.A.P. for national service. So, I think that there will be sufficient numbers of people who will be interested in Police work and who will prefer to do their national service with the Police than with the Defence Force perhaps, and that we will then be able to draw a certain percentage of those people into our Police Reserve in this way. We give them the assurance, when they join and are incorporated in the Police, that they need undergo no further national service training. I have another additional expectation, if I may express it, which is that a young man may perhaps join the Police and regard service in the Police Force as his national service, but once he is there, he may find the Police Force so attractive that he will remain in it. I sincerely hope that I will in this way be able to attract more men to the Police Force in a full-time capacity, more than I have attracted before. Then, too, I want to point out to hon. members that we will also have the advantage of all those who retire at the age of 55 years. We are in fact being inundated today by ex-police officers who retire at 55 years, and would like to stay on. Everyone who now retires at the age of 55 remains on in the Police Reserve until they reach the age of 65. This will also be a fundamental supplementation of this Police Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Shortly after the publication in the Government Gazette in 1971 of the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, it was brought to the attention of the Department of Industries that the Government would forfeit all its right to put in claims in terms of CRISTAL—that is the international insurance scheme established by the oil cargo owners of the world in April, 1971—if the Act were to be put into operation in its present form.

In this regard I should like to explain that there are two voluntary insurance schemes in terms of which claims in connection with oil pollution of the sea and beaches may be put in, viz.: (a) TOVA-LOP, which was established by the world’s tanker owners in October, 1969. In terms of this scheme national governments may claim up to a maximum amount of $10 000 000 per incident. The scheme only pays out in cases where the owner or commander of the tanker was negligent. The onus to prove the contrary rests on the latter; and (b) CRISTAL, which has already been mentioned and which was established only in April, 1971, by the world’s oil cargo owners. This scheme is supplementary to TOVALOP and claims up to a total maximum amount of $30 000 000 per incident may be put in by governments and private individuals in terms of this scheme. This scheme considers all reasonable claims, whether there was negligence or not. In terms of its articles of association the following amounts, inter alia, first have to be deducted from the amounts it pays out to governments: (i) the amount a government receives from TOVALOP in pursuance of a claim and (ii) the amount a government collects in terms of its national laws directly from an owner of a tanker or an owner of the cargo in connection with an incident of pollution. The present South African legislation makes provision for the Government to put in claims against an owner of a tanker for oil pollution damage, but no maximum amounts are prescribed. International shipping insurance, however, provides over up to a maximum amount only and since the operation of CRISTAL is based, from the nature of the case, on the operations of and the limitations imposed by first mentioned, the Government was informed that it (CRISTAL), technically speaking, would not be authorized to consider claims from the South African Government. The argument was advanced that the claims of the Government could amount to any amount exceeding $30 000 000.

Therefore the main object of this amending Bill is to prescribe the maximum amount which the Government may claim from an owner of a tanker and to make it (the Government) qualify in that way for the right to put in claims in terms of CRISTAL. The necessary provision for this is being made in clauses 2 (a) and 3 of the Bill. What it amounts to in effect is that claims up to a maximum amount of $10 000 000 may be put in per incident. CRISTAL indeed makes provision for the payment of claims up to a maximum amount of $30 000 000 per incident, but it should be borne in mind that that involves, inter alia, the reductions to which I have just referred and, moreover, that it is not only national governments but also private persons who may claim pro rata from CRISTAL.

At the same time we are taking this opportunity to effect a few other amendments. These amendments concern more particularly the following—

Mr. Speaker, we will support this Bill. The interesting thing about it, I think, is that it clearly illustrates the hazards of oil pollution with which the modern world is faced today. Here you have two organizations, TOVALOP and CRISTAL, who have undertaken to meet insurance claims, in the one case up to $10 000 000 and in the other up to $30 000 000 whether there is negligence or not. I think this highlights the problems with which we are going to be faced, particularly at this point of Africa, in the years to come, through the hazards of oil pollution, certainly until such time as the Suez Canal is opened again and probably even thereafter, because the big tankers will probably continue to come round the Cape.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us a detailed description of the purpose of this Bill. There is no need for me to reiterate its provisions. I think we will from time to time have amendments to Acts of this nature as the world becomes more knowledgeable, not only of the hazards, but of ways to deal with the hazards of oil pollution around the coasts of the world. The one interesting thing in this Bill is the reference to an amount of 140 million gold francs. I must admit that when I first read this Bill, I had no knowledge whatsoever of what 140 million gold francs meant. I am informed that 140 million gold francs is the equivalent of 10 million dollars. That puts it in some perspective.

It struck me as well.

Yes. It is an interesting feature for us in South Africa that internationally the gold franc is being used to describe the quantum in connection with these issues that we have before us. It is quite obvious that the requirements of TOVALOP and CRISTAL had to be met by the Government so that we could ensure that we had the cover of their insurances. Therefore we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will recall I agreed to the Community Development Bill (No. AB 39 — ’72), which was initially introduced during this session, being referred to a Select Committee of the House.

However, the Bill which was initially introduced contained a number of amendments to existing measures which are deemed necessary for the effective implementation of the duties of the Community Development Board, and which have nothing to do with the new principle in regard to urban renewal by a private developer. This new principle, as contained in clauses 1 (b) and 5 of the initial Bill, is in fact the matter which has to receive attention from the Select Committee.

Consequently the Select Committee has consolidated those clauses in the initial Bill which have nothing to do with the principle of urban renewal by a private developer, in the Bill which is at present before you so that they may be considered by the House. The principle of urban renewal by a private developer (i.e. clauses 1 (b) and 5 of the initial Bill) is at present still receiving the attention of the Select Committee.

As I have just said, the Bill which is at present before the House comprises the clauses contained in the initial Bill. The Select Committee effected certain amendments and made certain additions with which I am in full agreement.

I explained the clauses when dealing with the initial Bill in this House, and I shall therefore, to refresh the memory, deal only briefly with these provisions.

Clause 1 (a):

This amendment deals with the prevention of physical decay. As already mentioned to the House this matter was investigated by a representative committee and the relevant amendments now provide the necessary machinery to establish preventative measures against physical decay.

Clause 1 (b):

At present section 15 (5) (b) prescribes that the costs of arbitration shall be determined in terms of section 23 of the Slums Act, 1934. However, this is confusing and is not conductive to efficiency. Efficient provisions in regard to the costs of arbitration in the case of expropriation are contained in section 45 of the Community Development Act, and consequently an amendment is now being effected so that arbitration cases in terms of section 15 (5) (a) shall now be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 45 as well.

Clause 1 (c):

In the practical application of section 15 (5) there is lack of clarity in regard to the determination of the “price” mentioned in the section, particularly when cases are referred to arbitration. In order to ensure clarity therefore an addition is now being made to subsection (5). Since there may be a difference in the market value as at the date when the area is frozen and the date on which the Board exercises its preferent rights, it is being provided that the price shall not exceed whichever of the two market values is the greater.

Clause 2:

Section 16 of the Community Development Act, 1966, provides that when the Community Development Board has acquired all the premises in a township or part of a township, ownership in all the public places is vested in the Board. “Public place” is defined in the section as the land comprising any street, road, square, thoroughfare, etc., shown on the general plan of a township. It is now being found that in certain cases where the Board is engaged in extensive urban renewal, no general plan for the township exists, with the result that the ownership in the public places, where the Board has acquired all the premises, does not vest in the Board. Since it is clearly the object of the Act that where the Board becomes the owner of the premises, it should also become the owner of the public places, the mere fact that the public places are not shown on the general plan should not stand in the way of the Board acquiring the public places so that it may proceed to the redevelopment of the area.

In addition the definition of “township” does not comply with the requirements of the Board where it has to take action in urban renewal areas. However, the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, contains a subsequent definition of “township” which is far more comprehensive and which will therefore cover any problematical cases the Board may encounter.

Clause 3:

This addition to section 41 is being effected to enable the Board to compensate an owner whose property has been expropriated or an owner from whom affected property has been purchased, or from whom a property has been purchased in a frozen area, for any actual financial loss or any inconvenience caused by the expropriation or the acquisition of the property.

Clause 4:

This amendment is being proposed in order to bring the Community Development Act into line with the provision in this respect contained in the Expropriation Act.

Furthermore, since the Board is required to pay compensation for the expropriated property, and the Board is continually seeking to determine and pay out the compensation as quickly as possible, there is no reason why the payment of compensation should impede registration in the name of the Board, and in this way hold up projects involving thousands of rands. Consequently paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 43 is being deleted.

Since the amendments contained in the Bill before the House are of a nature requiring expeditious treatment, I wish with this to thank the Select Committee for the urgent attention it has devoted to this matter in order to make it possible for the Bill to be before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has informed the House, this Bill deals with certain clauses of a non-controversial nature which were in the original Bill, AB 39 — ’72, which was referred to a Select Committee earlier in this session. Because of the wish of the department that these clauses be dealt with during this session, the Select Committee dealt with them separately, leaving the main clauses to do with urban renewal by private developers to be dealt with at a later stage. Certain amendments were agreed upon in the Select Committee which in our submission improve the relevant clauses, and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he supports these amendments. This side of the House supports the Bill, but I wish to draw to the attention of the House, and particularly to the attention of the hon. the Minister, certain matters raised by the South African Property Owners’ Association subsequent to the matter being dealt with by the Select Committee which, I think, warrant consideration, particularly in view of the fact that this is a responsible body representative of a large number of property owners of South Africa. One of the points which they raised is, I believe, of particular importance because it would seem that perhaps we on the Select Committee over looked an important consequence of one of the amendments which was suggested by the Select Committee and which is embodied in this Bill. That amendment deals with clause 4 of the Bill, which amends section 43 of the principal Act. Section 43 of the principal Act deals with the registration of transfer of affected properties expropriated by the board. As originally proposed in the Bill referred to the Select Committee, it was proposed that that section be amended by the substitution of certain words at the beginning of subsection (1), which are not relevant to the point which I wish to make. Then it was to be amended by the deletion of subsection (3) (b)—no, I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, in the Bill which was referred to the Select Committee, it was proposed to delete altogether subsection (3), that is to say, to delete the necessity, before transfer of the property expropriated, to satisfy the registrar by way of a certificate signed on behalf of the board, that the procedures had been observed and that all amounts payable by the board on the transaction had either been paid or guaranteed. The Select Committee suggested that subsection (3) (a) should remain and that subsection (3) (b), only, be deleted.

The South African Property Owners Association, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Parow, a copy of which I believe has been sent to the hon. the Minister, points out that the effect of this is to leave the mortgagee completely unprotected. I believe that, in fact, this is the case. It is, of course, a serious fault of this clause and I suggest that it must be amended, because it is right that a mortgagee, with the real right that he has, should receive the protection which he normally gets under a mortgage bond. Let me explain why it is that he is unprotected. I asked the hon. the Minister to look at subsection (1) (b) of section 43. This provides, if we adopt the present wording, that—

1. (a) register the transfer to the board of the property in question; and
2. (b) if such property is subject to any bond, endorse upon the bond and note in the appropriate records that the property is released therefrom.

“Therefrom” means from the bond. Subsection (1) (b) remains the same. I pointed out that that remains the same and that it has not been changed, but the effect is important because as the section stood, before, it was perfectly all right to release the property from the bond because in the original Act subsection (3) (b) read that before transfer could be effected the registrar had to receive a certificate that—

Clearly one of the amounts payable by the board on the transaction would be the amount owing to the mortgagee. It was all right to release the property from the bond because that subsection provided that the board had to guarantee the amount and therefore the mortgagee remained protected. What is being done now is to delete (b). Therefore, there is no need now for the registrar to receive a certificate that the amounts payable by the board on the transaction had been paid or guaranteed. If we look at that in conjunction with section 42 of the Act, we see that section 42 (1) provides—

If it is not known, there is the procedure for paying it into court. Let us take the case where the address is known. The amount must be paid to the owner. Once we delete this provision regarding the guarantee, the mortgagee is left completely unprotected. I do submit that there is substance in this argument and that in fact the South African Property Owners’ Association is correct that this is a consequence which was possibly overlooked when this matter was considered. I think it could be remedied by adopting a somewhat similar provision to the provision which exists in the Expropriation Act where the position is as follows. Section 5 (1) of the Expropriation Act of 1965, Act No. 55 of 1965, provides—

In other words, we have a similar provision there, but the Expropriation Act does contain a further section, section 11, which secures the position of the mortgagee. Section 11 which is titled “Discharge of debt secured by mortgage bond over land”, provides—

I would not suggest the adoption of a precisely similar section because in the case where the owner cannot be found it is impossible for the mortgagee and the owner to agree as to how much the mortgagee is entitled. The mortgagee may not be able to obtain payment. But I do believe that a provision along lines similar to these should be inserted in the present Bill to protect the position of the mortgagee and I will suggest some amendment in the Committee Stage. Then, Sir, there is also the question of the rights of persons holding real rights other than mortgage bonds, the rights of persons such as fiduciaries, usufructuaries, possibly persons with registered leases and persons with water and mineral rights. I think that some provision should be made regarding them also, and perhaps a note could be placed on the title deeds to the effect that these rights continue until such time as adequate compensation has been settled in respect of them between the holders of the rights and the board. Sir, there are those two aspects which I think require consideration in respect of the amendment proposed in clause 4.

Then there are certain other matters which the South African Property Owners’ Association raised and which I think are worthy of consideration. Firstly, in respect of clause 1 (a), they proposed that in the amendment which was accepted by the Select Committee, namely that before steps to prevent decay are taken, there should be consultation with the local authority, the words “after consultation” should be changed to “with the approval”. In other words, they proposed that there should be the active consent of the local authority, not merely a unilateral reference, which is the case if one is merely required to consult. There is, I would suggest, some substance in this proposal, especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has pointed out on many occasions that he wishes the local authorities to participate in urban renewal and slum clearance and so forth and, in fact, would like them to play a greater role than they are playing at present. In view of this, I would ask the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to this suggestion and to indicate what his views are in this regard.

Then in regard to clause 3, the amendment which has been accepted by the Select Committee now makes it obligatory upon the board to add compensation if it is necessary to do so in order to make good any actual financial loss or inconvenience caused by the expropriation. Previously, under the clause which was submitted to the Select Committee, this was merely in the discretion of the board. I suggest that this is an important and satisfactory change, but I would point out that subsection (3) remains, which reads that the amount determined by the board under paragraph (b) is final, that is to say, the amount to make good actual financial loss or inconvenience. The South African Property Owners’ Association suggest that this amount should be subject to review by or appeal to a competent court of law, or to arbitration in the case of the amount of compensation. In the case of the amount of compensation which is awarded, that amount is subject to arbitration in terms of other provisions of the Community Development Act, and it is submitted that the amount added to the compensation to make good actual financial loss or inconvenience should likewise be the subject of arbitration or review by a court of law, because this is part and parcel of the amount which the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to receive in respect of the expropriation. This is a matter which, I must tell the Committee quite frankly, was put to the Select Committee. After discussion the Select Committee unanimously passed the clause in the form in which it now appears. But in view of the fact that this proposal has again been repeated by the South African Property Owners’ Association which, as I have indicated, is a responsible body representing a large number of persons who are concerned, I do think that it is worthy of further consideration, and I would ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to it and to agree to amend the clause along these lines.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we support this Bill. We would, however, urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to these matters which I have drawn to the attention of the House. I do submit that if these clauses are amended along the lines I have suggested, it would make the Bill an even better one than the Bill we have before the House at the moment.

Sir, I want to thank the hon. member for Musgrave and his side of the House for their support of this Bill in its present form. In regard to the objections raised by the hon. member, principally as a result of representations made by SAPOA, it does seem to me as if there might be some merit in his representations, particularly as far as clause 4 is concerned. The hon. member states that under clause 4 the mortgagee is not afforded any protection. It is not quite clear to me at the moment whether this is true or not, but I shall go into this matter very carefully. I think it is essential that the mortgagee should enjoy protection. I shall go into this matter, and if the mortgagee is not being afforded the necessary protection, I am quite willing to discuss this with the hon. member again during the Committee Stage. As far as clause 1 (a) is concerned, the question of physical decay, the hon. member made the point that there should not only be consultation with the local authority, but that the local authority should give its consent when steps are taken to prevent that decay. I do not think that that is a very good point. The entire object of this legislation is to place the Community Development Board in a position to prevent physical decay, even if the local authority does not want to give the necessary attention to the matter, and I am afraid that the proposal made by the hon. member for Musgrave would place the Development Board entirely at the mercy of the local authority, and I am not quite certain that this would be the correct thing to do. But this point as well can be discussed further by us in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member then referred to the payment for any inconvenience and actual financial loss. Whether this should be made subject to an appeal to a court or to arbitration, is a question we can discuss. I do not know whether an appeal to a court is in fact necessary. But whereas an agreement cannot be reached in regard to the amount, it does not seem to me to be an entirely unreasonable standpoint that this should be made subject to arbitration. I shall give attention to this matter as well, and we can then discuss it further during the Committee Stage. Further to that, it seems to me as if there is no difference in regard to the basic principles of the Bill. Once again my sincere thanks to the hon. member and to the Select Committee for the good work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As I explained in connection with the Amendment Bill, which was introduced in 1970, it is necessary, in the light of experience, for the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, to be supplemented from time to time to adapt it as the Constitution of the Council and to ensure that the activities of the Council and its administrative machinery function with proper smoothness. I want to give the assurance that there is no unnecessary tampering with that Act. On the contrary, certain amendments, which are now being moved, were already considered and recommended last year by the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Owing to a full legislative programme, however, it was not possible to introduce this during the 1971 parliamentary session. The principles contained in this Bill can best be explained by dealing with each clause separately.

Clause 1:

In Act No. 49 of 1964 there is no provision about the period of office of the Council, there merely being a provision that members hold office for five years from the date of their election or nomination. The periods of office of elected and nominated members do not, however, start on the same date and therefore they do not cover the same period. It is felt that a reference to the period of office of council members as such is inadequate, and in order to eliminate the practical problems, which this shortcoming entails, a law amendment is being moved to make provision for the duration of each Council to be 5 years, commencing on the date on which the first council met for the first time, i.e. 20th November, 1969.

Clause 2:

At present the Act provides that council members must take the prescribed oath before a magistrate. Owing to practical considerations it is now being proposed that provision be made for a member, who is taking his seat after the first sitting-day of a new Council, to take the oath before the Chairman of the Council in accordance with the procedure in this House.

Clause 3:

As has been mentioned in connection with clause 1, the existing section 12 (1) of the Act provides that a member of the Council holds his seat for a period of five years from the date on which he is elected or nominated. Unless this section is adapted it will be incompatible with the proposed provision in clause 1 of this Bill to the effect that the duration of each Council shall be five years, and we therefore propose to provide that members hold their seats until such date as the Council, which they are members of, is dissolved by effluxion of time. This amendment will also eliminate the problem of the disproportionate termination of service, a problem that can occur now.

Clause 4:

For the same reasons applicable in the case of Parliament and provincial councils, it is also necessary, in the case of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, to provide that in the interim period between dissolution by effluxion of time and the constitution of a new Council, the Council may continue with its business and that membership of the Council continues for that purpose. Since the Council is largely moulded according to the procedures of the House of Assembly and provincial councils, it is therefore proposed that the provisions of sections 53 and 71 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic be followed in respect of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Clause 5:

The proviso in section 17 (6) (c) of Act No. 49 of 1964, as it reads at present, provides that the Minister of Coloured Affairs may so delegate any such power conferred upon him by any provisions of the Public Service Act or the Coloured Persons Education Act only in respect of persons who are not Whites and only to the chairman of the executive of the Coloured Council. The reference to the Education Act is linked in this sentence to the Public Service Act, which exclusively relates to staff matters, and it was also the intention with this proviso to only give the chairman of the executive powers in respect of non-White staff, powers that rest with the Minister of Coloured Affairs in terms of the Public Service Act or the Education Act —in other words, only in respect of staff matters. However, legal advisors are of the opinion that the projected proviso, as it reads at present, must be interpreted as stating that any power that the Minister derives from the Education Act, or the regulations made under it, may only be delegated to the chairman of the executive. This means that powers in respect of the largest branch of the activities of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, i.e. education, cannot be delegated as in the case of other smaller branches, and that in practice the member of the executive entrusted with education is, as it were, put out of action. If this were to continue it would cause an insufferable state of affairs in the executive, and an amendment of the said proviso is therefore being moved in order to put the matter right. Since the validity of certain powers, which were delegated in the past to the said member of the executive, is being disputed by legal opinion, a correction is being proposed with retrospective effect from the date on which the first delegation took place, i.e. 31st October, 1969.

Clause 6:

At present there is no legal provision (which is a requirement) according to which the council can decide to grant powers to the Chairman of the Executive for virement authorization and the issuing of a warrant in respect of the combating of unforeseen and urgent expenditure. Such action is essential for successful financial management. Virement authorization, for example, is granted annually in the Appropriation Act to the Minister of Finance, and in terms of legal authorization the State President and the Administrators of the four provinces issue warrants. In the case of the Coloured Council consideration was given to legalizing these essential powers by regulation, but that method was not acceptable to the legal advisors. The projected additions to the Act will consequently have to be made.

Paragraph (c) of clause 6 provides that if the Council, for some or other unforeseen reason, fails to provide by resolution the funds generally voted by Parliament, the executive may do so. If the Executive also fails to do so, the Minister of Coloured Affairs is vested with the necessary powers to implement the Budget. The only motive for this amendment, the necessity for which is also felt in Council circles and supported by the Executive, is that the necessary funds must be available at all times for the continuation of existing services for which the Council is responsible, for example education and welfare for Coloureds, to mention but a few. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to elaborate on what could happen if the Council failed to appropriate moneys for the services of the Council. Someone will have to be able to take over in such a case, with the proviso, however, that this body may not introduce any new services that have not previously been authorized.

As a result of overspending by the Council during the 1970-’71 financial year, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1972, pointed out in its Second Report that it deems it necessary that the relative bodies investigate the accountability in respect of parliamentary appropriations to the Council so that if it is thought necessary amending legislation can be submitted to Parliament. The findings of the Treasury, which instituted the inquiry, were that although the present statutory provisions adequately covered the situation and there is no justification for a change in the accountability arrangements, it is nevertheless desirable for the following amendments to be made to the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, to clarify the relationship as far as accountability is concerned and to relieve certain bottlenecks: (a) An amendment of section 22 (3) so that an over-drawing of the Council’s bank account may be granted with the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This provision is necessary because if there should be a repetition of a situation such as that investigated by the Select Committee, this may give rise to the Council’s bank account being overdrawn; (b) Amendments to sections 22 (3) and (4) so that it is permissible for the unspent balances, to a maximum of R500 000, in the books of the Coloured Persons Representative Council not to have to be repaid at the end of a financial year into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Thereby greater flexibility will be obtained and as yet unauthorized expenditure, awaiting the proper authorization and condonation, can provisionally be covered by available balances in the Council’s account; (c) An amendment to section 22 (6) to require that apart from submission to the Council, it must also be possible to table in Parliament. through the agency of the Minister of Finance, any report of the Controller and Auditor-General concerning the accounts of the Coloured Persons Representative Council for reference to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. With a view to this I shall move an amendment to clause 6 (f) in the Committee Stage.

The above amendment is contained in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of clause 6 of the Bill.

Clause 7:

Notwithstanding the reasonably flexible wording of section 26 of the Act, it was found in practice that the subjects about which the Minister can issue regulations are, in actual fact, exceptionally limited. To make provision for existing and unforeseen circumstances, it is consequently being proposed that a subsection, similar to those in other Acts of Parliament, be added to eliminate the shortcomings in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is merely intended to lay down essential procedures. As far as certain provisions are concerned, we have even drawn liberally from the existing procedures and provisions of this House. I therefore want to express the hope that the Bill will be considered against that background.

Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that the Government should have to introduce legislation of this kind in order to prop up an ailing council which, had it been allowed to function on a proper democratic basis, would not have required the interference of the Minister in this manner or at any stage. Apart from some administrative matters which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, what he is really doing here is taking plenary powers in the event of an emergency. It is part of the irony of history that the idea of controlling the activities and the approach of the council by nominating 20 members, to whom the hon. the Deputy Minister referred yesterday, has now boomeranged right back into the Government’s face. Far from the system of nominated members helping to maintain a balance and stability within the council and over the conduct of its affairs, the very system which the hon. the Minister instituted in 1964 is now clearly endangering the foundations of the council itself and turning its proceedings into a kind of farce. Only this Government could have had so little imagination not to realize that this was inevitable. The Coloured people are not fools. They exercised political rights with us, as the hon. the Minister knows, for a 100 years before this council was introduced, here in the Cape.

In so far as an analysis of the Bills concerned, we have no real objection to the practical administrative changes contained in clauses 1 to 5. The real principle of the amendment, of course, is contained in clause 6. Subsection (a) of clause 6 allows for the transfer of surplus funds under one head of the budget to meet a deficit under another head. We do not think that this power should rest in the hands of the chairman of the council alone. It should surely be vested in the executive committee and I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this matter when we come to the committee stage. The whole reason for the Bill is contained in subsection (c) of clause 6, which provides that if the council fails to pass the budget the executive committee may do so. Further, should there be a serious division of opinion within the executive committee itself, the Minister can take over and virtually appropriate on the council’s behalf all monies voted by Parliament for the council’s use.

Clause 7 provides, in addition to the Minister’s present powers for him to make regulations in terms of the 1964 Act, an additional clause which, in the present highly sensitive climate of White/Coloured relationships, gives him very draconian powers indeed. I cannot resist quoting this to the House. The Minister, in addition to his existing powers under the regulations, will now be able to make regulations relevant to “any other matter which he considers it necessary or expedient to prescribe in order that the purposes of this Act may be achieved”.

There is only one possible interpretation of this Bill in any event, namely, that it is a grave admission of failure on the part of the Government to handle the electoral scene for the Coloured people. No more and no less.

The voting figures in the council at the present moment are: Federal Party, 30 seats; Labour Party, 23 seats; Independent Party, 4; Republican Party, 1; and National Party, 1. Then there is a by-election, which is pending. This means that all proceedings, as things stand, are dependent upon the chairman exercising a deliberative as well as a casting vote. This is the ridiculous position in which the hon. the Minister now finds himself because of the Government’s refusal to allow the elected party to take over and run the council. We know perfectly well, and the hon. the Minister mentioned it in his speech, that the Federal Party executive was consulted over this Bill. We know and they know too that this is an emergency measure. The question is why should this be necessary? The Government has got itself into a tidy jam over the whole business and the consequences of their actions have not alleviated friction but exacerbated it among the Coloured people themselves.

The Federal Party executive issued a statement which appeared in the Cape Times of 26th May to the effect that the executive of the Federal Party had been consulted over this Bill. The Administrative Secretary, Mr. Peter Swartz, made a statement following this announcement in which he said—

That is if the budget was not passed by the council—

Although the hon. the Minister says quite correctly that the executive committee of the council was consulted over this issue, to suggest that they are entirely happy about the situation, is in no way correct. The hard fact is that the Government made the fatal error in the first place of not giving the Coloured people a fully elected body in 1969.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member told me to mind my manners the other day, maybe he will be good enough to mind his. Mr. Speaker, the late Dr. Verwoerd, as I quoted in the House two or three days ago, in 1961 promised the Coloured people faithfully that by the time 10 years were up, they would have “voile beheer”.

He made no promises.

Well, I have the quotation here.

Read it out then.

He said—

Read the whole passage; do not read the last part only.

He continued—

There it is!

But the Bill establishing the council was passed in 1964.

But that is no promise.

The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister himself told us yesterday that at the 1974 elections it would not be a fully elected council; they must wait till 1979. He then talked about our having elections ourselves, and heaven knows what sort of excuses. The hon. the Deputy Minister said here in this House yesterday that the principle of a fully elected council had been accepted. We accept that that is correct. But one of the reasons given for the Government’s nominating members was that one of the parties involved in this election had every intention of wrecking the council. He referred to the Labour Party’s intransigence, in effect, in his speech yesterday afternoon. May I just say that if the Coloured Labour Party have been intransigent over this matter in the opinion of the Government, they were incensed by the nomination of 20 members over their heads when they had won the election on a perfectly democratic basis, as set out in terms of the 1964 election procedure under their own Act.

But they said that before the election.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party in 1969 won 26 seats out of a total of 37 that were contested. Three were left uncontested to the Federal Party, and the rest were nominated by this Government. I submit that the Government is directly responsible for the degree of distrust towards this council which exists today among all sections, not only one, of the Coloured people. This is one of the things that make it increasingly difficult to function.

Not even local authorities amongst the Coloureds are given adequate powers today. I have a circular issued by the Department of Information setting out the position, in the usual strange and rather woolly language in which they are apt to do it. The Indians in Natal, to my knowledge, already have about 5 or 6 fully independent local authorities, which they are running and controlling in every aspect themselves.

Only one.

It is not only one. Ask the hon. member for South Coast; he knows as much about it as the hon. the Minister. The Transkei Legislative Assembly has far more powers today than this Coloured Council has been given. The irony of it is that the 1964 Act contained large sections which were merely adaptations of our own Electoral Act. In 1964, when this council was created, the scope of the vote was extended to cover all men and women over 21 years. No qualifications were laid down. Having made this fine gesture, the people they elected were then not permitted to take office. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister made a great deal of the question of ensuring responsibility in the running of the council. I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that none of us on this side of the House believe for one moment that any single Coloured political party, whatever its views, that was voted into office and was allowed to take office would have been purely destructive, for the simple democratic reason that they would have been answerable to their voters, just as we are. They would have been dependent upon the trust, confidence and the support of the voters if they hoped to achieve anything at all or to remain in office. No democratic political party in the world can afford to ignore the opinions of its voters, whether they are Coloured, Black or White. They would have known perfectly well that they would only have remained in power with the support of their voters … [Interjections.] It is all very well the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that. They condemned it …

From the start.

Yes, from the start, because of the nominated members.

Oh no!

Oh yes, that is why they did it.

They wanted to sit here.

If the Labour Party or any other party had won the election, the vigilance of their own voters, I suggest, would have provided the necessary check and balance on their misbehaving or acting irresponsibly. No party can afford to disregard its voters. The Government was too scared to allow the council to function on this basis. Why was that so? Can the hon. the Minister tell us why that was so? I want to make it clear that unless a subsidiary body of any kind, whether at the basis of local government, regional government or federal government, has the power to levy rates and taxes, however limited the scope, it has no constitutional meaning or status at all. This body has none of those powers. The hon. the Minister has anticipated that the time will come when they are going to have them, but how much longer must they wait for them? The present body was suspect from the start and this was the initial fault. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that at the time of the elections in 1969 out of an eligible number of 615 000 voters roughly 300 000 voted—in other words, less than 50 per cent. It was not only the Coloured community that was distressed about this, I want to remind the Minister what professor Willem Kleynhans had to say about it. [Interjections.] He said it was a travesty of our whole representative system …

Order! We are not dealing with the principal Act now. We are dealing with the amendments.

Professor Kleynhans simply said that it was a travesty of our whole political …

Yes, but I will be glad if the hon. member will come back to the amendments.

What was his forecast for Oudtshoorn?

The Bill hinges on this question of the Budget. The powers of the Executive are involved when it comes to the Budget. I am quite prepared to accept that any Budget proposals anywhere are initially drawn up by the officials, the experts, in many cases, of any Government department that is involved. That also goes for the Department of Coloured Affairs and Rehoboth Affairs with regard to the Budget of this council. I am also aware that once the draft Estimates have been completed for the Coloured Representative Council that they are submitted to the council’s executive committee for scrutiny and comment. I am also aware that the executive committee is free to make suggestions for change and to discuss the needs and requirements of the Coloured community together with the officials concerned, and the Minister if necessary, and also with other Ministers. The council could even, if it wanted to, by recommendation only—and I repeat by recommendation only—suggest that money allocated to one service be allocated to another. I am not trying to create any false impressions in this regard. There has been a deadlock over this question of the Budget. The Labour Party that won the election now refuses to discuss it. That, I again say, was the direct result of their winning the election and then being refused the right to run the council. On the other hand, let us be realistic. All four parties of the council have passed very many good resolutions on a variety of subjects reflecting a mutual concern for their people about which the Government has done practically nothing. There have been many consultations. I was interested and, I must say, slightly amused at the number of consultations that have been reported by the Department of Information. For instance, there was one in September, 1971, on local government for the Coloured people. There was a long story about plans of the department with regard to powers of local government. Then, right at the end, the statement says that in view of the fact that the Coloureds are not yet in a position to take over full municipal control, in effect, nothing will be done about these boards as planned. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that if the Indians are competent to run a local authority, our Coloured people who have been acquainted with government very much longer, should be in a position to do so.

What does this have to do with this Bill?

A great deal, because it has to do with the powers of the council and the powers of the executive. This is the executive which brought these motions forward to the Government for something to be done. There was another discussion on 15th March with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Community Development. We again had another long-winded statement and no commitment from the Government. There was another consultative meeting on 28th March and the Ministers of Justice, Health, Sport and Recreation, Forestry and Labour were all involved. There were some lovely pious platitudes published in the statement …

Order! Those are questions of administration. We are dealing with a specific Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, my point simply is that the council has no powers and that there is no commitment on the part of the Government to give them any powers. That is very relevant to this Bill.

How do you know? It has not been made known.

Mr. Speaker, all I will say is that I wrote to the head of the department and asked for a progress report on what had happened to all the resolutions. I have it here in my file. All it contains is a series of generalized statements by Ministers in this House and no real commitment anywhere on the part of the Government.

You are …

Order! I do not think the hon. member should allow herself to be led astray by interruptions. She must come back to the Bill.

I am sorry, Sir, but the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing the interrupting. So, I thought, perhaps, I was justified.

The hon. the Minister has called in this Bill for emergency powers in the event of the Budget not being passed. This is relevant to this debate, because the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday accused this side of the House of consulting on this matter only with people intent on destroying this council, with people, in other words, who may prevent the Budget from being passed. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned Mr. Curry by name and said that we held a private meeting with him and that we were responsible for hobnobbing only with people of that kind. May 1, in all fairness to this side of the House, get that record straight. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s information is not even remotely correct. The members of our caucus quite openly—I was the person who arranged it—here in this House of Assembly met the leaders of both the Labour Party and the Federal Party on two separate occasions, the chairman and the vice-chairman and three of the Labour Party’s executive members on 3rd February, and Mr. Tom Swartz and 11 members, including his Executive Committee office-bearers, held discussions with us here in Parliament on 28th February. What is more, in the course of the discussions, Mr. Tom Swartz informed us that he had notified the Minister that he was meeting us. Therefore, for the hon. the Deputy Minister to come here and say that we spend our time consulting with only one section of the Coloured people, is not true.

In conclusion, let me say that if clause 6 is passed as it stands and the emergency anticipated by the Minister arises, then as far as the Coloured people are concerned, the Government will have to function by decree, which is deplorable.

The responsibility for the payment of Coloured members of the Public Service, for teachers’ salaries, pensioners and others, rests squarely upon this Government’s shoulders. If it does happen to have recourse to this type of legislation, it has only itself to blame. It should be quite obvious that, if any Coloured political party that had won the election had been in a position to exercise its powers in a proper, democratic way, the very last thing that would have happened, would have been for it to have left its own people in the lurch, unpaid and insecure. In fact, had any Coloured party in power left their own civil servants, pensioners and teachers unpaid, it is quite clear—the hon. the Minister should know it—that they would have received short shrift at the hands of their own electors.

I just want to say in conclusion that, if loyalty is expected of South Africa’s Coloured people, it can only be required of them on a basis of citizenship, which in turn involves responsibility, i.e. the right to be trusted in the exercise of power for and on behalf of one’s fellow-citizens. This was not done when the original Bill was brought in. Now the Minister has proved it be introducing this amendment. We demanded a fully-elected council in 1964, and we moved that the amendments contained in the 1968 Bill should be read this day six months. This party, I should like to make quite clear, will have nothing to do with this Bill, because it is a retrogressive step. I only want to repeat that we apparently have more faith in the loyalty and integrity of our Coloured people than the Government has. On those grounds I wish to move on behalf of this side of the House—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has again had the opportunity to play a nice game of politics. She says that such legislation is a tragedy, and then she refers, in particular, to clause 6. Why is it a tragedy? Clause 6 is in no way at odds with normal custom; it is quite normal procedure in any democracy. For example, as far as finances are concerned: We have two Houses, but the Other Place has no say when it comes to finances. Do hon. members know that a provincial council cannot reject an Administrator’s budget? Under certain circumstances the State President can intervene. I say it is a quite normal procedure under any democracy. Now it is supposedly such a tragedy!

They do have a debate on the Estimates.

I shall come to that in a moment. I think the time has come for the history of the 1966 Select Committee to be revealed, because the hon. member has again made a case out of it. Today the hon. member again referred to the late Dr. Verwoerd’s promise of 1961. The late Dr. Verwoerd’s promise has been kept in letter and in spirit. In the meantime, however, other things have taken place; in 1966 there was the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. That was another Act of the late Dr. Verwoerd. The day the Second Reading of that Act had to be introduced here a tragedy took place. At the time negotiations were entered into by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As a result of those negotiations a Select Committee of this Parliament was appointed in 1966. That Select Committee could not complete its work and was converted into a commission.

As a result of its report, which was tabled in 1967, the 1968 Act was introduced. As far as the Coloured Council is concerned, that report was unanimous. What I am now saying here is history. An hon. member, Mr. Bloomberg, who was a Coloured representative, suggested on that committee that the division should be 40:20, and the hon. member for Yeoville seconded it. Now they are hiding behind something else. They say that they issued a minority report. That is true, but the minority report only concerned one aspect; they were unanimous about the other aspects. The minority report only concerned the removal of Coloured representation in this Parliament. That was the minority report. The United Party shares with this side full responsibility for the Council as it was constituted on a 40:20 ratio. That is history, and I hope the hon. member will now stop talking nonsense here in Parliament.

What are the facts? The first legislation was passed in 1964, but due to circumstances the first Representative Council was only chosen or elected in 1969; a mere three years ago, actually not even three years ago. It will only be three years in November. This year’s Budget is only their second. What does one learn from this? After all, in the course of time one discovers problems. We have now discovered problems. One will inevitably encounter problems. It also happens here with us. It happens in this Parliament, and it happens in any democratic parliament in the world. The Auditor-General discovered, for example, that there was unauthorized expenditure, which was actually not there. That is why there was a second report of the Public Accounts Committee. However, these amendments are being moved to prevent such a situation. They were drawn up at the recommendation of the Treasury, as a result of the report of the Auditor-General. The amendments are actually the result of practical experience. Moral considerations actually compel the Minister to introduce these amendments because the Government carries the eventual responsibility and not the Opposition. Council members can put a spoke in the wheel in some way or other. Thus they can prevent the Budget from going through. What is the result?—The teachers cannot be paid …

Rubbish!

The people, who must obtain pensions, cannot be paid; the aged, widows and orphans cannot be paid. Under such circumstances the Government must surely intervene. The hon. member for Wynberg has no responsibility as far as this matter is concerned other than trying to get a little political bait out of it. What other practical method can now be applied to carry on with the administration and the services? It is not merely under these circumstances that the Council does not want to appropriate the money. A moment ago I referred to that when I said that it happens in any democracy. It happens in the provinces and it happens in this Parliament that powers are allocated to the Administrator and to the State President. This legislation contains the important amendment in which power is being granted to the Executive. In case the Executive does not act, the powers are granted to the responsible Minister, and I think this is the correct method to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing up to support the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment. She says that this legislation is a step backwards as far as the Coloured Persons Representative Council is concerned, and that it is. in actual fact, a motion of no confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Order! I want to warn the hon. member that in his speech he must confine himself to the Bill before the House. We are not dealing with the general principle; we are dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I said that I am supporting the hon. member’s amendment. I mentioned the two legs of the amendment …

If the hon. member would come back to the Bill I would be satisfied.

I want to say that this amendment Bill shows me clearly that the basis and the foundations that were laid in respect of the Coloured Persons Representative Council are beginning to create problems for this Government. That is why they come along with this amendment to eliminate problems which they see for the future and which they think could perhaps occur. In an amendment Bill they want to establish measures to make it possible to do something about problems if they should crop up. It is clear to me that the Government is embarrassed with respect to the present Coloured Persons Representative Council. It is clear to me that this hon. Minister acknowledges that the foundations of the Coloured Persons Representative Council have been wrongly laid. It is also clear to me that if one looks at the Coloured Persons Representative Council one sees that the wrong principles have been applied. Now the Government and the hon. the Minister come along with an amendment Bill to take precautionary measures. One asks oneself why these precautionary measures are being introduced. I am convinced, or rather I am almost sure, that this Bill involves combating the new complications in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. There is about an equal division between the ruling Federal Party and the Labour Party, which is the opposition. The Minister is now afraid that if he were to submit a Budget to this Council for approval, he would perhaps be faced with the problem of their not approving that Budget. I want to say here today that it appears to me as if the Minister foresees the total collapse of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Order! I gave the hon. member a chance to make general remarks, but he must come back to the Bill now.

I want to say that the Government is backing down: at this stage they are already moving a complete motion of no confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Order! Is the hon. member ignoring my decision?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. [Interjections.] I request you to give him a chance.

I am allowing the hon. member to make out a case, but he must eventually come back to the Bill. We are not dealing with the general principle; we are dealing with the Bill.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, but he did …

Order! The hon Whip may not argue with me. The hon. Whip ought to know that. The hon. member may continue.

This afternoon I want to say here point blank that because relations between this hon. Minister and the Coloured Persons Representative Council are at present becoming distorted …

Order!

… and he does not have the faith in his policy that these people …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are hon. members entitled to assert the powers of the Speaker?

Order! The hon. member is completely wrong. I think they were reacting to the hon. member for Wynberg. I say this with due respect to the hon. member. The hon. member for Turffontein may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I actually find it tragic indeed that a principle of the Coloured Persons Representative Council is now being questioned by this hon. Minister and that that hon. Minister foresees these people creating problems for him. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister immediately that if he is already giving the Coloured Persons Representative Council the impression at this stage that he has no confidence in their actions because they can summarily reject an Appropriation Bill that is placed before them, he is creating problems for himself. It appears to me that while the pot is on the boil the hon. the Minister wants to press the lid down instead of really taking a look at what the frustrations of these people are, which will possibly cause them to …

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member supports an amendment to a measure in terms of which the hon. the Minister is seeking power in case there should be a failure to pass certain Budgets. The hon. member, I submit, is merely advancing to this House reasons why this legislation is being brought to this House and he is indicating the conclusion that you can draw from it. Thus, Mr. Speaker, with respect, there is no intention to prolong this debate, and I suggest that you will give the hon. member the full opportunity to make his speech.

I suggest that the hon. member should not cover such a wide field, that he confine his remarks to the Bill and that he draw his conclusion from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Government is now in trouble. [Interjections.] This hon. Minister is in trouble with the implementation of his policy, and that is why he comes along to this House with this amendment Bill and why he wants to ask this House to help him with his problems and get him out of his difficulties. I want to tell you that this side of the House has the utmost confidence in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. We are confident they will not give the Minister any reason to apply to them the amendment he is coming to this House with. In other words, if there are any frustrations as far as the people of the Coloured Persons Representative Council are concerned, those frustrations are a result of this Government having laid the foundations of that Council incorrectly. In the first place the Coloured Persons Representative Council wants to be a representative council. In the second place they want powers allocated to them in terms of which they can act. In the third place the Coloured Persons Representative Council also wants a say in matters of general importance. Because these people harbour those frustrations, the hon. the Minister comes along with this amendment to eliminate problems which he himself foresees, and which I say this side of the House does not foresee, and to solve this problem in this way as far as he is concerned.

Order! No, the hon. member may not go on like this. The hon. member must pay heed to my decision. If not, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

The hon. member for Wynberg has again tried to belittle the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. I asked her yesterday, and I would like to ask her again, why she is so bitter about it. I can only say to the hon. member, as well as to the hon. member for Turffontein, that they spoke in this House with the voices of the Labour Party. Sir, we are accused of having made a fatal mistake, to quote the words of the hon. member for Wynberg, when we instituted this council.

I referred to the basis on which the council was constituted.

Yes, the basis on which the council was constituted, namely an elected and nominated basis. Sir, I want to make it perfectly clear once again that this was done with the full concurrence of the United Party.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister aware that the minority report, signed by the hon. members for Yeoville and Transkei, and by Mr. Bloomberg, to which the hon. member for Malmesbury referred, contained this statement—

Is the hon. the Minister aware of that statement? If he is, will he stop making the statement that the United Party …

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat —and if you rule me out of order I will discontinue this line of discussion …

The hon. the Minister is entitled to reply.

I repeat, as I said yesterday in the debate on my Vote, that the United Party in the Select Committee supported the proposal by Mr. Abe Bloomberg that the Coloured Persons Representative Council be constituted on the basis of 40 elected and 20 nominated persons, and that that was the unanimous decision of the Select Committee. What the hon. member has said here does not mean a thing. He is once again employing United Party tactics. We know that it is United Party tactics to keep a back door open, even if it is a very small back door. Sir, you can study those words read out by the hon. member; I listened to them, but I am giving this House the facts and I say that in the Select Committee that was a unanimous decision, supported by the United Party, that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council be constituted on the basis of 40 elected and 20 nominated councillors. That cannot be denied. When I said this here yesterday afternoon, not a single United Party member reacted to my statement. They had to go and look up a report, in which they tried to put certain words. We can analyse that report in further debates in this House, but I make the statement here as a positive statement. We are now being told that it was such a fatal mistake and that it is derogatory to the Coloured people. But I maintain that this was done with the full concurrence of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House long. I want to say that I have all the confidence in the world in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and in the Coloured people. That is the attitude of the Government and of this side of the House. and anybody who says that that is not the case will be saying something that is completely untrue.

Why then do you need these powers if you are so sure?

Sir, I cannot allow certain elements in the Coloured political setup to precipitate a crisis in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I cannot allow it and I will not allow it.

May I ask a question?

No, I am not going to answer any more questions. Sir, I have not brought the cuttings with me, but I can say to the Committee that those elements came down to Cape Town last year and said, “We will blow this thing up in the Government’s face.” They made other similar utterances as well. Must I wait until that happens? I say that the onus is not on me; I cannot be blamed. The onus for this measure is on those people; they must take whatever blame there is. I am acting here only in the interests of the council. I am trying to give the council a better instrument, a better constitution on which to work. Hon. members opposite are only concentrating on the one clause. Sir, this measure is an improvement to the Coloured Persons Representative’s Act, and a very distinct improvement. I maintain that I am only acting in the interest of the ordinary Coloured man and woman in South Africa, so that if those people take it into their heads not to pass a Budget, then I can still take steps to ensure that the needy Coloured men and women get their pensions and that the teachers get their salaries.

*Sir, I want to say once again that I have the fullest confidence in the Coloured population of this country, and time will show that my confidence is not misplaced. As surely as I stand here today, time will show us this. There are elements at the moment—it does not matter now with whom they are connected—that will do anything to create chaos and disorder, and I say that we will not allow them to do so. Therefore I say that I have no reason whatsoever not to recommend this Bill. It has nothing to do with the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and I want to express the hope that it will not be necessary to implement this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As usual this Bill deals with miscellaneous matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. Since the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum, or White Paper, which hon. members have before them, I do not consider it necessary to deal with every clause in detail. However, if any hon. member desires further information in regard to any aspect, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars. I take it that the Committee Stage will be the appropriate stage in which to do this.

The hon. the Minister of Finance, in one of our previous debates, said he was going to be brief and then took about 50 minutes. Today he said nothing, but was extremely brief. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having, as usual, given us a White Paper on this Bill. It was very useful to us. The Bill provides the necessary machinery to implement a number of measures proposed by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech. It also makes provision for a number of financial matters such as guarantees by the Government to the Reserve Bank, which are necessary for the orderly running of the country’s affairs. It also deals with a number of unrelated matters, concerning, inter alia, health, education, customs and excise, the Post Office, etc., and in so far as these matters may require to be debated, they are best dealt with in the Committee Stage. But there are one or two clauses I want to deal with now.

The reason for clause 11 is not very clear to us. What would the circumstances be that would make the Industrial Development Corporation want to force the Government to be obliged to take over from it any investment that that had been made previously by the Industrial Development Corporation at the request of the Government? This is the provision in this clause. In the White Paper Sasol and Foscor are given as examples, as undertakings for which agreements have been signed, which could force such action on the Government, but Sasol and Foscor were established with funds provided by the Government. So, if you get a take-over by the Government, all that really happens is that the interest, say, in Iscor held by the IDC will now belong to the Government and the IDC will reduce its loan to the Government to a like amount. It is not quite clear to us why these provisions should be necessary.

When we come to clauses 2, 12 and 13 and 14—and I link them together because they have a similar theme—these are fiscal policy matters which relate directly to the Government’s financial administration of the country and to economic policy. Clause 2 provides for the amount of R39,1 million which was transferred from Revenue Account to Loan Account in 1971 to be transferred back to Revenue Account this year. Clause 12 provides for funds to be transferred from the Stabilization Account to Revenue Account. This will enable the hon. the Minister to make his transfer of R140 million from the Stabilization Account to Revenue Account as he proposed in his Budget speech. The clause also provides that the Minister may in future transfer to the Stabilization Account any surplus at the end of any financial year which may exist in the Revenue Account or on the Loan Account.

Clause 13 provides that transfer duties on immovable property shall again be credited to Revenue Account as was the case before 1966 when these transfer duties were taken away from Revenue Account and handed to Capital Account. Clause 14 provides that the revenue deficit of the Railways for the year ended 31st March, 1972, shall be met out of the Rates Equalization Fund. It seems to us that what is happening here is that the hon. the Minister and the Government have embarked on a game of financial musical chairs. In 1971 he took nearly R40 million from Revenue Account to give to Loan Account. In 1972 Revenue Account takes it back again. It provides in this Bill to meet a deficit as high as R140 million on Revenue Account by transfer to Stabilization Account, but in the same clause of the same Bill it provides for the transfer of any surpluses on Revenue Account or on Loan Account to Stabilization Account. It is a sort of two-way traffic. It is something like a yo-yo. In 1966 he took from Revenue Account and gave to Capital Account all transfer duties and the reason given by the then Minister of Finance was that Capital Account needed this income and that—and I quote—“expenditure on Loan Account will remain at a high level for the foreseeable future”. Now we know that the expenditure on Loan Account this year has been increased by 8,6 per cent compared with a much higher expenditure last year, but we also know that this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely or for any long period of time unless we want our infrastructure and our services, and those of the provinces and of the local authorities, to get into more difficulties than they are in at the moment. Loan Account expenditure on a basis of strict priorities has to be incurred for the sound running of the country. Therefore, next year or the year after, it will probably be “turn again Dick Whittington” and there funds from transfer duties will go back to Revenue Account. These provisions in clauses 2, 12, 13 and 14 flow directly from the Government’s complete misinterpretation or reading of the economic signs in 1970 and 1971. Last year the three hon. Ministers, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, based their Budgets on completely optimistic and unrealistic estimates of the trends in the economy, and what happened was that they all turned in deficits. They turned deaf ears to comments from every reliable quarter that the damping down of the economy could only lead to the decline in growth, to a high rate of inflation and, more important in the context of this Bill, to a drop in fiscal income. What is happening today is proof of this. We are getting the reversal of policy every day. We have had it today in the easing of the deposits required on hire purchase agreements, for example. The economy has to be stimulated as we have been telling the hon. the Minister for some time.

The hon. the Minister and the Government have had to learn eventually that events will catch up with them. The purpose of these clauses in this Bill before us is to try to rectify the financial implications of the errors of commission on the part of the Government. We are going to support the Bill because these things have to be adjusted and the financial accounts of the Government have to balance. However, we hope that in future we shall be spared the necessity of Bills with clauses of this type with which we have to agree.

Mr. Speaker, it is as the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Minister of Finance said: These matters may be better discussed during the Committee Stage. However, the hon. member for Parktown then went on to make a speech in this Second Reading debate which obliges me to make a few remarks, because certain statements which he made cannot be left unanswered. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the actions of the Minister of Finance as a game of musical chairs, since the Minister has transferred certain revenue items from the Revenue Account to the Capital Account and vice versa. However, there is a proverb which declares that people who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. If there has ever been an hon. member who played a game of musical chairs, then it was the hon. member for Parktown. To what extent did he not plead here for a curtailment of Government expenditure? But now he says here this afternoon that we will have to change this picture very quickly, for if we do not we are going to run into trouble with our infrastructure. How can one on the one hand curtail Government expenditure, as he has been asking all these years, and on the other hand allow the expansion of the infrastructure to proceed?

That is typical of the United Party!

I am certain that the hon. member made his remarks without thorough preparation, and I am in full agreement with him that the best time for discussing these matters will be during the Committee Stage, and that is when we will in fact discuss them.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend much time dealing with these matters because they can be discussed further during the Committee Stage. However, my hon. friend touched upon certain principles, and I think it is perhaps time we went into those principles. The most important principle he discussed is that I am taking the right here to remove certain expenditure incurred on the Loan Account from that Account and return it to the Revenue Account. I want to inform the hon. member that I am not making any excuse for doing so. In practice the Minister of Finance frequently finds that he is confronted by a problem in regard to the financing of either the Loan Account or the Revenue Account. Last year we experienced problems with the Loan Account. The economic circumstances at the time were such that we found it difficult, owing to interest rates, and so on, to obtain money for the Loan Account. When the position is such that one is unable to acquire loans, the normal procedure is to try to finance the deficit on the Loan Account from the Revenue Account as much as possible. When the position is reversed, and one is able to obtain enough money for the Loan Account, it is necessary to return items which where intended for the Loan Account to the Revenue Account. If I had done what the hon. member wanted me to do, I would not have been able to transfer to the Revenue Account those funds which should have gone to the Loan Account, and that would have meant that I would have had to levy more taxes.

And he would have objected to that as well.

Yes, he would have had objections to that as well.

The last point I want to mention is that we are working in the direction of a unitary Budget [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member agrees, and consequently I need not say very much more about this. Many countries have a unitary budget in which no distinction is drawn. The hon. member therefore agrees that it was not necessary to raise this objection.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am sorry that I am not as fortunate as my hon. colleagues who moved the Second Readings of the previous two Bills, in the sense that it will not be possible for me to finish this Second Reading speech as quickly as they did theirs. I shall be obliged to explain briefly the various clauses of this Bill. I think I owe this to the House. Although the Bill does not appear to be a lengthy one and is not of a drastic nature either, there are nevertheless certain things which I deem necessary to say.

Clause 1 contains an extension of the provisions of section 6 of the Liquor Act, 1928, in terms of which certain persons have been exempted from the obligation to hold a licence for selling liquor. This amendment is being effected in order to grant exemption to an approved person from holding a licence to sell liquor in the restaurant in the Hendrik Verwoerd building across the street. It has already become common knowledge that several Ministries with their parliamentary staff are housed in that building, and that restaurant facilities of a high standard are offered in that building. The provisions of this clause have been cast in the same mould as those of sections 6 (1) (d)quat of the Act in regard to the sale of liquor in a restaurant which is on premises controlled and maintained by the Postmaster-General. The idea is to regulate by way of conditions, just as is done in regard to various other cases in terms of section 6, the matter relating to the selling and the hours of selling liquor. It is the intention to permit the following persons to avail themselves of the facilities offered in the restaurant: members of the Senate and the House of Assembly; parliamentary officials; officials in the employ of the State; the spouses of such members and officials; the guests of such members, officials and spouses; also members of the Public Service Commission; the Commissioners of the Railways and Harbours Board; the members of the National Liquor Board and the Hotel Board, who are not officials; and the spouses and guests of such persons.

May such spouses go there without their husbands?

No, not without their husbands; the spouses are to go as guests, except in the case of the former group.

The spouses of members of the House of Assembly may therefore go on their own?

Yes. These restaurant facilities will, of course, be available all year round, although it goes without saying that less use will be made of them during the times when Parliament is not in session.

The insertion of the expression “or (d)quin” in clauses 2 and 3 is consequent upon the amendment in clause 1. The insertion of the expression “(cA)” in those clauses is consequent upon the amendment effected last year by the insertion of section 6 (1) (cA).

The amendments in clauses 4 and 5 go hand in hand. It is common knowledge at present that strip-tease dances or performances are presented on certain liquor-licensed premises from time to time. These are frequently connected with all sorts of suggestive and offensive acts. Consequently the various liquor licensing boards in the country, while holding their annual meeting during November of last year, considered imposing a condition in terms of which licensees would be prohibited from allowing strip-tease dances on their licensed premises. The vast majority of these boards imposed a condition in this regard, but the wording of the prohibition was not the same in all cases. Since it is desirable for the wording of the prohibition dealing with such a matter to be uniform, and since it is highly undesirable for acts of this kind to be used for luring people to statutorily controlled premises where liquor is sold, a generally applicable and uniform prohibition is being imposed on such acts, as is provided in clause 4.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, I want to say at the very outset that this amendment is connected with a state of affairs which simply cannot be allowed to exist. Cause for this provision was given by the employment in an attorney’s office of a certain Mr. Rowley Arenstein, who was an attorney in Durban, who has for many years been an openly self-confessed communist and whose name appears on a list of persons who were office-bearers, officers, members or active supporters of the Communist Party and who, on occasion, said in the open court that he believed in Marxism. In October, 1966, he was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on a charge of committing an act calculated to further the achievement of the objects of communism. An application for his name to be struck of the rolls was made under section 5quat (1) (b) of the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, and granted by the Supreme Court. Just after his discharge from prison, Arenstein went to work for his former articled clerk, who had become a practising attorney in Durban by that time. In order to employ him, the attorney had to obtain the consent of the Incorporated Law Society of Natal. This consent was granted by the Natal Law Society. It did not take long before Arenstein was once again an attorney in everything but name, so much so that after I had forbidden him by way of further restriction orders to carry on with this work, representations were made to me to allow him to carry on with his work in connection with the recent Pietermaritzburg terrorist trial. In documents submitted to me it was stated, inter alia, that—

The following was also said—

Please note the choice of words in the phrase “any of the other attorneys”—

You see, therefore, that for all practical purposes he became involved in the case as an attorney. At that stage I brought certain information to the notice of the secretary of the Natal Law Society with the request that the council of the law society give consideration to the way in which Arenstein became involved in the defence of the accused in the case to which I referred; the nature of the work performed by him in an attorney’s office, and so forth; and that I should like to hear whether the law society approved of this state of affairs and, if not, what the law society intended doing about it. The reply was, inter alia, that applications received from attorneys who had been struck off the rolls were dealt with strictly on merit, and that the council of the law society was inclined to be sympathetic in cases where persons were not struck off the rolls as a result of fraud or dishonesty; furthermore, that the council of the law society was of the opinion that once consent had been granted for an attorney previously struck off the rolls to work in an attorney’s office, such an attorney was in the same position as was an unqualified clerk in an attorney’s office. In addition, the council indicated that it was not possible for it to decide on the facts submitted to it that Arenstein’s participation in the case exceeded that of an unqualified clerk, and that it was consequently not its intention to take any further steps in regard to the matter.

As a result of this reply, I had the Secretary of the Law Society informed in writing that I assumed that his council had also acquainted itself with the reason why the person concerned had been struck off the rolls; that he had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment; and that I assumed that the council of the law society was aware of the large number of cases which were tried in our courts and in which references were made to the activities of the Communist Party in South Africa, the A.N.C., and so forth, as well as the acts of violence, subversion and sabotage committed by members of these organizations. I also referred them to certain findings of the Appeal Court in the ffrench-Beytagh case in regard to the violent objectives of, inter alia, the Communist Party in South Africa, and I pointed out to them that the effect of striking Arenstein’s name off the rolls had to a very large extent been undone by the consent granted to him to enter into service with a firm of attorneys.

I said, furthermore, that in the light of all the circumstances and the attitude adopted by the council of the law society, I felt free to say in public, as I am doing now, that the council of the Law Society of Natal had no objection to persons whose proven acts and ties are prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order getting involved in our administration of justice.

Sir, as far as this amendment is concerned, if people do not have the interests of the State at heart in this regard as well, we have no alternative but to obtain a say in a matter such as this one with a view to future situations. The amendment speaks for itself.

The provisions of clauses 7 and 8 do not introduce anything new, but in fact confirm something which is by and large being done in practice already and is consequently of a technical nature. Pursuant to certain problems which had arisen, the historical background to the definition of “Minister” in the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, was examined, and the conclusion arrived at was that as the Act read at present, it contained no express provision in terms of which one Minister could in creating districts, and so forth, include in such districts an area administered under the control of another Minister, and in terms of which the control of district administration for the purposes of the Magistrates’ Court Act could be transferred from the one Minister to the other Minister. The problems that have now been identified, appear to have existed since amendments were effected in 1935 and since the commencement of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1945, i.e. on 2nd July, 1945, when the functions to appoint magistrates and create districts were transferred from the Governor-General to the Ministers of Justice and of Bantu Administration and Development, respectively. As the Act reads, these functions could only be exercised in those districts or areas which were under their control in 1945, and the power was not expressly conferred at the same time to include in future in the creation of districts areas which are under the control of the one or the other and to obtain administrative control by appointing magistrates in an area which previously was under the control of the other. The amendments contained in clauses 7 and 8 confer express powers in this regard, i.e what was previously considered to be tacit powers.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, provides that a court may stop the trial of any person and order that an inquiry be held in terms of section 30 of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971. In view of the fact that the Coloured Persons Representative Council of the Republic of South Africa itself has now passed a Coloured Persons Rehabilitation Centres Law, namely Law No. 1 of 1971, it is being provided by this clause that inquiries in regard to Coloured Persons may be held in terms of that Law; and while I am dealing with this matter, Sir, I want to refer to clause 31 as well. By virtue of the passing of the Coloured Persons Rehabilitation Centres Law, 1971, by the Coloured Persons Representative Council, the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1963, which is still applicable in so far as it is necessary for the administration thereof by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, is being repealed by clause 31.

I shall deal with clauses 10 and 25 later on.

Clauses 11 and 12, Sir, are aimed at supplying a deficiency in the Act. At the moment the Water Act provides that if upon receipt of an application for an irrigation loan, the Minister is satisfied as to the security offered, he shall cause an estimate to be made of the probable cost of the work in respect of which such loan is required. After that he may submit the application for a loan with his recommendation to the State President, who may order that an irrigation loan be made to the applicant, who is usually an irrigation board. The law advisers have expressed the opinion that the Act only contemplates a non-recurring loan and that the Act does not make provision for any revision of the original estimate of the probable cost. Now, it happens in practice that after an estimate of the cost of a scheme has been made, tenders are invited for the execution of the works. As a result of rising costs during the interval between the date on which the estimate is made by the Minister and the date on which tenders are received, it happens that the tender amounts exceed the estimated cost of the scheme, and in the light of this legal opinion it is not possible to get a supplementary loan approved by the State President. For that reason provision is made in clause 11 for a revised estimate and the granting of a supplementary loan, still subject to the condition that if the revised estimate exceeds R150 000, the approval of both Houses of Parliament must be obtained. Clause 12 is self-explanatory. It may happen that there is a rise in costs in respect of water-works already under construction, or that it appears after completion that the cost is higher than the estimated cost; in those cases, too, provision is being made for the revision of the probable or actual cost in respect of works for which a loan was originally requested.

As far as clause 13 is concerned, and clause 29 is connected with it, the provision for the imposition of a compensating fine with the alternative of imprisonment in default of payment in the case of stock-theft cases, is now being substituted in effect by the provisions of section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, in terms of which a court may in certain circumstances order a convicted person to pay compensation to the injured party. In effect this means that the same statutory provisions will be applicable in the case where damage or loss is suffered as a result of stock theft as are applicable in the case of damage to or loss or other property.

In regard to this provision I may refer to the judgment of the Natal Provincial Division in the case of the State v. Hlatswayo and Others, 1969 (2) 497. In that case a full bench of the Natal Judiciary, consisting of three judges, gave a detailed survey of the effects of the provisions of section 15 of the Stock Theft Act, 1959, and the dubious purpose served by them, and suggested that serious consideration be given to the repeal of this section. It appears that the provisions relating to the imposition of a compensating fine with the alternative of imprisonment in default of payment thereof are not aimed at punishing offenders, but at persuading them to pay the fine. In practice, however, this has the effect of “punishment”. Experience gained over all these years during which this provision has been on the Statute Book, shows indisputably that it is therefore not serving the purpose for which it was placed on the Statute Book. We consulted widely on this matter, namely Judges, magistrates, attorneys-general, the Commissioner of the South African Police, and so forth, and I may say that the support for the repeal of the provision in question is overwhelming. It goes without saying that the South African Agricultural Union as well as the South-West African Agricultural Union were consulted in this regard. Both of those unions endorse the principle that the provisions of section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, should apply in the place of section 15 of the Stock Theft Act.

Clauses 14 to 19 are self-explanatory. Clauses 14 increases the maximum pension payable to Judges upon retirement. At the moment the maximum pension is pegged at a period of 15 years’ service. However, upon retirement the vast majority of the judges will have completed considerably more than 15 years’ service. The maximum for which provision is made in clause 14 now, will be payable after the completion of 20 years’ service. I may mention that the basis on which pensions are payable to judges, was last amended in 1968. As far as the widows of Judges are concerned, the judges are prepared to pay in 50 per cent more in respect of monthly contributions towards income in respect of widows’ pensions. Clauses 15 to 19 deal with this matter. As far as clause 20 is concerned, Sir, the law advisers have expressed the opinion that any person appointed as appraiser under the Administration of Estates Act, 1965, holds an office of profit under the Republic, and that such a person shall consequently, by virtue of the provisions of section 55 of the Constitution, not be capable of being elected or nominated or of sitting as a member of the Senate or the House of Assembly. Of course, the provisions of section 55 shall, by virtue of the provisions of section 70 of the Constitution, mutatis mutandis apply to members of the provincial councils. The law advisers have based their opinion on, inter alia, the fact that appraisers are appointed by a Minister of the Republic; that their appointment may at any time be cancelled by the Minister concerned; that their powers and duties are laid down in the Act; and that their remuneration is calculated in accordance with a tariff prescribed by regulation. Now, it is true that appraisers are in point of fact not in the service of the State, and although their remuneration is determined by the authorities they are not remunerated by the authorities for their services, with the result that there is no reason why such persons should be incapable of being a member of the Senate, the House of Assembly or a provincial council. Hence this amendment. Perhaps they would find themselves in an unenviable position if a good voter of theirs were to ask them to make an appraisement which he would like to have. I would not like to be in their position in such a case.

The object of clause 21 ought to be clear after all the publicity about the killing of dogs, and there is hardly any need for me to say any more about this matter. It is being proposed to deal with the matter in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph (c) of clause 21, so that action may be taken whenever the circumstances of a particular case call for it. The view should not be taken that the killing of every animal imaginable is going to be prohibited. Every situation will be judged in the light of its own circumstances, and, where possible, bodies will be consulted.

As far as clause 22 is concerned, the Transkei consists, in terms of section 2 of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, of all the Bantu areas in the districts referred to in that section. In some the towns in the White areas in those districts only a few White landowners are left at the moment, and most of the towns have been zoned for occupation by the Bantu. The amendment in this clause will make it possible for the control, organization and administration of such part of the Police Force stationed in these towns, to be transferred to the Government of the Transkei.

This brings me to clause 23. The interpretation attached to the provisions of section 4 (1) and (2) of the Dangerous Weapons Act by the Supreme Court is that the imposition of sentence of imprisonment is compulsory, also in those cases where the circumstances justify the imposition of a sentence lighter than the one prescribed, and that imprisonment so imposed may not be suspended in whole or in part. Of course, the intention was merely that it ought not to be possible for the minimum or a more severe sentence to be suspended. Furthermore, it appears from certain cases that the compulsory imposition of imprisonment in those cases where a lighter sentence is justified, may have an aggravating effect. That is the reason for the amendment in clause 23.