Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the documents tabled, hon. members will note that provision is made for additional expenditure amounting to approximately R92,8 million which requires to be defrayed from revenue funds during the 1976-’77 financial year.

As is customary, the earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main budget is presented to the House on 9 March and I shall, therefore, not comment on the revenue prospects at this stage.

The increase in expenditure is attributable mainly to the salary improvements granted to the staff with effect from 1 July 1976, while the rise in the general price level and, more particularly, the increase in the price of steel, coal, electricity and oil—of which the Administration is a relatively large consumer— as well as the higher rate at which the Administration has contributed to the Superannuation Fund from 1 October 1976, also adversely affected expenditure. The total increase in expenditure would, no doubt, have been considerably higher had the Administration’s intensive economy campaign not met with such favourable reaction.

Under the main head “Railways” an additional amount of R82,8 million is required, mainly in respect of transportation services, as indicated under head No. 1 “Administrative and General Charges”; head No. 2 “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”; head No. 3 “Maintenance of Rolling Stock”; head No. 4 “Motive Power Operating Expenses”, and head No. 5 “Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses”. Apart from the reasons I have already furnished, the higher prices of material, spares, increased charges for the hire of rolling stock and greater provision for claims payments resulting from higher prices of commodities, also contributed to the additional expenditure under these heads.

Included in the abovementioned amount is R5,2 million for subsidiary services, primarily in respect of head No. 11 “Catering and Bedding Services”; head No. 14 “Precooling Services”; head No. 15 “Road Transport Service” and head No. 16 “Tourist Service. The increased expenditure under these heads is attributable, inter alia, to more meals having been served as a result of the transport of military units, increased prices of maintenance material, escalating prices of spares and fuel, more hotel reservations and higher transport costs for tourists.

Also included is an amount of R3,8 million in respect of head No. 18—Net Revenue Account (Interest on Capital)—to cover additional expenditure, mainly on account of loan funds having been drawn earlier than anticipated.

Of the additional amount of R29,4 million required under head No. 19—Net Revenue Account (Miscellaneous Expenditure)—R6,5 million is to be appropriated to cover the loss on the realization of investments, whilst interest on bank overdrafts and temporarily overdrawn balances entails additional expenditure of some R5,8 million. Provision has to be made also for an amount of R15 million which requires to be paid to Iscor in respect of the proportion of the working deficit for the current financial year on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line for which the Administration is liable in terms of the take-over agreement.

Under the main head “Harbours”, an additional amount of R5,2 million is required, of which R1,6 million requires to be voted under head No. 21—Working and Maintenance—to provide, mainly for rising maintenance costs, increased fuel prices and higher electricity tariffs, whilst an amount of R3,3 million is sought under head No. 25—Net Revenue Account (Interest on Capital)—to cover increased interest charges on account of appropriated loan funds being higher than anticipated.

Under “Airways” provision is made for an additional amount of R3,8 million, the increase being under head No. 31—Working and Maintenance—and is due to factors such as escalating prices of spares, the employment of additional staff, and more equipment for new aircraft.

*I come now to the Brown Book items. Hon. members will observe that provision is made for additional expenditure in the amount of approximately R247,9 million in respect of capital and betterment works. Of this amount R140,7 million will be acquired by means of additional loans, R2,3 million from the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund, and R2 million from the Elimination of Level Crossings Fund. The balance of approximately R102,9 million will be made available by means of savings on existing appropriations.

Under head No. IC—Construction of Harbours—an additional cash provision of R56,4 million is required. The total cost of the Richards Bay project is now estimated at R338,5 million, a net increase of R65,l million on the existing estimate. The additional cost in respect of the railway portion, viz R9,3 million, is attributable mainly to exchange rate fluctuations owing to the devaluation of the rand, more fill material which was required for the berm wall owing to settlement and the displacement of silt, more office accommodation and facilities, a more extensive water network and draining system and more telecommunication and electrical light and power services. The additional cost in respect of the harbour portion amounts to R60,6 million. This increase is attributable to exchange rate fluctuations, owing to the devaluation of the rand and the revaluation of the guilder, cost increases in contract work during the duration of the contract, more dredging work, the raising of the southern breakwater and the use of pneumatic caisson foundations.

In the estimates of expenditure on capital and betterment works for 1967-’77 the estimated total cost in respect of item No. 6—Richards Bay: Yard lay-out in harbour area; rail link between marshalling yard and harbour: First Stage—was put at R31,4 million. Hon. members will note, however, that provision is now being made for a total amount of only R26,6 million, a net reduction therefore of R4,8 million. This reduction is attributable mainly to the fact that it was not possible to draw up a reliable estimate in respect of earthworks because a portion thereof had to be undertaken in a swamp area and detailed particulars of requirements were not available when the estimates in respect of the passenger saloon and wagon depots were prepared. Favourable contract prices resulted in savings. Since the rail link was put into operation three months before the envisaged date, the interest charges were also reduced by a considerable amount. In order to defray expected expenditure during the present financial year, an additional amount of only R80 000 is required in respect of this item, while the existing cash provision in respect of the railway portion and the harbour portion of the project has to be increased by R4,5 million and R51,8 million, respectively.

An additional cash provision in the amount of R16,5 million is required under head No. 1—Construction of Railways. For the information of hon. members I want to mention that the estimated total cost of the new railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and Ermelo has been increased from R2,3 million to R45,l million. The principal reasons for this increase are the escalating costs of labour, materials and contract work, as well as the exceptionally high rainfall, which caused landslides with considerable damage to earthworks, fences and drainage. An additional cash appropriation of approximately R4 million is required for this project. Furthermore, hon. members will note than an additional amount of R22,8 million is required in respect of the railway line between Kensington and Bellville, of which R6,3 million has to be appropriated during the present financial year. By way of explanation it may be mentioned that the original estimate, which was drawn up during 1971, was only a provisional one since the full extent of the project was not known. The revised estimate makes provision for additional costs, inter alia, in respect of additional earthworks and soil, the diversion of public services, an additional railway line of 18,2 km with a view to an expected increase in the number of passengers and siding facilities for the Defence Force at Acasia Park, increased costs of bridges, culverts, stations, substations and other buildings, telecommunications and signalling, as well as increased requirements for junctions and increased interest payments as a result of the increased cost of the scheme and escalating costs in respect of electrification and lighting.

The total cost of the new electrified double line from Table Bay harbour to the Kensington-Chempet line is now estimated at R18,3 million, an increase of R9,3 million. The reasons for the additional cost are to a large extent the same as those for the railway line between Kensington and Bellville. An additional amount of R2,8 million is required during the current financial year for this project. Further cash appropriations in respect of the railway lines between Amot power station and Wonderfontein and between Vryheid (Sikame) and the Empangeni-Richards Bay railway line in the amount of R1,3 million and R1,4 million, respectively, will also have to be made in order to meet the expected expenditure owing to increased costs and contractual obligations during the present financial year.

Under head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional amount of R52,8 million has to be appropriated. An amount of R2,l million is required to defray belated debits for which provision has to be made in terms of a resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, while the original appropriated amount of R7,5 million for the Elimination of Railway Crossings Fund has to be increased by R2 million owing to increased costs. A total cash provision of R48,l million is required for various works under this head as a result of contract work with which more rapid progress was made than was anticipated, escalating costs of materials and labour, the devaluation of the rand and the expediting of work of an urgent nature, such as containerization, the coal export project and electrification schemes.

The additional appropriation which is being made under head No. 3—Rolling Stock— amounts to approximately R32,l million. A cash provision of R16,5 million has to be appropriated in respect of a large number of items to cover additional expenditure as a result of escalating costs and the devaluation of the rand, as well as to make provision for amendments to delivery agreements.

As a result of ever-increasing costs and the attendant detrimental affect on the balances in certain subsections of the Renewals Fund, an additional appropriation in the amount of R15,6 million is consequently required in respect of item No. 1234—100 diesel locomotives—and item No. 1407—2 000 covered wagons—of the 1976-’77 Brown Book.

An additional cash provision in the amount of R5,l million has to be made under head No. 4—Road Transport Service. Owing to the unfavourable balance in the subsection “Road Transport Service” of the Renewals Fund as a result of escalating costs and the devaluation of the rand, an additional appropriation of R4,8 million is required in respect of item No. 1508—Additions to and Replacement of Vehicles—of the 1976-’77 Brown Book. The estimated total cost of this item is also being increased by R2,8 million to R12,6 million.

Under head No. 5—Harbours—an additional appropriation of R12,8 million is required, primarily in respect of urgent contract work which was expedited, and also because of escalating costs.

In respect of head No. 6—Airways—an additional appropriation of R20,7 million is required, of which R15 million will be applied for the purchase of three Boeing 747 aircraft—Item No. 1629 of the 1976-’77 Brown Book—which will now be financed from loan moneys instead from the Renewals Fund as a result of the unfavourable balance in the subsection “Aircraft” of the Renewals Fund.

Also in respect of item No. 1631—Three Boeing 747SP aircraft—an additional cash provision of R2,l million is required as a result of compulsory alteration instructions and the devaluation of the rand. A further amount of R3,4 million is required under this head, mainly as a result of contractors who expedited work, and also as a result of the conversion of five Boeing 747-244B aircraft.

Under head No. 7—Pipelines—almost the full additional amount of R9,5 million which has to be appropriated is required to meet contractual obligations in respect of the additional pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand.

An additional amount of R42 million is required under head No. 8—Working Capital. Despite drastic economy measures by the Railways, which Were aimed at ensuring that the total accumulated appropriation as at 31 March 1977 was not exceeded, it is necessary for the aforementioned additional amount to be appropriated in respect of stores stock— working capital. Of this amount R24 million is in respect of spare parts for the Airbus and Boeing aircraft. The balance of R18 million is required primarily on account of the effect of inflation and the devaluation of the rand, as well as the quicker rate at which supplies have been delivered owing to the slump in the industrial sector.

In addition the cut back on maintenance works on sections and by the civil department as a result of the financial situation was directly responsible for the build up of permanent way material in the Stores Stock Account. Together with the R19 million appropriated in the main estimates for 1976-’77, the total accumulated appropriation on 31 March 1977 will therefore amount to R299,l million.

Summarized the position is that appropriations from revenue funds require to be increased by R92,8 million and those in respect of capital and betterment works by R247,9 million.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his elucidation of the Bill. He quietly and calmly allowed a series of figures to flow from his lips, which might have made everyone sigh and feel good, because the figures sounded like those of an ordinary budget. However, we have learnt from experience that when the hon. the Minister rises in this House, South Africa must prepare itself for shocks. The hon. the Minister has reached a new height with this additional appropriation. He is asking for an additional R340 million, which does not sound like much if one says it quickly enough. However, if one expresses it as a ratio of the budget, one finds that it is an increase of more than 44% on the original budget and an increase of 49% on the additional appropriation of last year—almost twice the amount the hon. the Minister requested from this House in his additional appropriation a year ago.

†When it comes to shocks, this hon. Minister and the Government are dealing them out in a manner which is completely out-doing Escom, both in frequency and in high voltage.

Let us first take a look at the Revenue Account. I can understand that the hon. the Minister and his department are themselves a victim of the economic shambles which the Government has created in South Africa. As a large organization, the S.A. Railways cannot escape the economic shambles which his own colleagues have helped to create through their mismanagement of the financial scene in our country. What did we hear, for example? We heard the plaintive cry of devaluation three or four times in the hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon, how devaluation had been responsible for the excalation of costs. It was, however, in 1975 that the hon. the Minister of Finance devalued the rand by 18%. I can still hear and see, echoeing in my memory, the hon. the Minister of Finance talking in lyrical terms of that brilliant and magnificent devaluation, a devaluation which was going to hurt nobody, which would do no harm, which would increase the value of our exports and which would improve our balance of payments.

The lyrical praise of devaluation made some of us wonder whether economics, in fact, had changed into a completely new subject since any of us had heard anything about it. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, however, Now we find a member of the same Cabinet standing up not to praise devaluation but to bury the consequences of the slaughter which it has created in his own department. The chickens, Mr. Speaker, have come home to roost in a big way.

What is the other explanation the hon. the Minister gives? Right at the beginning he said that the increase in the expenditure was attributable mainly to the salary improvements granted to the staff with effect from 1 July 1976. Why does he not tell the House that he increased tarrifs by 10% to cover that increase in salaries and wages? Why does he keep quiet about the increase in tarrifs which he imposed on every railway user in South Africa? However, he places the blame on the salary increases so that it will appear to the people of South Africa that this additional estimate of R92 million is because he has treated his Railway staff so well by giving them an increase and that we are now having to pay for it. What are the facts? I have the estimates here. Let us look at them. Let us take head No. 1—Administrative and General Charges. This head, which includes the hon. the Minister’s office, the General Manager’s office and the accounting office, shows an increase of R2,5 million. This represents an increase of 3,6% and I accept that this is a staff increase. This also includes the Railway Commissioners, and there has been an increase in staff costs. Let us turn to head No. 2. Here we find that of the approximately R13 million asked for, only 9% involves salaries and wages, and that 91% is accounted for by other reasons. An amount of R1,2 million is required for salaries and wages in respect of general superintendence, and this represents 9% of the increase. Let us now look at the next head, head No. 3. Under this head the increase in wages, totalling just over R1 million, represents 8% of the amount, and 92% of the remaining increase is attributable to other reasons. Under head No. 4—Motive Power Operating Expenses—wages represent 33%. This is only one-third. Two-thirds are attributed to other reasons. So one can go right through this book, and yet the hon. the Minister stands up in the House and says that the increase is attributable mainly to salary improvements when these expenses represent less than 10% of the total

He also says no word about the increase in tariffs which he introduced in order to cover the increase. He then tries to blame it on the staff, but what has he done to the staff? One of the major cuts in the estimates is that he has reduced the money available for staff housing loans by R8,75 million. He has cut the staff housing money by 33%, but he tries to make out that it is the increase in respect of staff which has caused him to come to the House to ask for this money.

In contrast, let us look at some of the items. An amount of R15 million is required for the take-over of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line to cover losses for part of the year only. What is following, however, is another R1 000 million out of capital account which he is going to have to cover in loans. I remember that when the building of that line was debated here, his predecessor said it would cost R600 million while his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, said that it was nonsense and that it would cost R400 million. What is it going to be now? It is now going to be R1 000 million, which that hon. Minister is going to have to find.

It is not his fault, though.

It is not his fault because he has inherited the situation, but he shares joint Cabinet responsibility because he is a member of the Cabinet. I have not heard him criticizing his colleagues or resigning in shame because of what his colleagues in the Cabinet are doing. He glibly speaks of an overdraft of R5,8 million, but even an overdraft rate of 10% would mean that he has incurred an overdraft of more than the R58 million.

It seems that Wassenaar was right!

He has had to sell assets at a loss of R6,5 million and he has had to provide an additional R3,8 million for interest because he has had to draw on loan funds sooner than planned. These are all signs of a shortage of money which has forced him to borrow, to sell assets and to draw loans in advance of expectation. If one looks at the capital account, however, one gets the 35 000-volt shock. There are two aspects of this I want to mention. Firstly, I charge the hon. the Minister with making a mockery of parliamentary budgeting in this House. He is making a mockery of the principle of coming to Parliament with estimates that one asks Parliament to accept. What is the position? In the capital budget in increases amount to 28% and the savings to 12%, in other words a 40% deviation from what he asked for last year when he laid the budget before this House. If that is not treating budgeting with contempt, I do not know what is, and here I am referring to the fact that he comes to Parliament before the end of the year for which he has budgeted with no apology for being 40% out in his budgeting and asking for an extra 40% to put matters right.

This, I believe, is not only contempt for budgeting; it is expecting Parliament to act as a rubber stamp for budgetary inefficiency. He comes along here and simply expects Parliament to automatically give its stamp of approval, ignoring the inefficiency. Let us look at the picture of harbour construction. The figure involved here is R56 million.

Exaggeration has never proved anything.

Those are simply facts.

If that hon. member thinks it is exaggeration to talk of a 40% deviation as contempt for budgeting, I wonder how he would run a business. If he tried to run a business with a 40% error in his budgeting, he would not last long. He would soon be in the ranks of Rand Bank and all the rest. A moment ago I mentioned harbour construction. Richards Bay was the main cause for an increase of R56 million, which is a 138% increase, well over double the amount. Is that budgeting? I remember so clearly how, in this House, I was the victim of his predecessor’s tongue. I challenged his predecessor, Mr. Schoeman, to deny that the cost of Richards Bay would be much more than the R235 million for which he was asking. He pooh-poohed the idea and slated me and asked me whether I knew what I was talking about. He said that the whole project was being carried out by tender, that the contracts had been signed and that it could therefore not cost one cent more. However, what do we have today? In item after item the hon. the Minister asks for more money for Richards Bay.

He is like the Chattanooga choo-choo.

Those hon. members, however, say it is not bad budgeting. They do not think this is anything to worry about. In the case of railways construction there is an increase of R16 million or 35%. Incidentally, am I wrong in saying that work on the Kensington-Bellville line, which is one of the projects for which additional money is to be voted, is being suspended and will not be continued with next year beyond the money now being voted? Work on another of the lines, to which reference is made, is also being discontinued as far as I know. Yet there is a 35% increase in respect of railways construction as well as a 14% saving. In other words, there is a 66% variation from what the House was asked to vote. There is 35% more required in respect of certain items and 31% less in respect of others for which the House was asked to vote money. Then there is the Betterment Fund in respect of which R50 million is concerned. That, of course, is a bookkeeping juggle because the hon. the Minister does not have the money. He is not paying in R25 million—a R50 million variation. He is gambling with the future for which that fund was established. We shall watch the Betterment Fund and the Renewals Fund with interest when the main budget is introduced on 9 March.

Let us look at some of the other heads of expenditure. Let us look at the position with regard to rolling stock. At a time of diminishing traffic and less demand, and while the hon. the Minister has said that because of the drop in the economy there is not the same traffic, there is an increase of 26% in rolling stock. In road motor transport there is an increase of 54%. Yet I understand—just to mention one example—that a new bus service has been introduced between Upington and Kakamas. The bus runs right alongside the railway line on which trains travel with empty wagons. Yet the hon. the Minister spends an extra 54% on road transport vehicles to run a bus service parallel to the railway line on which trains travel with empty wagons.

That is a good example of parallel development.

Yes, Sir, my hon. colleague is right in saying that that is a very good example of parallel development. In the case of harbour works there is an increase of 38% and in respect of pipelines 30%.

Then we get to working capital. The increase in respect of working capital amounts to 100%.

*Then the hon. member for Piketberg says that I am exaggerating when I say that this appropriation is making a mockery of the principle of budgeting. There is not sufficient time in a debate like this to deal in detail with all the items for which provision is being made in these estimates. If there is an opportunity to do so, some of my colleagues will raise some of these matters in the Committee Stage. In the case of the Table Bay harbour scheme, for instance, there is an increase of 842,82% on one item and on another item there is an increase of 74%. The Table Bay harbour scheme is now in the third phase.

There are numerous examples like this. One of the points that emerges clearly is that the hon. the Minister has no idea when the materials he ordered will be delivered. In many cases—there are numerous pages on that—rolling stock was delivered earlier than anticipated and that led to additional costs. This is in addition to the wonderful devaluation that was so good for South Africa. Does the Railways not enter into contracts? Does the hon. the Minister not know when something that he ordered, will be delivered?

Let us look at another item under road transport in respect of which there was an increase of 134% in consequence of the early delivery of trucks. I accept that much of the road transport material that was ordered is required for containerization purposes, but officially containerization will be introduced only later this year. The harbours are not ready yet, but the trucks and the tractors are there already. I have figures here of the number of trucks and trailers that have already been delivered and are standing on blocks.

However, I do not have the time at the moment to go into that. One can see the trailers along the national road on one’s way to Parliament. Can deliveries not be organized in a way so as to eliminate an increase of 134% mainly in respect of trucks that will be put into service only later this year and at the beginning of next year?

†Then I should like to deal with one other specific issue. I asked the hon. the Minister a question on 4 February about modifications to Boeing 747SPs and I asked amongst other things what the cost would be. His answer was, and I quote—

1. (c) The modification cost was included in a package deal negotiated with the Boeing Company when the last three aircraft were acquired.

What do I find here, Mr. Speaker? I find on page 33 of the estimates an item of R3 200 000 for modifications to aircraft. There is another item for R70 000, which is an old item. The hon. the Minister, in reply to a question in this House, when I asked him what the cost would be, said that the modification costs were included in the package deal in the purchase of three other aircraft. However, here he asks for this amount separately.

What does it all mean? It means in simple terminology that the Railways are in trouble. If one links this with the published figures in the income and expenditure account, what does one find? I want to say that had this been a public company it would be verging on, if not joining, the Glen Anils and the Transterras of South Africa which failed because of lack of liquidity and lack of access to capital. It would be verging towards if not joining Rondaba Bank and Rand Bank, which could not raise the capital, the liquidity, to meet their commitments. It would be verging on, if not joining Glen Anil, which could not raise money which it required in hard cash. The budget will reveal the full facts. I believe we are in serious trouble with capital funding in South Africa and in the Railways. Seeing that this is not a public company, the hon. the Minister comes to this House and in calm and quiet terms rolls off a lot of figures which, added up, mean an additional R212 million if one takes into account the savings. This is indeed a sombre picture for South Africa.

I am going to stick my neck out and I am going to forecast that South Africa is in for another shock. Tariff increases of between 10% and 20% will be imposed and I shall tell you where some of them are going to have to be. Passenger main line tariffs will have to be increased by anything up to 20%. I forecast that tariffs on goods traffic will increase by between 5% and 15%, on parcels by 10% and on air fares by between 10% and 15%. What is more, the milch cow of South Africa, the motorist, will find the pipeline tariffs going up and I forecast at least another cent per litre on petrol.

We cannot refuse to pass this money, but there is an answer, and I am going to put it to the hon. the Minister. I am going to suggest that he takes a look at what another railway has done. The London Financial Times of January this year described what the British Railways have done in order to overcome some of their problems. What they have done is to create a board of directors on to which they have placed their top management and into which they have brought specialists from private enterprise, specialists who are experienced and successful businessmen and who are experts in their field. For instance, they have a man to deal with marketing. They have a man to deal with personnel, a man to deal with engineering and research. They have their own chief executives. They have a man who, until last October, was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury of the British Government. This chief economic adviser has been brought in as a director. I suggest he should dump his politically appointed Railway Commissioners … [Interjection] … who have no definite experience, no business experience at all, and instead, create a board of directors in which his top management will serve, but which will have in it the best brains which South Africa can offer. [Interjections.] I believe that the Railways are moving to a crisis, and I believe that there are better brains walking round South Africa on any street at any given moment than that hon. Minister can find in all the serried ranks of his own supporters. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I believe he could pick them up by a twenty, a hundred, for every one of his members on those benches. Mr. Speaker, the time has come that our Railways are heading for trouble, are heading for a crisis, and the time has come to call on the goodwill of the experienced and successful businessmen of South Africa, to call them in to ask them to help us to put this vast organization, this organization which has become one of the victims of the Government’s own economic failure, back on the road to financial health.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to point out to him that, in his portrayal of a sombre picture of the S.A. Railways and its future, the calculations he made were somewhat astonishing. I want to give him advice. Last year, the hon. member for Maitland said that he had bought himself a pocket calculator to do his calculation for him. I want to urge the hon. member for Durban Point to buy himself a pocket calculator as well to solve his calculating problems for him. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point computes his percentages in an extraordinary way. According to his manner of calculation, it works out that if the UP has lost 6 of its 36 members, that is one-sixth. This is about 16%. Now the Independent UP has received an additional six members. This therefore represents an increase of 100%. According to the hon. member for Durban Point, the difference would therefore be 116%. [Interjections.] This is precisely how the hon. member for Durban Point sets about discussing the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, for someone who styles himself the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on this matter, it is absolutely outrageous, in my opinion, that he should compare the Railways to a body such as Glen Anil, and then add in the same breath that the Railways are on the brink of bankruptcy. At the same time, the hon. member for Durban Point is one of those people who claims to be so patriotic. However, is this the picture of the S.A. Railways which he presents to the outside world?

I was discussing liquidity and capital—specifically and clearly! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, looking at this Appropriation Bill—and if we consider in the first place the additional amount being requested from the Revenue Account—we note that an additional R92 million is being requested from the Revenue Account. The hon. the Minister explained in clear detail what amounts were required and why they were required. To put it in a nutshell, what this amounts to is that an extra R92 million is being requested from the Revenue Account.

If then, we take a factor such as electricity, something over which the S.A. Railways has no control—and Escom has raised its power tariffs—we note that the additional amount required for the provision of electrical power alone amounts to R4,4 million. In addition, there is the fuel factor. Fuel prices are another matter over which the Railways have no control. As regards the supply of fuel, an extra amount of R3,6 million is being requested. These latter two amounts, taken together, already add up to R8 million. Then there are the salaries and wages. It is true that the hon. member referred to them, but he dealt with the various heads of the vote in which additional salaries were budgeted for. He says, therefore, that it was a case of R1 million here and R3 million there, that under another head, therefore, it is R5 million, and tries to make it a ridiculous percentage—say 10% … The hon. member did not calculate a sum total and give it to us, however. He did not say how many million rand the additional salary appropriation amounted to, or how much of this appropriation of additional expenditure would go towards it. He did not do this. Furthermore there is an increase of about R7 million to R8 million in respect of the interest burden on the Railways and Harbours alone. Now the hon. member is kicking up a big row because certain goods are delivered faster. It is natural, obvious and completely logical that in times of economic recession and work shortage, any normal industry or factory with which the Railways place an order, will do its best to deliver the goods on time, or earlier. For this reason, one can expect that in these times, when there is a slump in the economy, the products and equipment which one buys will be delivered more quickly. Surely this is obvious? For that purpose, there is an amount of approximately R8 million in this appropriation and if one considers the amount of R15 million which is being provided for the Sishen-Saldanha project, you only have three items of additional expenditure of R8 million, R8 million and R15 million respectively. One does not need a machine to calculate that this already constitutes R31 million of the R92 million, or 33% of what has been budgeted for. One cannot therefore label the budget as “mockery budgeting”. To tell the truth, I think it is successful, because to budget in these days is no easy task for the Railways.

Let us take the capital programme which the hon. member was just as vitriolic about. What I cannot understand about the hon. members is that in the past they attacked us time and time again for completing the capital projects too slowly. This was one of their main points of attack in the past. However, now that financial circumstances are no longer so sound, and now that we are looking at the capital programme and asking for an additional R247 million, we are being attacked yet again.

The hon. member is not painting a true picture, however. It is true that the Railways are asking for R247 million under the different votes but the hon. member has not analysed the R102 million they have saved under the various votes. Consequently, the House is not being asked to vote an additional R247 million for the capital programme. An amount of only R145 million is being requested. Now, if an additional amount of R145 million is requested for a capital programme of approximately R800 million— if I remember correctly—then the S.A. Railways are said to be bankrupt. I say that this is a scandalous thing to say because the amount being requested is minimal, if one bears in mind that the overall budget figure is approximately R3 000 million. If we look at the capital programme and analyse it to see how the R247 million is made up, we find that R51 million is being requested for the extension of Richards Bay. A further R5,6 million is being requested for multi-purpose bulk handling appliances. So altogether, it is R56 million for Richards Bay. It is important that the S.A. Railways concentrate on Richards Bay, particularly in these days when we have to earn foreign exchange and export our products in order to do so. However, the Railways are now being censured and the Government attacked because establishment of the infrastructure is being stressed so as to earn foreign exchange for South Africa and projects of this type are being expedited. I think this is a poor show. We can go further. There is the R42 million for additional stores stock. It is true that we have procured these aircraft and, as the hon. the Minister said, the greater part of that amount was spent on spare parts for those aeroplanes. What a tragedy it would be if we did not have spares for these aeroplanes. The slightest mishap would strand them on the airports. Then we would really hear the United Party supporters complaining! We would never hear the end of the story. I really think one must be reasonable and fair in one’s criticism. As I have already said, it is obvious that we can expect, with regard to the capital programme, that any contractor in these times will speed up his tasks because work is not plentiful. Consequently, they can concentrate more fully on them and we must expect that these projects will be completed more quickly and that one will require additional capital for them, and if one requires additional capital for them, one must make provision for additional interest on them.

There is another factor which the hon. member mentioned here. It is all very well to say that the tariffs have been raised, but we must bear in mind that an import deposit has been placed on all imports. All of us sitting here today know that those commodities which are imported comprise high-rated traffic. We increase our exports, discourage our imports, in other words, our trains to the harbours are fully laden, but they must come back empty. This is not taken into consideration, because import deposits, over which the South African Railways have no control, have resulted in congestion in the traffic being handled. These are factors which one must take into account. The hon. member stresses on the capital expenditure of R247 million, which is actually R145 million because R102 million of it constitutes savings. If a further analysis of savings is made it is found that there is a re-apportionment of approximately R25 million. Items which would originally have been financed from renewal funds will now, however, have to be provided for out of loan capital.

In contrast to the hon. member for Durban Point, and in view of the extremely difficult times we are living in, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my wholehearted congratulations to the South African Railways on this budget. They are right on target with it. That ridiculous image which the hon. member tried to present to the House is not a correct one. I want to point out in particular that the saving, which amounts to more than R102 million, is now going to be used for more essential things. No, Sir. If one uses percentages, one must not calculate them as the hon. member has done. I regard it as a privilege to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, one realized that perhaps the Whips on the other side did a good job in picking their man for the job, because when they want somebody to try to defend an indefensible position, I cannot think of a better person than that noisy member who can take such an over-simplistic view and talk absolute rubbish for ten minutes in order to try to befog the w hole situation. [Interjections.] As I sat here listening to the hon. Minister producing figures in a very calm way and watching hon. members on the other side of the House smiling at the virtuoso performance of the hon. member for Durban Point, I felt very sorry for the country, because I do not think members on that side of the House realize the very serious implications an appropriation like this have for South Africa, the serious implications of capital shortages. Last year we had a record additional appropriation for Railways and Harbours, but this year we have reached even new heights with the hon. the Minister coming to this House and asking for an appropriation totalling over R340 million. It is interesting to see what stage we have reached with these additional appropriations. Five years ago the then hon. Minister was asking for less than 10% of the sum this hon. Minister is now asking for. In 1974, which was in this hon. Minister’s time, but still during the working period of the last hon. Minister, a mere R19 million was asked for. This year, however, the situation is very different, because we are being asked to appropriate what I believe is an unreasonable figure in terms of the total budget. In the Railways budget of last year—and the hon. the Minister was reminded of this by the hon. member for Durban Point, if he had forgotten it—he made huge tariff adjustments when he introduced a record budget of a little more than R3 070 million. He has now compounded this by asking for an additional 11%, making the total cost to the country for the year ending 31 March 1977 the unbelievable sum of R3 414 million. Listening to these figures, it is not surprising that hon. members on that side of the House are continually harking back to the days of the ox-wagon.

On closer examination this overspending is far more serious than it appears on the surface. The additional amount asked for, to be defrayed from revenue funds, is R92 million, which is just over 4% of the original estimate. This is serious enough, in all conscience, when one is dealing with a budget of this size. The additional amount requested for expenditure on capital and betterment works is an additional R247 887 000, or as the hon. member for Durban Point said, an increase of 28,75%. What sort of budgeting is this? How can the hon. the Minister come to this House and tell us that he has overshot capital expenditure by more than 30%? I believe this is almost treating Parliament with contempt. Why does the hon. the Minister bother to put in estimates at all? The differences are so outrageous that the whole concept of presenting estimates to this House has become ridiculous. The hon. the Minister’s story does not hang together, because he says in a very calm and placid voice that such and such is the factual situation, but he does not give us reasons that hang together. He says there is an increase here or there and he tells us about savings, but what one must realize is that in a time when stringent control over capital expenditure is vitally necessary, it is quite unbelievable that the hon. the Minister has the effrontery to tell us, in almost so many words, that he has not bothered to ensure that Railway expenditure has been kept to a reasonable level. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister in a question what steps had been taken by his department to effect economies in order to combat inflation. I received a long reply, a long part of the reply being from the Railways themselves, part of which stated that the loan fund requirements had been curtailed by R47 million for the year 1976-’77. This answer was obviously meaningless and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister exactly what economies have been affected. He has obviously cut back because he has chopped expenditure for new works on open lines, for example, by over R61 million, and there have been other savings. This makes the situation worse, because in spite of savings of almost R103 million in all, he has still overspent by nearly one-third of his original estimates. His total overspending is thus more than R350 million on capital and betterment works, and on revenue fund expenditure, where he has saved R25 million, the additional amount required is R117 million. The total additional amount required is therefore not what he is asking for in this Additional Appropriation Bill; he has mis-budgeted to the extent of R467 million.

The books have been juggled to make the situation look better, but what sort of budgeting is this that allows the original estimates to go up by this huge amount? It appears to me that the hon. the Minister and the Government have no conception at all of what it means to economize and cut Government spending. They do not seem to realize what their refusal to cut back is doing to the economy of our country. It is no good economizing in one direction and overspending outrageously in another. I just want to take a few of the items, because many of hem have been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point. An example is to be found under head No. 19 of the revenue estimates, namely the item “Loss on the realization of investments”, in respect of which an additional R6 500 000 is to be voted. What sort of investments are these? Why has it been necessary to sell them at this time? Why do we have to lose R6,5 million in what can only be injudicious investment? Under this head is another item, “Interest on bank overdrafts and temporarily overdrawn balances”, in respect of which an amount of R5,8 million is required. The Railways are living on credit. We cannot afford to pay this sort of money in interest on bank overdrafts and temporarily overdrawn balances. One can imagine how much we are overdrawn when one looks at the interest one has to pay, namely R5,8 million. Sir, the Railways are living on credit. I do not think we should allow the hon. the Minister to forget the nasty little R15 million compensation to Iscor, being the proportion to the working deficit for the 1976-’77 financial year on the Sishen/Saldanha railway line, for which the Administration is liable in terms of the agreement. I am afraid I must fault the hon. the Minister here, for ever having entered into that sort of agreement which allows the Railways to pay R15 million of the additional appropriation as its share of a working deficit. I wonder who ever persuaded the hon. the Minister to enter into this sort of agreement? We on these benches have on many occasions wondered about and questioned the whole operation of that Sishen/Saldanha line. Finally, as the hon. member for Durban Point has said, the chickens are coming home to roost. This has just meant R15 million, a mere R15 million that we now have to pay. In addition, working capital is 100% up. Why is this necessary? The hon. member for Durban Point is right; I think we are going to get tariff increases. I am interested to see that he is not being original in his statement because The Citizen forecast this. In fact, it more than forecast this; it stated it categorically, so much so that The Citizen seemed to have foreknowledge. It was not just guessing. It made a factual statement in a headline to the effect that tariffs were going to go up. I wonder how it knows this, and could state this so authoritatively.

There is one section of the hon. the Minister’s speech that I really did appreciate. He said right at the beginning of his speech that because of the fact that he was introducing the Railway budget on 9 March, he would not comment on revenue prospects at this stage. I am very sure that if revenue prospects were good, the hon. the Minister would be overflowing with these prospects. He would be quite prepared to tell us at this stage how wonderful these prospects were. If I have to forecast, I would like to forecast that revenue prospects are not very good, and that these funds, which are coming out of the public purse, are funds which we are not going to get back in revenue. It is a very depressing picture indeed. It indicates that this hon. Minister and this Government are not prepared to use self-restraint in spending. How do this hon. Minister and this Government expect South Africa to pull in its belt when they set this sort of example and when they are not prepared to cut spending? They are overspending to an enormous degree, and they do not even know what they are doing as far as budgeting is concerned because they make enormous budget errors. Members on the other side sit there and smile, although they are not smiling as much now.

If I do nothing else today I would like to drive home to that side of the House how serious the implications are of this sort of budget. Do they realize what sort of economic situation we are in? Perhaps they listen to the wonderful stories we hear from the hon. the Minister of Finance and they believe them. We find many of those stories very difficult to take. We realize just how serious this additional appropriation is, and during the Committee Stage we intend to ask further questions of the hon. the Minister. We hope he will come up with more convincing answers than he has so far provided.

Mr. Speaker, before looking at the budget figures themselves, I just want to make two remarks. We in these benches—and I assume that the whole of this House and the whole of South Africa acknowledge this—feel that the Railways play a key role in the economy of South Africa. Therefore it is obvious that if the economy is experiencing problems— particularly capital problems—the same problems will, to a greater or lesser degree, affect the Railways with its immense organization.

Therefore one must accept that the hon. the Minister would have experienced problems. However, the extent to which the hon. the Minister himself is also responsible for the economic position in which we are now, is of course another question, but it is a question which I should prefer to deal with at another stage.

Now I come to my second point. As far as I am concerned, the additional appropriation serves a very good purpose. To me, it is always an indication of the success or correctness or otherwise of the budgeting techniques. Therefore, if it is found that hundreds of millions of rands too many or too few were budgeted for, I ask myself whether there is not a snag somewhere which should be looked at very carefully.

The hon. the Minister is asking for R92 million on the Revenue Account and for an additional sum of R248 million on the Capital Account. As far as the Capital Account is concerned, the hon. member for Durban Point is quite correct. He has requested a record amount. Indeed, the amount requested last year, was already high. I just want to remind the hon. House that an amount of R131 million was requested on the Capital Account last year. We thought it was high then, but this year an amount of R248 million is being requested, an increase of nearly 89%. To me, this is an indication that something is wrong somewhere. Either the budgeting techniques are incorrect, or we are faced here with economic or other factors about which the hon. the Minister will have to inform us in detail. The hon. the Minister is asking this House to allocate an amount of R248 million in spite of the fact that he is aware of the economic conditions and in spite of the fact that he knows what a grave shortage of capital there is. He is doing it, too, in spite of the fact that last year in this House we urged him to go through his capital expenditure with a fine toothcomb to see where savings could possibly be effected. In spite of all that, the hon. the Minister is requesting this gigantic sum.

However, how is the amount of R248 million made up? This is rather interesting. An additional amount of R56 million is being requested for Richards Bay; i.e. 22,7% of the total amount. This is a considerable increase which one simply cannot brush aside as is being done. A thorough inquiry is necessary here. In this respect I think that the hon. the Minister owes us a very detailed reply. An amount of R5 1 million, or 20% of the total amount, ig being requested for new works; 13% for rolling stock; 8% for the Airways; 17% for stores stock and 18% for other additional factors. Looking at the budget situation as a layman, I find it extremely difficult to understand how an organ of the Government which is managed as competently as the Railways, with all the modern machinery and techniques at its disposal, can request these additional amounts. Therefore, I wonder if there was not something wrong with the budgeting techniques which the Government or the Railways used. Considerable amounts were requested previously for stores stock. R42 million, or 97% extra, is again being requested this year. However, it is said that R24 million is for Boeing and Airbus spares, but my argument is that the hon. the Minister and his department already knew last year that these things would happen. In my opinion one should include a high inflation factor and even a devaluation factor in one’s normal bookkeeping today. Therefore I just cannot understand how these figures be what they are. I am concerned that the Railways can be so wrong in this respect.

Let us look at the construction of harbours. R40 million has already been requested and now the hon. the Minister is asking for a further R56 million, which means an increase of 138%. Whatever factors may have caused this, I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister’s department or he himself was aware of some of those factors last year. They should therefore have already been taken into account last year when the hon. the Minister introduced his budget. I could continue in this vein.

Now I come to the question: Where are we going to get the R248 million? The hon. the Minister announced that he wants to negotiate loans to the value of R140 700 000. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has already made preparations for those loans. A large sum of money is involved here. It is a little more than what I have. Has the hon. Minister already made arrangements? Has he reason to hope that he will get it, and if so, where is he going to get it? Is he going to get it abroad? I think that the hon. the Minister owes the House an answer in this connection. Over and above the loan of R140 million which he wants to negotiate, he will receive R2,3 million from the Sinking Fund, R2 million from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, etc.—these are small amounts which I do not wish to make a fuss about. I shall leave it at that. What I find illuminating, is that in his attempt to get R248 million, the hon. the Minister borrows R140 million, and saves R102 million on eight heads alone. Last year we asked the hon. the Minister: “Go through your Capital Account and see what you can save. Curb expenditure, because difficult times are ahead. The economic winds are blowing cold.” The hon. the Minister replied that this was not possible. I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister nevertheless succeeded in saving R102 million. I really hope that, if he looks at it once again, he will be able to save a further R50 million or more in order to rectify this matter.

Let us look at revenue. To me, taking the additional appropriation as a criterion, the revenue is reasonable. In comparison with the previous year, the figure requested last year was approximately 5,7%, while it is 4,2% this year. Nevertheless, R92 million is not a sum of money to be sneezed at. Especially in view of the subnormal times in which we are living, this is a gigantic sum to request and a sum which will have to be properly accounted for. As regards the Railways, the amount is R83 million; for harbours, R4 million; for the Airways, R3,8 million and then there are yet other amounts which will give him the necessary sum of money. Of the total amount of R92 million being requested, the Railways itself takes R83 million and one-third of it is made up of R6,5 million which represents a loss on the realization of investments—this has already been discussed—R5,8 million which represents interest on overdrawn accounts, and then an amount of R15 million for Iscor.

We know what the hon. the Minister’s plans are in that connection. But after all, I thought that the hon. gentleman would use this occasion to give the House a little more information on this matter which is of considerable importance to South Africa. I do not want to give an historical survey of the matter. Time does not allow me to do so, but I nevertheless want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have already paid the first payment of R15 million. There are hundreds of millions of rands at stake, and this is money which will have to be found somewhere. That money will have to be borrowed, and I also believe that a certain amount will have to be repaid directly to Iscor. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: If he takes over loans which Iscor has negotiated to finance the matter, there is still the amount of money which Iscor has put in from its own funds— does he intend to repay immediately the cash, if I may put it that way, which Iscor itself invested, and if so, where will he get the money to do so? I am very much afraid that the hon. the Minister will have to increase the tariffs in order to rectify this position as regards Sishen/Saldanha. I think it will be a sad day for South Africa if this has to be done. I should also like to know what the position is in regard to other loans. Can the Railways take over the loans or not? I think that the hon. gentleman ought to give us a little more information on a matter which is of considerable importance.

Finally: I find it interesting that the hon. the Minister asks for R92 million, but he does not add all this to his expenditure of last year; he adds the R92 million minus R25 million, R25 million which, as I understand it, he apparently took from his Betterment Fund and which he added to it last year. Last year, if my memory serves me correctly, the Railways took R80 million from Revenue and deposited it in the Betterment Fund. Now the hon. the Minister is taking R25 million from the Betterment Fund, which has nothing to do with revenue and expenditure, and is putting it back in the kitty.

For as long as I can remember, for as long as I have been involved with the Railways— and that is not very long—I have not been able to find a case anywhere the hon. the Minister has taken a specific sum of money, put it in the Betterment Fund, and the following year, on discovering that he had problems with revenue, took the R25 million back again in order to balance his Revenue Account. I think that the hon. the Minister must try and explain to us what his view of the matter is. I imagine there are other funds which he could have used to get the R25 million.

What item are you referring to now?

If the hon. the Minister looks at the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from the Revenue Fund for the year 1977, on page 2, he will see, right at the bottom “Other Heads of Expenditure”, where an amount of R25 060 000 is saved. Right at the bottom of the page in fine print—and this is important—we see where the R25 million comes from. Head No. 51—Contribution to Betterment Fund—is, as I read it, an item where a sum of R25 million is taken from the Betterment Fund, a fund of a capital nature, and deposited into the Revenue Account in an attempt to balance the books.

I do not want to object too strongly, but for my own sake, so that I can understand the matter, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain it to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised at the course this debate has taken. I am the third consecutive Opposition speaker who has got up to criticize this Bill without hearing anything from the benches opposite. What is the reason for this? Is it because they are possibly ashamed of this Bill? Is it because they have no defence in respect of this budget? I do not particularly blame them, after having had a look at these additional estimates. Here an additional R92 750 000 is being requested on an operating budget plus R247 million on a capital budget, both of these totalling R3 300 million. This must be the largest budget that is in operation in this entire country. Yet we hear nothing from the Government benches about it There is no reply to our criticism. What we have heard is that there has been a saving of R102 million under Capital Account. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Is this a real saving or is it a deferring of a R102 million worth of work until another time?

I believe I am correct in asking this. There has been no saving at all; they have just put if off until another day. In spite of this, they have added another R247 million to the capital works. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what I consider to be an important question. Does he ever do any cost-benefit ratio studies on his capital budget? I ask this because it seems to me that the Railway Administration starts on projects which just seem to gather in size, as far as capital expenditure is concerned, as the years go by.

You are wrong.

The hon. member says I am wrong. Let us take Richards Bay, in 1975-’76 it was estimated that Richards Bay would cost R262 million. Less than two years later there has been an increase of R65 million, which represents 25%. Richards Bay is an important part of the infrastructure of South Africa. Who is going to use it? The entire private sector, plus a great part of the public sector; and here the cost of this operation has gone up by 25% in two years. What effect is this going to have-on all the industries which are going to use this facility?

What was the increase in the cost of materials and labour?

I am not concerned with the cost of materials. What I am saying, however, is that the Railways seems to have embarked on projects without any idea of what the ultimate costs are going to be. I shall give another example, an example which the hon. the Minister himself referred to. I refer to items 7 and 8 of the capital budget i.e. the Kensington-Bellville line. Just a year ago the Railways estimated that the cost of this project would be R17 million. Today, Sir, the cost is R39 million, or 134% higher than what it was a year ago. What effect is this going to have on the economy of this whole operation? Is the country going to be saddled with this project for the rest of time?

Let us look at yet another one. I refer to item 8—a new line from Table Bay Harbour Scheme to a point on the Kensington-Chempet line. Here, in one year, the estimated cost of this project went up by 103%. I appreciate that the original estimates were provisional estimates, but I ask the question: Does the Administration have any idea what the ultimate costs of these projects are going to be? In this connection I would now like to turn to page 27 of this document. I again refer to some items which the hon. the Minister has also referred to. Firstly, I refer to item 113. This item deals with electric locomotives, class 7E. Last year’s estimate was R21,6 million, and the hon. the Minister is asking for another R9,9 million. This is now for 34 electric locomotives. Last year the hon. the Minister was asking for R21 million for 50 locomotives. What I now want to ask the hon. the Minister is this: I would like to know exactly what these locomotives are going to cost the country, and what effect this escalating cost is going to have on the whole economics of transportation of the Railways. In 1975-’76, for instance, these 50 locomotives, which the Railways were budgeting for, were going to cost R369 000 a unit. A year later the price had gone up to R433 000 a unit. Less than eight months later it had gone up to R928 000 a unit.

If we now take the next item, item 114, we find that whereas last year, in the main Brown Book, the hon. the Minister was budgeting for a total of R43 million for 100 locomotives, he is now budgeting for an amount of R61 million for 66 locomotives of the same type. If we look at the history of this particular project, we find that during ’1975-’76 these locomotives were estimated to cost R280 000 each. A year later they had escalated to R346 000 each, and less than eight months later they had escalated to R928 000 each, which is an increase of 330%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far we can go along with this type of budgeting. I want to know from him who is supplying these locomotives. Who is building these locomotives? Are they being built at a contract price or are the prices just sucked out of somebody’s thumb? Why such a big increase in the price of these locomotives? I also want to know how the Railways are going to cope with 50 locomotives less than what they were budgeting for less than a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, one sees this all the way through the Brown Book. I refer now to item 116, which refers to another 50 diesel locomotives. The original estimate for these was R27 million. Last year it was increased to R29 million. Now it is being increased to R35 million. Less than a year ago some 31% of this budget had already been spent. Surely, the Administration should have had some tight control over this project of building these 50 diesel locomotives in order to have some accurate idea of what they were going to cost. We now find that, less than a year later, the price for all these locomotives has escalated by some 30%. Mr. Speaker, one finds that all the way through the Brown Book.

I want to turn to page 28, to item 121—1 000 dropsided wagons, type DZ. When these were originally budgeted for, in 1975-’76, R9 million was asked for. A year later it had gone up by R32 000. At that time 97% of that budget had already been expended, if one looks at these figures. Yet, nine months later we are asking for another R2 600 000, another 29,5%.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister exactly how much control the Administration has over the budget. Who are building these trucks? Are they held to a tight budget? Is there no control over the price of these things? Why do we have such tremendously large discrepancies from year to year? The hon. the Minister says that it is due to the devaluation of the rand, but I believe that these trucks are manufactured in South Africa, so does that really apply? I want to know what sort of day-to-day bookkeeping is kept at least on the items which one finds in the Brown Book. How far is this bookkeeping behind the actual expenditure that is being incurred by these various departments? I cannot help but feel that these are extremely important questions at this time when South Africa is so in need of capital. Every industry in South Africa today is pulling in its belt and is looking at its capital expenditure budget with a view to bringing out the sharp pencil and cutting out all sorts of unnecessary capital expenditure. In addition they want to make sure that there is absolutely no waste of capital funds in any capital projects. Is this the case with the South African Railways? I would like to think that it is the case, but when one studies the figures year by year and sees these tremendous percentage increases in the estimates in respect of these projects, I cannot help but feel, having been in business myself, that someone is not keeping tight control of these things. How many businesses in the private sector could withstand this type of operation? They would go bust in no time at all.

I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will attempt to answer these questions, because I think that at the time we are now facing this budget is a shocking one. It is going to have tremendous effects throughout industry, it is going to affect the housewife, and as the hon. member for Durban Point has already said, it is bound to lead to even higher increases in tariffs. All this is adding to the inflation spiral in South Africa, and that is something which we have got to stop at this stage because it is something which this country cannot afford at a time when we are facing what we are facing on our borders and when outside influences are affecting the availability of capital to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the criticism which has been levelled at this Additional Appropriation, and I should just like to deal with a few comments which were made. In the first place I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point—I have said this before—that it is my impression that the louder he raises his voice, the weaker is his case. Today he raised his voice more than he ever did before. I assume it was because he thought his case was weak.

Reply to the points.

In addition he committed a major blunder today. They always say “an Englishman never overstates his facts”, and I assume that the hon. member is at least descended from English forbears. [Interjections.] At least the hon. member is an English-speaking South African, but today he overstated his case completely.

Vause is an Hungarian! [Interjections.]

When he was discussing the percentages in respect of the additional funds we are requesting, he was really off the rails completely. When we begin with the R92 million we are requesting in respect of additional expenditure which has to be defrayed from revenue, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further, because other hon. members on that side have already refuted his statement completely. It is between 4% and 5%

I said so.

Wait a minute; I am speaking now. I listened to the hon. member very patiently. The hon. member concluded with the statement that we had been out by a figure of 42%. How on earth does he arrive at that? No person who learned to do Std. 6 sums could have arrived at that percentage. It is simply impossible. The fact of the matter—and here are the figures—is that the R92 million additional to revenue, is between 4% and 5%. He says so himself. If one adds the capital expenditure to that, one has a total of R340 million. R340 million as against the total amount is only approximately 11%. Now there is one factor which the hon. member did not take into account, and that was that there were savings, in other words the net additional amount I am requesting is only approximately R247 million. R247 million, calculated as a percentage of the total appropriation last year, is far less even than 11%. Now I want to come to the Capital Account. For the Capital Account we are requesting an additional R247 million. This is 24% of the estimates on the Capital Account last year, is it not?

28%.

Make it 28% if you like. If one takes the savings into consideration, it is almost 17%. If one takes the uncertain financial circumstances into account—and I should like hon. members to have a little sympathy for me, for these are circumstances which are not only prevailing in South Africa; the entire world finds itself in uncertain financial circumstances, circumstances with which we have co-existed during the past few months and years—one can understand that a precise estimate is something which is simply not possible, as it were, these days in view of the unforeseen inflation which we are experiencing and the consequence of the devaluation to which I referred and about which I should still like to say quite a few things. I should like to give an indication of factors which the Railways has to contend with. Mr. Speaker, do you know that during the past two years, from January 1975 to January of this year, the price of steel rose on four occasions, increases of 10%, 15%, 15% and 8,8%? If one calculates this as a single percentage it means that the price of steel during the past two years rose by 58,3%. This is one of the most important cost increases with which the Railways has to live. Let us consider coal for a moment. Since May 1975 the price of coal has risen on two occasions by 33% and 48,8%. As a single figure it is an increase between May 1975 and the present of 97,9%, i.e. almost 100%.

Whose fault is that?

I am not prepared to argue now about whose fault it is. These are facts with which we have to contend. The same applies in the case of electricity. In less than a year, from April of last year to the beginning of January this year, electricity— do hon. members comprehend how much electricity is used by the Railways?— increased on three occasions, increases of 15%, 13% and 25%, i.e. a percentage increase of 62%, calculated on a single basis, in less than a year. These are the circumstances with which we have to live and under which we have to prepare the estimates. That is why I am asking hon. members—amid the criticism which they on that side of the House are quite entitled to level—in fact, I consider it to be their task to criticize wherever they think criticism is justified—and any right-minded person please to take into consideration the circumstances under which we are living. As regards the question of devaluation, to which the hon. member for Durban Point and several other hon. members referred, it must be borne in mind that the devaluation we had took place in October 1975. That was a long time ago, but hon. members with experience of such matters will know that the estimates are prepared six months before we come to this House with them. We begin working on the estimates for the financial year which begins on 1 April as far back as October of the previous year. It is obvious that the effect of the devaluation is only felt months after the date of devaluation. We simply cannot determine this effect in advance for the ensuing year’s estimates. I shall quote figures in a moment to indicate what consequences the devaluation of the rand and the revaluation of the guilder had on the Richards Bay complex. I am mentioning it straight away so that we can get it over and done with. The hon. member for Orange Grove and others referred to the high percentage increase at Richards Bay. The hon. member is probably not taking into consideration that we took quick decisions under critical circumstances to undertake far larger works in Richards Bay as a result of the closing of the border between Rhodesia and Mozambique. In this way a quick decision was taken that two additional wharfs should be built at Richards Bay …

Why did you not tell us about it?

The hon. member ought to know it. If he does not know it, he is not doing his work. We discussed this last year already. The decision to build two additional wharfs at Richards Bay was taken as a result of political circumstances. The building of these two additional wharfs created the prospects for Richards Bay that the entire extent of the harbour would in the near future be far greater than originally planned. It was in fact for this reason that the extent of the accommodation, the office buildings and everything associated with it—as appears here in the particulars—was increased. I do not think I shall have any problems in convincing hon. members of the necessity of the additional funds we are requesting for the development of Richards Bay. Another factor which plays a very important role in this regard is that we had to execute the work at Richards Bay with greater despatch, as a result of which we did more work and had to make payments sooner. If we take a closer look at the particulars in regard to Richards Bay it will be seen that what we are asking is that the total cost be increased by a net amount of R65 million. In fact it is a total additional expenditure of approximately R77 million, but this amount is reduced by savings amounting to approximately R11,8 million to approximately R65,2 million. The effect of the devaluation of the rand and the revaluation of the guilder amounts to no less than R45 million, and then that hon. member scoffs at me because I referred repeatedly to the results, consequences and problems of devaluation. Surely the hon. member knows as well as I do, or he ought to know, what role the revaluation of the guilder played in this regard, because many payments for work at Richards Bay have to be made in guilders. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Walmer need not defend the hon. member for Durban Point; he can defend himself. In any case, the hon. member for Walmer is now sitting in other benches.

I said it was a poor financial policy on the part of the Government.

I am furnishing these figures merely to give an indication of the role which devaluation did indeed play in this regard. The hon. member for Durban Point had a great deal to say about salary increases, and he revealed one weakness.

Only one?

There is only one in this respect. He has many others, though. On that occasion he revealed one weakness in his argument, which was that he said I had not mentioned the rates increases which I introduced on 1 September. Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What on earth do the rates increases introduced on 1 September have to do with salary increases?

How were the salary increases financed then?

I am not asking where the money comes from now; I am asking this House to vote the money. In other words, I did not make provision for salary increases in my estimates last year, and all I am asking for now is an additional appropriation to cover those salary increases. The rates increases have nothing to do with this. The Railways did have additional revenue as a result of the rates increases, but what I am asking hon. members to do now is to authorize the additional costs which the Railways had in respect of the salary increases. The hon. member comes here now and pretends that this is nothing. I should like to tell the hon. member that this 10% salary increase means an additional expenditure of R91 million per annum for the Railways.

But it is not in these estimates.

No, but surely I am now asking hon. members to authorize it, additional to what I requested last year. For the unelapsed period of this financial year that 10% salary increase means approximately R68 million. I admit now—I do not want to go into the details—that not everything is being covered from revenue. But the fact of the matter is that an additional amount of approximately R68 million has to be paid out in respect of salary increases for the period between 1 July 1976, when the salary increases were granted, and the end of this financial year.

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Maitland in particular, as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove, referred to the take-over of the Sishen/Saldanha railway line. This is perhaps the appropriate occasion to inform hon. members of this matter, particularly, too, since they asked questions about the R15 million for which we are now making provision out of revenue to cover deficiencies on the Sishen/Saldanha line for this financial year. The hon. members must kindly refrain from levelling reproaches here because we are taking over this railway line. Hon. members will recall how they repeatedly objected to Iscor building and operating a railway line.

If the Railways had done it originally, it would have saved you millions of rands.

That is simply the way it is; I suppose one cannot always be right; I accept that. They asked repeatedly that Iscor should not build and operate the line, but that the Railways should operate it. I have now succeeded …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not have been approximately one-third cheaper if the Railways had built the line itself and had spent the money?

That I cannot say, and I shall not say so either. In fact, I do not think it is correct to say that. The railway line was built by contractors, and I think there was a reasonable degree of competition. According to the calculations the entire project, railway and harbour, would cost approximately R642 million, and not R1 000 million as the hon. member said. I said that the hon. member had exaggerated today. He exaggerated on every occasion. For example he said this project could cost R1 000 million. One of these days I shall introduce legislation here to ask for authorization for the take-over of that transportation scheme for an amount which will not exceed R650 million.

And loans?

Wait, I shall come to the loans. At present it is calculated that the amount will be between R642 million and R643 million. I was asked, and quite rightly so, what the conditions of the agreement are. I do not want to read out the entire long agreement to the House now, but I shall try to explain in simple language what it entails. The assets will of course be taken over by the Railways. The assets will not remain in the hands of Iscor while the Railways operates the railway line. The Railways is taking over the assets as well.

At cost?

Yes, at cost. Consequently the Railways is of course taking over the existing loan obligations as well.

Are they included in the R642 million?

Yes. R642 million is of course not the exact figure, but let us assume the figure to be R642 million. This amount was financed by means of loans raised by Iscor and partially by means of cash contributions from Iscor itself. These loans are being taken over by the Railways. The project has not yet been finalized. It is still in the process of being finalized. With regard to all the financial arrangements which have been made, the Treasury has of course been consulted in all matters.

As far as the operation of this railway line is concerned, there are built-in guarantees for the Railways. That is as it should be, for our standpoint is that when we build railway lines which have been specially requested, we do at least want the necessary guarantees that those railway lines will be profitable for the Railways. That was why it was also correct that we should have requested, in regard to these negotiations, that there should be certain built-in guarantees for the Railways upon take-over. The built-in guarantees were based on a guaranteed tonnage of ore which will be conveyed every year between Sishen and Saldanha.

Is it going to operate through Port Elizabeth in due course?

Do not bring Port Elizabeth into it now.

You said so yesterday.

“In due course” is a different matter. I first want to explain the agreement. Iscor guarantees a specific tonnage, and a rate will be calculated for that tonnage. In other words, whether that tonnage is conveyed or not, that tonnage, calculated at the agreed rate per ton, must be paid to the Railways. That is what it amounts to. That rate will make provision for the payment of all interest and redemption, and so on, for the entire scheme. The traffic of other parties will also be conveyed on the Sishen/Saldanha railway line and the parties in question will pay the same rate, i.e. the rate agreed upon between the Railways and Iscor. Now, it is true that a deficit is expected during the first three years. It goes without saying that one cannot expect the tonnage for which Iscor has accepted responsibility by way of a guarantee to be conveyed during the first year already. Therefore it is expected that, at least during the first three years, and probably for longer, there will be a substantial deficit on this railway line. Consequently it has been agreed that the Railways will accept responsibility for a portion of that deficit during the first three years. It has been agreed that the Railways will be responsible for R15 million of the expected loss in the first year, R15 million in the second and R5 million in the third. This does not mean that the deficit in the first year will be only R15 million. It will probably be considerably more, but Iscor will be responsible for the balance. In the first year the Railways will be responsible for only R15 million, and in total for R35 million. The losses which will have to be borne by the Railways during the period in which the railway line will be non-profitable, will subsequently be made good by way of the rates which will be applicable to the goods conveyed. In other words, the R15 million we are now requesting must not be regarded as an amount which is simply being pumped in and which will be a complete loss to the Railways.

It is an advance.

Yes, it is in fact simply an advance, if one wants to call it that. It is an advance to finance the scheme during the lean years at the outset, an advance which we shall subsequently recover by way of rates adjustments. I do not know whether there is anything else which hon. members are not clear about. If hon. members have any further questions, they may as well put those questions now, or during the Committee Stage. But so much then for the Sishen/Saldanha scheme, for which we are requesting R15 million here.

Mention was made of the sale of stocks. It is true that the various funds do not hold all their money in cash, but buy stocks with it from time to time. When the cash position requires this, some of those stocks have to be sold again. Depending on the dividends on the stocks, it goes without saying that the sale of stocks may entail losses, losses which in fact have to be made good again by the adjustment of interest rates. The result is that these are not inevitably losses for the Railways. In other words, the losses suffered through the sale of stocks, are afterwards rectified again. However, if hon. members want us to go into greater detail in this regard, we could perhaps do so on another occasion.

From time to time the Railways receives funds from the Public Debt Commissioners and consequently the increased interest which we have to pay—hon. members referred to this—is attributable to the fact that at times the Railways was overdrawn with the Public Debt Commissioners to a greater extent than we envisaged.

Hon. members also referred to the so-called “working capital”. In this regard I should like to explain to hon. members and in particular to the hon. member for Maitland that we purchased the Airbus aircraft towards the end of 1975. At that stage no preparations had as yet been made for the stores stock which we now require for those aircraft. When we purchased the Airbus aircraft, we decided at the same time to purchase additional 747 SP aircraft. The stores which we require for those specific aircraft are costing us a further R24 million, for which we have now budgeted. Apart from that, I should like to say that, in respect of stores stock we have gone out of our way to cut down where it was in any way possible. However, the price of spares and stores which are kept in stock, have escalated to such an extent recently that we naturally require more money for that purpose than we did previously.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the changes which have been made to the 747 SP aircraft. Now, I first want to explain to the hon. member, as I consequently explained in reply to that question which he put to me, that with the purchase of the last three SP aircraft it was part of our contract— that is why I said it was a package deal—that the Boeing company would credit us with an amount of 6 million dollars, inter alia, to effect certain changes to the first three aircraft, such as building in a straight stairway. We have had straight stairways installed in the last three aircraft because we have found in practice that these work better. These are better suited to the aircraft, particularly because of the way we are re-arranging the “galley” in the aircraft. Therefore we obtained a credit from which the changes are being effected in those aircraft. In fact, this is being financed from credits in regard to which we have reached an agreement with the Boeing company.

But then it should be indicated under “Savings”.

If the hon. member would take another look at that item, and I should like to refer him to it on page 33 of R.P.7, 1977, he will see that there is an additional amount of R1,9 million, additional to the R69 570 000. The hon. member will also see that we are requesting R15 million from capital funds for this year. That R15 million is intended as a repayment to the Renewals Fund from which we previously made withdrawals for the purchase of these aircraft. The R1,9 million with which this expenditure is being defrayed, has no direct relationship to the R15 million which is being requested additionally, by way of capital expenditure.

What item is that?

Item No. 136. In item 137 there is an additional amount of R2 634 900. I can inform the hon. member that the improvements which are being made to the aircraft are inter alia, the following—

In addition another very important modification to the aircraft has been made as a result of the accident which occurred, as the hon. member will recall, to the DC-10, when the hatch opened. As a result of that Boeing insisted, and we deferred willingly to their wishes, that a change be effected to what is called the “floor venting”, which means that if such a hatch opens an immediate change in air pressure can be effected in all the various sections of the aircraft. Otherwise it causes a complete subsidence of the deck, as apparently happened in the case of the DC-10.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the traffic which is so much less. I do not know how the hon. member arrived at that conclusion. The amount of traffic in respect of high-rated goods is not according to expectations, but despite this goods traffic improved by 5,6% and coal traffic by 21,8%. When the hon. member therefore alleges that the amount of traffic has dropped, he is definitely making a mistake.

The hon. member for Maitland wanted to know where I am getting the money from. It is correct to say that to estimate for expenditure is one thing, but that finding the money is a different matter. As far as expenditure is concerned, we are estimating as has been set out in this White Book. But it is entirely correct, as the hon. member consequently said, that we are not going to use all the money in the Betterment Fund and that we could indeed afford to transfer R25 million in order to balance our revenue and expenditure for the year, at least according to the calculations. These are the calculations which have to be done in advance with a view to the present financial year.

Is it borrowed money only?

No, not necessarily. We shall of course, when we discuss the main budget, be in a better position to sketch a picture of the matter as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that, at this stage, it is all that relevant where the funds come from. What is important, is the additional expenditure for which the approval of Parliament is now being requested.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to locomotives. The particulars which he insisted upon are very detailed. At this stage I merely want to tell him that the estimated prices of the locomotives are prices furnished to us by the manufacturers, manufacturers in the private industry sector. We base, to the best of our ability, the expected prices of the locomotives on the prices furnished by them.

Last but not least, and also by way of mitigation, I want to suggest why the position arose which compelled me to request extra money for the additional expenditure. We work according to certain estimates, and it is easy to say to us: “Surely you should have known in advance that there would be cost increases. You should have made provision for that.” But, Mr. Speaker, it is not as simple as that. We estimate the cost of the expenditure for each item, and I am referring now in particular to capital expenditure. There provision is in fact made for possible cost increases. Hon. members will agree with me, however, that the cost increases were far greater than any of us expected.

Besides, hon. members will certainly not deny that, if we were to make provision for exceptionally high cost increases, it could serve as an indication to tenderers that our estimates are high. Personally I think it is sensible, when a cost estimate is made with regard to a specific item—particularly when there are items for which tenders are called—rather to make modest provision for the expected cost increase than to make an excessively high estimate and in that way set other influences in motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he accepts that the total for which he is now budgeting is 49% higher than what he requested last year? He mentioned 44% to me, and I accept it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not make a calculation of the percentage; however, it is in fact higher than last year. It is more than we requested last year for the Capital Account. But this is the case as a result of extraordinary circumstances. I referred in particular to Richards Bay and other factors which played a part in this regard.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Durban Point was definitely doing South Africa a disservice, for he made exaggerated statements with regard to the so-called predicament in which the Railways has found themself. I do not think it is in any way correct to say that the Railways finds itself in a predicament.

The entire country finds itself in a predicament.

That is not so at all. However, the hon. member went on to draw all kinds of comparisons. He said that the Railways ought to be compared to companies which are now in fact under liquidation.

I was referring to capital and liquidity.

The hon. member spoke of the “better brains” which should be called in. He also mentioned the ordinary man in the street in this regard. But I must say that I never before have heard the hon. member speaking greater nonsense than he did towards the end of his speech.

But he is also in a predicament.

I take it amiss of the hon. member. What he said was not only unnecessary, but incorrect as well. I am prepared to discuss every item in the estimates submitted to this House, and in which I am requesting additional funds to cover expenditure on the Revenue as well as the Capital Account, with anyone, not only with the people who have weak minds, but also with anyone who ostensibly has a “better brain”, such as the hon. member referred to. There is a sound and proper reason for each item.

While I am thinking of it now, I want to refer to statements concerning the Kensington/Bellville railway line. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti stated that we were not proceeding with the railway line. I really do not know how the hon. member arrived at that conclusion. Why, then, should we want to incur such heavy expenditure in regard to the railway line this year if we do not intend to proceed with it?

In respect of our expenditure for this financial year we cut down wherever we could, for it is simply a case that in the economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves recently, work is being delivered more rapidly than was previously the case. Surely it goes without saying that if the contractor previously had ten or twelve tasks to perform and he now only has one or two, he concentrates all his people in the area where there is still work to do. The result is that he delivers sooner than he would otherwise have been able to do. This has created problems for us. However, we observed that economic circumstances were not having a favourable effect, and consequently I consulted for days on end with my management to establish where we could effect any kind of saving by means of cut-backs. We then cut back on certain orders which we had already placed. We delayed some orders and suspended others. We even went so far as to cancel a few completely. Understandably this action will of course have a very detrimental effect on the country, for the Railways is a very large buyer of the commodities manufactured by many of our domestic industries. However, we had to cut back and economize wherever we possibly could, despite the fact that this would be detrimental to the country’s industries. We shall have to continue to do this. However there is no question that anything we are doing is unproductive. If hon. members wish to cause the impression to arise that what we are doing is not necessary, they must not come to me tomorrow or the day after with the allegation that I did not make provision in time for the day when there was an economic revival and heavy demands were made on the Railways. I know that this is something which will in fact happen.

I feel free to ask this House to approve the envisaged expenditure, and I am asking this in the fullest conviction that it is absolutely essential that the necessary means be made available in the interests of the country in general and the Railways in particular.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage Schedules 1-4:

Mr. Chairman, I trust you will grant me the opportunity, with regard to the revenue estimates, to acknowledge that I made a mistake just now. My mini-computer put a point in the wrong position, which led me to read “4,4” as “44”. I accept that one figure and in all fairness I must say to the hon. the Minister that the increases in the case of the revenue estimates was 4,4% and not 44%. The capital increase was 28%, which still leaves it at 49%, increase on additional estimates last year—or a half more than was required last year, which is exactly what I said and which was the conclusion I came to. With regard to the capital figure, where the R15 million for Iscor appears, I referred to R1 000 million. I added the amounts published in a report—the R600 million purchase price plus the loans which the Railways would be taking over, which then totalled R998 million. I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the loans are in fact included in the price. I want to make those two points clear and say that I am very glad that, apart from those two figures, the hon. the Minister was unable to fault one other point which I made in my speech.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to schedule I, head No. 19— Miscellaneous expenditure. I would be interested to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what the item “Loss on the realization of investments is all about. There is a R6,5 million loss on investments. I think this needs some explanation and we have not had one yet. The item following on that is “Interest on bank overdrafts and temporarily overdrawn balances”, and amounts to R5 818 500. I would appreciate an explanation of that too. Under the same head is the R15 million for the Sishen-Saldanha line, which the hon. the Minister has explained. The explanation is not entirely satisfactory. It is not often that one buys not only a business, but also its anticipated losses for three years. We feel that the hon. the Minister has perhaps been taken for a ride by Iscor in this matter, because I have never known an economic operation—which is what the Railways are supposed to be—to buy losses of up to R35 million, without really raising any squawk about it at all. The answers I do require, are in respect of the “Loss on the realization of investments” and the “Interest on bank overdrafts and temporarily overdrawn balances”.

I should like to deal with head No. 19, item (g)—“Compensation to Iscor being the proportion of the working deficit for 1976-’77 financial year on the Sishen-Saldanha line for which the Administration is liable in terms of the agreement,” which amounts to R15 million. This is a new item and I think one must look at it very carefully. The hon. the Minister has given us an explanation. I want to say that we in these benches are in agreement with the take-over by the Railways of the Sishen-Saldanha line. The hon. the Minister, on the other hand, was not always in favour of the Railways taking it over, and I am going to substantiate that statement. The predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Transport said on 15 March 1973 that it had been decided that if other conveyors should use the railway line, then and in that event the Railways should be given possession of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. I refer to Hansard, Vol. 42 of 1973. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor also went on to say that as soon as exporters obtained contracts for more iron ore, St. Croix would have to be built. I quote his words—

St. Croix was not built and the country has lost hundreds of millions of rand in foreign exchange. There was room for both Iscor and St. Croix, but the men at Iscor decided otherwise and the big bluff started. The big bluff came when it was said that Iscor was going to own and operate the Sishen-Saldanha line. This was merely a charade to eliminate private enterprise and it cost the country hundreds of millions of rand in foreign exchange. On 30 August 1974 the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in reply to a question tabled, said that the Cabinet had had the opportunity to consider the Straszacker report and other information laid before it, and that it had decided that the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha Bay should be constructed and operated by Iscor. The Government refused to disclose the contents of the Straszacker report and I am certain that it was not disclosed for a very obvious reason, viz. that it must have confirmed that the Railways should build the Sishen-Saldanha line and not Iscor. On 12 March 1975 we warned the hon. the Minister that the Railwaymen of South Africa would not tolerate the situation. We said that the Cabinet decision was incomprehensible and absolutely muddle-headed. I should like to quote to the hon. the Minister what I said to him on that day (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 2442)—

We also pointed out at that point in time that Iscor would be operating a railway within a railway and that there would be problems with personnel, with trading, with rates and tariffs, etc. We urged the hon. the Minister to take action. We told him that the railwaymen of South Africa would take action. At last the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet, after the fiasco of 1974, have taken the correct action. The Cabinet was obviously wrong in 1974 when it decided that Iscor should build and operate the railway line, otherwise they would not have reversed that decision in 1977. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how that R640 million is going to be paid. He gave us a partial explanation, but we still do not know how the R640 million is going to be paid. It is a sad day when the Cabinet deliberates solemnly and makes a blunder of R640 million as they did in 1974, and now it is a very happy day in 1977 when they admit they were wrong and correct their previous blunder. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether the R640 million includes interest or whether the R15 million is merely a first instalment, and he must further tell us when the balance will be paid. The Cabinet blunder in relation to Iscor placed Iscor under the most severe strain, because Iscor had to lay out that R640 million. If one puts the interest at 10%, it must have cost Iscor something like R64 million. What we should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he is capitalizing the interest or whether he is compounding the interest, because if he deducts that R64 million in interest, it means that Iscor would probably have shown a profit during the last year instead of the loss that they showed. I think this matter needs a very careful explanation by the hon. the Minister, because it has placed a severe strain on Iscor. We have always been told how important it is to the country that Iscor must operate in the best possible way, and yet the Cabinet places a strain on Iscor to the tune of R640 million, carrying interest of possibly 10%, which amounts to R64 million per annum. Could Iscor’s structure stand that sort of strain? In order to make the railway line pay, Port Elizabeth, St. Croix and private enterprise had to be decapitated in the process. Iscor was fighting for its survival under the crippling cost of R640 million, and that is why St. Croix was sabotaged from start to finish. The hon. the Minister of Transport must tell us where he is going to get the money from to pay this R640 million and he must also tell us how this R15 million is arrived at.

The hon. the Minister has told us that in the first three years the Railways will carry R35 million of the loss. There will be a loss because there will not be sufficient tonnage. It means, in other words, that Iscor would have shown an additional loss of R35 million, but now the Railways are going to carry that loss. We would like to know what portion of the loss is Iscor carrying. I feel that the hon. the Minister owes us many explanations in this regard and I hope he will give us those explanations in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether one can infer from item (f)—House Ownership Scheme—under head No. 19—Miscellaneous expenditure—on page 13 of the Revenue Funds Estimates where an additional amount of R1 421 500 is being requested, that a considerably greater number of house ownership loans were granted than was originally budgeted for? That is the only question we on this side are able to ask at this stage as the Opposition has taken up more time than was agreed on.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with the hon. member for Orange Grove who asked for information concerning items (a) and (b) of head No. 19 on page 13.

†As far as item (a)—Loss on the realization of investments—is concerned, the reply is that the following stocks have been sold at a loss based on a ceiling of R94 million nominal value: September 1976—R1,88 million; October 1976—R3 537 million; Total—R5 426 million. It is estimated that up to the end of March 1977, additional stocks to the value of R1 074 million will be sold, giving a total of R6,5 million.

*In that regard I should like to give the following information to the House, for the record: The balances in the various funds— indeed, I have just said this—are not made up entirely of cash. A certain portion is invested in stocks, and when expenditure is met from the fund and sufficient cash is not available, some of the stocks are sold on the capital market in order to obtain the necessary cash. If interest rates rise, as is the case in South Africa, it may happen that the effective dividend yield on the stocks will be lower than the prevailing rates of interest.

In these circumstances investors will only be prepared to buy the stocks at a discount, so much so that the new effective dividend yield will be equal to the interest rate. The effective dividend yield which the investor receives, represents the cost to the Railways. Due to the fact that these costs are equal to the rate of interest which the Railways will have to pay on loans, there is, in point of fact, no additional expenditure involved in the sale of stocks at a discount in comparison with obtaining cash by means of a loan. The sale of stocks under the above circumstances leads to a loss in realization equal to the difference between the nominal value of the stock and the discount value at which it is sold. In analysing this explanation, hon. members will have an idea of what happened here and see that it is not necessarily to be considered a loss for the Railways.

†As far as item (b) is concerned, interest on bank overdrafts—“bank” here means Public Debt Commissioners—and temporarily overdrawn balances are as follows: in August 1976, R1,146 million; in September 1976, R0,634 million; in October 1976, R0,559 million; in November 1976, R0,280 million, and in December 1976, R0,398 million. That gives a total of R3,037 million over that period, i.e. August to December. The estimated amount for January 1977 to March 1977 is R2,781 million. For that reason we provide for a total of R5,818 million.

*I think this is all as far as that matter is concerned. The hon. member for Walmer prepared a speech on the take-over of the Sishen/Saldanha scheme, and he delivered that speech here in spite of the fact that I have already replied to more than half of his questions.

No.

He prepared the speech and therefore had to experience the pleasure of delivering it. I do not hold it against him, just as long as he does not expect me to provide the same answer three times. I can prove that from the first day I came to the Cabinet as Minister of Economic Affairs in order to obtain approval for building of the Sishen/Saldanha railway line, it was my view that the Railways should operate the line, and I therefore addressed a request to that effect to the Cabinet. This has always been my opinion from the first day. Hon. members will realize that as a result of the negotiations which took place there for the approval of that scheme, it was decided that Iscor would construct the railway line and operate it to begin with. I do not want to go into the details. Discussions took place in the Cabinet which later led to this decision. However, I want to give the assurance today that from the very beginning I have exerted myself to bring about what has happened today. I did this when I was still Minister of Economic Affairs. I have always been in favour of it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is now going against the Cabinet decision of 1974?

No, it is not a question of a Cabinet decision which is being opposed. In the Cabinet we discuss things and then reach consensus. There is no voting in the Cabinet. The hon. member will naturally never know this because how would he ever get into the Cabinet?

He does stand a much better chance now.

We discuss matters in the Cabinet until consensus is obtained.

But were you opposed to the decision?

No, that is not to say that I was opposed to the decision. From the very beginning I worked towards this, or it was my opinion, that the Railways should operate this line. This is the position today. But this is not really so relevant. Since time is so short, we must continue with more important matters. The hon. member alleged that because the St. Croix scheme was not built, we lost millions of rands in foreign currency. This is not the case. The hon. member cannot prove a statement like this. This is not the case. There is no proof at all that the necessary contracts were there to earn millions of rands if the St. Croix scheme existed. The evidence simply does not exist. Indeed, the loading installation at Port Elizabeth has a capacity of 6,3 million tons per annum and last year it only handled 5,5 million tons. I do not know what the reason is, but at least it shows that there was still unused capacity at that loading installation last year. The St. Croix scheme is not relevant now. We can put it aside for a time. We did give the scheme the green light at one stage, but at that time the developers were unable to carry on with it. The Sishen-Saldanha scheme is there now, and by the standards of the S.A. Railways, it is a simple scheme and a simple train service. I told the hon. member the other day that I foresaw that the expected transport of ore for Iscor will only mean three trains per day. That railway line could be vastly expanded with the greatest of ease. And I think that we shall first have to concentrate on utilizing that railway line in South Africa’s interests as much as possible. We must do so, because it is the cheapest and the best way. For that very reason, and because I believe that the capacity of that line can easily be increased we foresee that the iron ore which is now going through Port Elizabeth, should rather go via the Sishen-Saldanha railway line so that we can equip the installation at Port Elizabeth to handle manganese. Manganese is a more expensive metal. In bulk, manganese can earn more foreign currency than can iron ore. If we can manage it, we must export manganese from there. I still have to negotiate with private exporters in this connection. Possibly not all of them will be in favour of it. But I personally believe that we must move in that direction. There is something else I want to tell the hon. member.

When Iscor originally decided to build this railway line, they intended it to meet only Iscor’s requirements. Iscor calculated that they would get certain contracts for exporting a certain amount of iron ore. Therefore the railway line was designed and built for its requirements alone. However, circumstances have changed completely in recent times. It now seems as if exportation by private exporters will in the near future most probably exceed the quantity exported by Iscor itself. It is these very circumstances which have resulted in and prescribed to a large extent that the operation of the railway line should be considered afresh. It makes some sense if Iscor operates the railway line for itself, but it does not make sense if Iscor operates the railway line if the majority of goods are in all probability those of other bodies. Then it is traditional in South Africa for the S.A. Railways to operate the railway line. Apart from other circumstances, it was these changed circumstances which led to us considering this matter afresh.

The hon. member also referred to the Straszacker Committee. That committee made a recommendation concerning the operation, and not the construction, of the railway line. When the Straszacker Committee investigated the matter and made a recommendation, the construction of the line was already a fait accompli. The line was already under construction. Indeed, the construction had already reached an advanced stage. In other words, the recommendation of the Straszacker Committee only applied to the operation of the line.

What was the recommendation of the committee?

The report of the Straszacker Committee has not been released and therefore it is not fitting for me to discuss the details of the recommendations of that committee. Whatever the case may be, the hon. member asked me where I was going to get the R640 million which I have to pay to Iscor, as it were. Surely I have already explained that a large portion thereof is made up of loans. The Railways are substituted as the debtor with regard to those loans. In other words, we are taking those loans over.

Together with the interest which has already been paid?

Yes, together with the interest which has partially been capitalized, and everything that involves. Iscor also made a cash contribution, and we have to repay that cash contribution to Iscor by a specific date. We shall do so in due course, but postponement has been granted in connection with the repayment of that amount and we are not expected to repay it now. I have already told the hon. member, and I repeat it now for what it is worth, that the revenue which the Railways is going to earn from the guaranteed volume of traffic, as guaranteed by Iscor, will make provision, and it is calculated that it must make provision, for repayment of interest, amortization and operating costs on the Railways. This is only for the first three years. The Railways is responsible for a portion of the deficit for three years only.

R35 million.

The Railways are responsible for R15 million per annum for the first two years and R5 million for the third year.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is the total anticipated loss over those three years?

No, by no means, I anticipate the total loss to be more than R15 million for this year, the R15 million for next year and the R5 million the year thereafter. Iscor will be responsible for the balance of the loss not only during this period, but throughout, because they guarantee the traffic.

*The hon. member for Tygervallei asked me about the home-ownership loans. I do not think that I can tell him at this juncture that an unlimited amount of money will be available for home-ownership loans, but we are carrying on in any event. Additional provision of cash amounting to R139 600 and R1,4 million is required for this year.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other question with regard to schedule 3 on page 6 of the Bill. It concerns the additional funds for capital and betterment services and represents an amount of R140 700 000. If the hon. the Minister wishes to refer to it under the estimates of additional expenditure, he will find it on page 2 under the heading “Sources from which the net additional funds for capital and betterment works will be provided”. Here additional loans of R140 700 000 are being requested. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to say where these loans are coming from? We are in a situation in this country where we are tremendously short of loan capital, and it would therefore be of tremendous interest to this House to know where that money is coming from. We would like to know whether this is going to be on short-term. I believe the Railways is saddling itself with a tremendous load of short-term debt and high rates of interest, and I do not think this is desirable. That is one of the reasons why we are very concerned about this tremendous additional expenditure.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 74.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the document that has been tabled, an additional appropriation of R54,131 million is requested for operating expenditure, bringing the revised estimates for operating expenditure to R607,134 million.

The additional amount is substantial, but R22,5 million thereof is required for staff expenses for which no provision was made in the original estimates. Of this amount, R18 million is needed under subhead 1, mainly for the 10% salary adjustment allowance granted on 1 July 1976, and R4,4 million under subhead 2 for pension liability arising from this salary improvement and the increase in the Department’s contribution to the pension fund.

Also included herein is an amount of R50 000 under subhead 1.7 for assistance to Bantu officers in obtaining their own houses. This arrangement was decided upon following the reintroduction of the scheme whereby Bantu can obtain home ownership in Bantu townships within White areas. This means that the deposit on such a house is paid from departmental funds on behalf of an officer who contributes to one of the approved pension funds and this is intended to create greater stability among our Bantu workers’ corps. Following the introduction with effect from 1 April 1976 of a Medical Aid Scheme for Indians, a similar scheme for Coloureds was introduced on 1 July 1976. For this purpose an amount of R50 000 is required under subhead 3.6, of which R32 050 will be met from savings on other subheads.

As a result of the increased petrol and oil prices and the higher railway tariffs effective from 1 September 1976, an additional amount of R2,4 million is required to be voted under subhead 5.

The additional amount of R1,8 million requested under subhead 6 is needed for a number of deferred minor and maintenance works which became essential for the sake of better service to the public and more favourable working conditions for the staff. These works could not be postponed without detriment to the Department’s interests generally.

More losses were incurred than expected as a result of bad debts and damage to and theft of telephone routes and call offices; for this purpose an amount of R360 000 is required under subhead 11. In addition, an amount of R120 000 is required under subhead 11.3 for an ex gratia payment to General Motors recommended by the State Tender Board. This emanates from price increases due to the devaluation of the Rand, increased production costs and revised customs duties. The firm could not submit its claim timeously in view of problems encountered with the basis for the calculation of customs duty.

†As a result of the improved dialling facilities which were provided, overseas telecommunications traffic increased more than expected; our payments abroad in terms of international agreements are accordingly higher, as also the revenue we derive from overseas telecommunications traffic. With the commissioning of our satellite earth station, our utilization of the international telecommunications satellite system also increased considerably. Coupled with a higher contribution towards its expenses we acquire a proportionately greater share in the system, which is advantageous for us from the point of view of profit sharing. An additional amount of R10,3 million is needed under subhead 13 to cover the aforementioned additional expenditure.

Investments in savings services have been higher than expected, and an additional appropriation of R8,6 million under subhead 16 is needed for interest payments on these investments which, in turn earn interest to the extent they are reinvested by the Post Office.

Under subhead 18 a total additional amount of R33 050 is required for two items, namely R5 050 for a gift of art work to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization Head Office in Washington, and R28 000 for a payment to the lessee of the restaurant in the J. G. Strijdom Tower. The latter amount represents compensation for the loss of revenue during the remaining period of the lease contract arising from a decision to close the VIP lounge in the tower for security reasons.

To provide for continued price increases and higher stock levels of catalogue items used in the maintenance and extension of the telecommunications system, the Standard Stock Capital must be increased from the present level of R29 million to R37 million. The appropriation under subhead 21 is needed for this purpose.

Nominal provision of R100 is required for two urgent building services not included in the original estimates. Total capital expenditure for 1976-’77 is estimated at R239,7 million or R6,5 million less than the original appropriation; this is as a result of the curtailment of expenditure in accordance with Government policy.

Apart from the additional salary relief and associated pension liability of approximately R22,5 million and the additional R19 million unavoidably needed for the higher payments in respect of overseas telecommunications traffic and the higher interest payments on the greater investments in savings services, the remainder of the amount requested additionally is only some R13 million, i.e. 2,35% of the original appropriation. I consider this to be very reasonable, having regard to the considerable price and cost increases during the year, of which the R2,4 million in respect of rail and other transport serves as an example.

Mr. Speaker, this additional appropriation, notwithstanding the fact that certain items in it are regarded as being urgent and cannot wait for the main appropriation later in the year, has the effect of making the appropriation for this year approximately 10% higher than the estimates. It seems as if there are certain of the items that could have been planned for better by the hon. the Minister. I shall deal with them a little later.

If one compares this additional appropriation with that of the year 1975-’76, one sees that that additional appropriation was only 3% higher than the main estimates. The additional capital expenditure of R100 is actually of no moment at all. If one compares the capital, then the hon. the Minister’s statement makes it quite clear that at the time the budget was framed, he hoped to spend this money and he has been unable to do so. In his speech today he said that it was as a result of curtailment of operations. At the same time he has mentioned that there is certain urgent work that has to be done. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention straight away to the question of the Christiana post office.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not mention that the Christiana post office was actually on the estimates for the year ending 31 March 1976. Why the matter has become urgent, I do not know, because in 1976 nothing was done about it. It was left severely alone. It lapsed completely and it was not repeated in the main estimates for this year. At this stage it has become urgent. I think that the hon. the Minister owes the House an explanation as to why a building, i.e. a post office in Christiana, was considered necessary in the year ending 31 March 1976, was then not urgent after all and has now again become urgent. It is also interesting to see that the estimate that was given at that time differs very vastly from the estimate given on this occasion. On that occasion the estimate was well over R200 000; in this case the estimate is R160 000. I believe that the hon. the Minister should, in introducing and also in publishing the estimates of the additional expenditure, have drawn attention to the fact that this was a matter which had in fact been on the estimates for the year ending March 1976.

The statement of revenue and expenditure, published on 11 February of this year, shows that expenditure for the period April to December amounted to R424 million and that for the month of December it was almost R38 million. On this basis it could be that the total expenditure for the year would be R538 million, plus the additional estimate of R54 million for operating expenditure, which would result in a total of R592 million. On previous occasions when this matter has been projected, the hon. the Minister has said that we cannot really make these little sums, because there are certain payments that are made quarterly and others that are made at the end of the year. It is perhaps misleading, but it does give one an indication of what one can expect, i.e. a total expenditure of R592 million. The revenue figures are also interesting, because the actual revenue received for the period April to December amounted to R459 million. The December figure was R52,7 million. On the same basis as I did the calculation for the expenditure, the total revenue could quite easily be R617 million. That would mean that notwithstanding this additional appropriation, which is now before the House, we could still end the year with a very comfortable surplus of R25 million. I think the surplus may possibly be more than that, but it gives an indication of how buoyant post office revenue is.

As post office revenue is so buoyant, one wonders whether improvements and extensions cannot be made in departments of the post office other than telecommunications. It does seem to me that, apart from salary increases, pension contributions, medical aid contributions and very necessary Bantu housing—which I am very pleased to see is now going to take place—very little of this additional appropriation is devoted to the postal service itself. It seems to me that it is the postal service itself that needs the greatest attention. We on this side of the House believe that improvement in the postal services is very necessary and very long overdue.

We have the peculiar situation that at the moment a circular is going around the Cape Peninsula asking the public whether they are in agreement with the closing of a number of post offices in the Cape Peninsula on Saturdays. I have totalled the number of these post offices and it appears that the department has in mind closing 65 post offices in the Peninsula on a Saturday morning. I think that would be a retrograde step. I know that the hon. the Minister is probably trying to see whether he cannot arrange for a five-day week, like in other Government departments. We must, however, realize that the Post Office provides a service and that it is not an ordinary business as the hon. the Minister thinks it is. I think the hon. the Minister is missing the point if he thinks that he can provide a service when he closes 65 post offices on a Saturday in the Cape Peninsula alone. I have great sympathy with the staff, but I believe arrangements can be worked out so that the staff can work on a sort of skeleton basis on a Saturday. They could perhaps have one Saturday in four off or they could perhaps be on duty one Saturday out of four. To close the post offices would be a most retrograde step, because there are many people who can really only conduct their post office business on a Saturday. All the post offices that I have seen in the Peninsula work to a fairly high capacity on Saturday mornings.

Another matter which the hon. the Minister should consider is an improvement in the collection and distribution of mail. We have at present very expensive machinery for mechanization and for automation in regard to the sorting of mail. That is all very well and it is a very good idea to have it. I do not think we have any quarrel with that. We must, however, not believe that because we have mechanized and automated the sorting of mail, the mail is going to reach its destination quicker and is actually going to be delivered to the addressee. It seems to me that what the hon. the Minister has now done, is to bring about a bottleneck. We still find, notwithstanding the method of sorting of the letters at the larger centres, that there is as great a delay in transmitting ordinary postal items from one city to another. These delays have not been reduced in any way. We know that the international norm is that any letter on a straight run should be able to be delivered within 24 hours of being posted. The hon. the Minister is far off that mark at the present moment and I think he should be giving it greater attention. I suggest that a way in which he can give attention to that is to train special or existing staff to get rid of this bottleneck. They should be trained in such a way that the tremendous postal traffic can be distributed quickly. We have the same difficulty with collection. It is only in the larger centres and, in most cases, only at the General Post Office where there is very nearly instant collection. In all other parts of the country there is one collection per day. Sometimes, if one is unfortunate enough to post a letter on a Saturday, it is only collected on a Monday morning. Not only should there be greater use of better-trained staff and better training for the staff, but we feel that better use should be made of additional facilities to transport the mail to its destination. I know some attention has been given to the question whether the time has not arrived for the Post Office to have its own bus service, but I believe this is a matter which is becoming more and more urgent. If one had this additional service, it could be used for transporting the mail much quicker. I should also like to know why we cannot have posting boxes on all buses and trams throughout the country. The mail can then be collected as soon as the vehicle reach any point near the centre of the city. This is done all over the world and it seems as if this would be a very much quicker way of getting the post to the General Post Office.

A great deal more can be done, in particular, in so far as our men on the border are concerned. Our men on the border need mail to sustain their morale. I believe that at present the mail is taking about five days to be delivered to our men on the border. It is a vast improvement on what it used to be, but I see no reason at all why it cannot happen within 48 hours.

Five days is excellent service …

Forty-eight hours is what I believe we should strive for and this is what I want the hon. the Minister to strive for. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister should say that because there has been an improvement and there are not so many complaints he is going to sit down and do nothing further about it. I think he can increase the efficiency of this delivery far more than he has. In addition to that, there is the question of parcels. I am told that parcels now have to wait for an opportunity. Sometimes they have to wait for a great length of time.

While I am on the subject of mail for the men on the border and our men in national service I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not give attention to the question of allowing all mail which is destined for national servicemen to go free of charge. I believe that would be a great incentive for people to write and to send parcels to their friends and members of their families who are doing national service. It would certainly help a great deal to boost the morale of those men and I believe they need it badly. Anything we can do to help, I think we should do; the Post Office is in a very happy position to be able to do this and I hope the hon. the Minister will do something about it and that he will really prove to us that it can be done.

As far as salaries and wages are concerned, the hon. the Minister has told us why there has been this increase. It is still a little difficult for me, and I think most of us on this side of the House, to understand why the pension liability has been increased by 16%, whereas the actual wages and allowances have only been increased by 8,3%. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain that when he replies to the debate. It does seem to me that there must be some reason for it, although we have not been able to elicit the reason at present.

The transport expenditure, the hon. the Minister says, is mostly in connection with motor transport and this additional amount comes about as a result of the increase in petrol and oil prices. It is not quite clear to me whether this is all that this involves and whether, in fact, the R2,4 million is also required to cover the expenditure arising from higher petrol and oil prices, higher railway tariffs and other transport items detailed in the main estimates.

The buildings that have been referred to are minor buildings, the erection of which cannot be postponed until the main budget. I think the hon. the Minister should give us some additional information in that regard because it will be very interesting to know what buildings have become so urgent during the year and why we did not know about them in the beginning of the year when we passed the budget.

It is very interesting to note that interest payments have gone up 13%, which seems to suggest that the Post Office Savings Certificates and National Loan Certificates are doing very good business at the moment. The hon. the Minister did not mention the figure, but I think that that must have increased very considerably. It appears to me, from the hon. the Minister’s speech, that he is only referring to interest payments although he attributes the increase to the category interest and dividends. I sincerely hope we will never have to pay a higher dividend because the dividend that is referred to is the dividend that is paid on the capital which we are supposed to get from the Treasury. I believe that dividend payments should be stopped. We should not pay any interest to the Treasury. The interest we do pay to the Treasury should be used to improve the postal services.

The standard stock capital is now increased to R37 million. That seems to be a very large sum. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether this standard stock capital is going to be kept at that level all the time because, as I understand it, it is used by the Post Office from time to time. I should like him to explain to us whether he is always going to have in stock stock items to the value of approximately R37 million, and why it is necessary to have so much more stock now than at the beginning of the year.

The hon. the Minister mentioned some other points that we find very encouraging indeed, and here I am referring to the fact that now, for the first time, there is going to be assistance granted to Bantu officers in obtaining their own houses. We believe that this is a step in the right direction and we hope that it will encourage the Bantu to enter the Post Office service because we believe this to be a very fine service for the Bantu. While I am on that subject, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would, in his reply, tell us to what extent our commitments, as a Post Office, have been lessened by the fact that the Transkei has gained its independence. Could he tell us whether our commitment to the Transkei is still the same, and if so, why? Could he also tell us whether we are assisting the Transkei and whether our commitment, which was budgeted for at the beginning of this year, has been altered by the fact that the Transkei is now an independent State? As far as we are aware, the Post Office is in the forefront with assistance to the new Transkeian Postal Department and we hope that that is still the case. We hope that our Post Office is assisting them with the running of the Post Office and the training of personnel. We have no quarrel with that. We would merely like to know what our commitment is in regard to the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition is always in the very favourable position of being able to kick up a lot of fuss about nothing. We again had a great deal of this today from the hon. member for Wynberg. They are in the very favourable position of being able to do this. However, the hon. member for Wynberg is at more of a loss today than was the case under the same conditions last year, because, with a strong and determined Government like the present one, and with men like the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and his officials, it was very much more difficult for the Opposition to present a case here today and advance a little criticism. Looking at this additional appropriation, one is really deeply impressed by the excellent work being done by this particular department, the type of work which makes it possible, in these times of economic difficulties, to come up with an additional appropriation like this one, at which very little criticism can really be levelled.

Instead of only harping on the negative side of things, like the hon. member for Wynberg, I prefer to refer to this budget that is before us in a more positive way. I want to refer to the amount of R18 million which must be made available for salary increases. It is true that the hon. member for Wynberg referred to it and said one or two things about it, but what he neglected to say was that the improvement in salaries which is being awarded to our officials, can never really adequately compensate them for the service they render, all the more so in the case of the Post Office because its officials work an average of 2 hours per week overtime of their own free will, in order to help the post office to attain a higher level of productivity. No mention is made of this by the Opposition. On behalf of this side of the House, I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Post Office for the voluntary service they are rendering in this sphere for the sake of South Africa.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the problems in regard to the postal services as such. He asked whether the closure on Saturdays of certain post offices here in the Peninsula could not be considered as a means of accommodating the officials. If the Post Office finds it possible to do so, I want to say that those officials deserve it, just as many other people in the country certainly also deserve to work only a 5-day week. For our part, we are very happy that they should have that well-earned rest on a Saturday. Apart from his proposal that certain post offices be closed on Saturdays, the hon. member for Wynberg had quite a lot to say about the bottlenecks which occur in the collection and distribution of mail. I can state with every confidence that my voters have only the highest praise for the manner in which the postal service is being run today and for the way in which mail is distributed.

For the speedy delivery.

Yes, I am repeatedly given the assurance that there really are no delays and that one could hardly expect a better service than the one we have today. The post office staff really deserves our highest appreciation for the conscientious manner in which they perform this task under great pressure.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked whether consideration could not be given to accommodating our men on the border by forwarding free of charge, mail addressed to or posted by them. This is a wonderful idea and everyone will certainly want to support it, but, in my opinion, there are two considerations which really have to be considered. The first is the practical consideration that it is very difficult always to ascertain whether certain mail really is destined for those people. Together with this there is a second consideration, namely that I do not know of a single man on the border who expects to be subsidized by 4 cents. The hon. member argued that it would be good for their morale. I think that it would, in fact, be detrimental to their morale if we came along with a little gift of 4 cents by subsidizing them in this way. I really do not believe that this is a matter which merits further consideration. I really do not believe that we need discuss it further.

You cannot. You are incapable of doing so.

I also want to refer to the matter of the increased interest which must be paid on investments with the Post Office. We have had a year in which all financial institutions have had great difficulty attracting or mobilizing investments. In view of this, I think that the increased interest which must be paid on investments, is a feather in the cap of the Post Office. It is praiseworthy that in these times of stiff competition, the Post Office could succeed in attracting so many more investments than were originally budgeted for. We must be very grateful that the Post Office succeeded in its plans to attract so much investment capital. I really believe that this can also serve as an encouragement to the Post Office to carry on attracting investment capital in the same way in years to come. Mr. Speaker, one could go on reacting to the hon. member in that vein, but I want to repeat that he was at more of a loss today than last year because there are really no grounds for criticism of this additional appropriation.

Now, I know that in his struggle to get in on the act and pass a little criticism last year, the hon. member for Parktown made a mountain out of the molehill of the matter of making telephone services available to the Black residential areas around our cities. The hon. member had a lot to say about that. Since he will quite possibly refer to it again today, I think we can take cognizance with great pleasure of the intentions of the Post Office in this regard and the announcement made that the Post Office intends spending R23 million on providing telephone services for the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians and that those services have, in fact, already been supplied to 49 000 of these people. I do not know how the telephone department at the Post Office succeeded in making these services available in such a short time, but in that respect, too, we must congratulate them on having succeeded in meeting the needs which arose—and this is important—in a difficult year.

Seen as a whole, we have in the Post Office a department which knows what it wants. Just as they have endeavoured to give satisfaction and meet needs in the past, we may rest assured that in the year ahead, too, they will strive to provide the services necessary. If bottlenecks do arise, one can take it for granted that these will be due to circumstances beyond their control. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department on what has been submitted to us today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has criticized in detail and the hon. member for Springs has sung the praises in detail. After their two speeches there is very little left for anybody else to say.

Tell us about Peddie!

I shall come to that. I want to deal with a question raised by the hon. member for Wynberg and which was also dealt with by the hon. member for Springs, in relation to postal services to our men on the border. I think it is a very grand thought on the part of the hon. member for Wynberg to ask for postage free of charge to those men, but one would have to go into the practicalities of the matter very seriously. I think the hon. member was a little unfair when he complained to the postal department about delays in the delivery of post to men on the border. My experience—and I have visited the border—is that the post arrives at the base camp at Grootfontein very quickly. It is then no longer the responsibility of the Post Office at all and the Defence Force itself, under very difficult conditions, has to spread that post over a vast area. One unit can find its men spread over a front of anything from 1 000 to 1 500 kilometres with bad roads and bad communications. I do not believe that it is right and proper to criticize the Post Office as such on this slowness of delivery.

There is another matter in connection with the post that is delivered to our men on the border which I think can be regulated by the Post Office itself. My experience there, and I believe the experience of all others who have visited the border, is that some parents send the whole pantry to their children in the form of a parcel. I believe that there should be a limitation in the size of parcels. This would expedite delivery to a great extent. I have seen enormous parcels almost as big as the desks that we have here in Parliament, and I Have also seen a whole mailbag messed up because some proud parent in his wisdom sent a carton of milk in a parcel that burst on the way. This ruins the post for other people. I believe that we should use the media, that this sort of thing should not happen, that there should be a limitation in the size of a parcel and that things like milk should not be included in parcels for despatch to men on the border.

Sir, I was very gratified to hear that the hon. the Minister raised the matter in his introductory speech of the fact that the medical-aid scheme has now been extended to Coloured and Indian personnel. We believe that that is a great advance, and we would like the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply to the debate whether such a scheme is also being considered in respect of Bantu personnel in the Post Office.

As regards housing subsidies, one notices with interest—and I would almost say with pleasure—that the salaries have been increased. However, one notices that there is a very small amount here in connection with housing subsidies. I know this is a recent development, but one would have thought that the salary increases and the increase in pension subsidies would lead to a higher increase in the amount budgeted for housing, in proportion to the rest. I would also like the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply whether housing subsidies which are available to Post Office personnel are available only to White and Bantu personnel, or whether they are also available to other non-White personnel. If they are not available to these non-White personnel, I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether his department is considering such subsidies in respect of such personnel. In view of the fact that even Bantu can obtain home ownership schemes in some of the urban areas, I believe it is necessary to extend such subsidies to these people as well. After all, they are loyal servants of the Post Office, and I believe that such a step will assist greatly in the smooth working of the Post Office.

The last two speakers spoke about productivity. Neither of them wants to grasp the essential matter, which I believe, all of us in South Africa eventually must grasp. I have not discussed this with my colleagues. I am speaking only for myself. I believe that we must return—all of us in South Africa—to a full 5½-day week. [Interjections.] In this way, Sir, we can save a great deal, increase our productivity, and certainly also save an immense amount on the consumption of fuel. Even though we cannot buy fuel over weekends now, many people fill up their tanks to the brim by 12 noon on Fridays and they make sure that their tanks are empty on Monday morning. If we worked a 5%-day week we would not have so much time to empty our petrol tanks over weekends. [Interjections.] I believe it is very important that we do this.

Sir, I would also like to take the opportunity of thanking the Post Office staff, from the very top to the very bottom, for the wonderful co-operation that one receives from them throughout the year. I must say that I have never found any problems either with the Postmaster-General and his staff or with the ordinary Post Office personnel with whom I deal from day to day. I believe that we all owe them a vote of thanks for the services that they render to South Africa.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out to hon. members that we are dealing with an additional appropriation of operating and capital expenditure. We have had a wide discussion here, one which has been partly out of order. However, I have permitted hon. Members to express themselves on matters such as the question as to whether letters should be mailed on buses, whether national servicemen should be permitted to dispatch their mail free of charge, and so on. Moreover, I shall not be strict with speakers who are still to make their speeches. I want to point out, however, that this is an additional appropriation and that hon. members should confine themselves, as far as possible, to the additional expenditure. There are indeed some new items in the appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to abide by your ruling and I think the hon. member for Springs has already replied to the hon. member for Wynberg in respect of the speech which he made, but which actually belonged under the main budget of the hon. the Minister. I think it is actually a great compliment to the Post Office and the hon. the Minister for there to have been no criticism on the Additional Appropriation on the part of the hon. member. However, I think the hon, member for Wynberg made one remark which we, as members of this House, cannot under any circumstances allow to pass unanswered. He made a plea for the free delivery of mail to the men on the border and he concluded his plea by saying that it was necessary because “they are badly in need of boosting of their morale”. I wonder whether the hon. member actually realizes what the implication is of the statement he made.

Shocking!

I just want to make it quite clear that I do not believe our people on the border need anything like this. If this is the hon. member’s motivation, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should rather have the 4 cents paid by the families of the men on the border because I think that we, as this House, should totally reject the thought that the people on the border who are guaranteeing the safety of our country, need to have their morale “boosted”, in other words that their morale is low. Their morale is as high as it has probably ever been in the history of the S.A. Defence Force.

I should like to deal with the additional appropriation. I think one’s heart beats faster with pride today when one looks at this additional appropriation and at a few of the factors in particular. The first factor is that we must take into consideration that to draw up a budget which amounts to hundreds of millions of rands, is an enormous task. It is a tremendously complex task and in no circumstances an easy task. It is a feather in the cap of any department to be able to draw up a budget of R553 million for the year and then, at the end of the financial year, to approach the House and ask for a meagre additional 9,8% in order to meet their obligations for the year. If we analyse this 9,8%, we see that a large amount of it, an amount of approximately R22 million, was not even provided for in the budget. If this is taken into account, one ends up with a figure of 5,8% additional to a budget of R550 million. If ever there was an example in this House of an accurate, correct and perfect budget, I want to venture to say this afternoon that it is this budget. We can analyse the budget further. When one compiles a budget of this magnitude or, in truth, any budget, one is inclined to round off. If the budget is in the order of thousands and tens of thousands, one is inclined to round off in the order of tens and hundreds. However, if one has a budget in the order of hundreds of millions, one is inclined to round off in the order of hundreds of thousands, and millions. Consequently, it is extremely important, whenever one is dealing with such a budget, to be absolutely conservative. If one is not conservative in drawing up one’s budget, one is not conservative in spending that money either. If we test this additional appropriation against that yardstick as to whether it satisfies the demands of conservatism, we cannot but say that it complies absolutely with the demands of conservatism.

Particular emphasis was placed by the previous speaker on the matter of transport. We notice that the Post Office’s activities in respect of transport are probably the most extensive of all the departments. Two million telephones are distributed from the Limpopo to Cape Town and from Alexander Bay to Durban. These telephones have to be maintained. The trunk line networks connecting these telephones extend over more than 9,5 million kilometres. If one makes a rapid calculation, what it amounts to is that it is a trunk line network which, if joined, would extend approximately 24 times around the earth. This has to be maintained. If we take this into consideration, transport is probably one of the most difficultly controlled items in the entire Post Office budget. In order to test this, I made a few calculations which I should like to present to the House in order to indicate the conservative way in which the budget was, in fact, drawn up. An additional amount of 10,7% is being asked for in respect of transport. If we make an analysis of all Post Office activities, we notice that for postal services alone, the percentage of transport is in the order of 76% to 79%. Consequently, transport is a very reliable standard to apply to see in which way control—and mention has already been made of productivity—has been exercised over the expenditure on the activities of the Post Office. Sir, I should like to furnish you with a few figures quickly. The increase in transport costs from 1974-”75 to 1975-’76, was 23,9%. The increase in transport costs from 1975-’76 to 1976-’77 together with the additional 10% which is now being asked for, amounts to 22%. If we deduct this 10%, what it amounts to is that the transport costs have in fact been calculated in a most conservative way, so much so that despite all the extentions of the Post Office networks, transport costs increased at a rate of even less than in the previous year, taking into account the increased fuel prices and other maintenance problems.

I think we must take note here of the extremely conservative manner in which the Post Office goes about in drawing up its budget. I think we can conclude by conveying our heartfelt thanks to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the Postmaster-General and his staff, for being in a position to draw up such a conservative budget in the economic circumstances in which we live, and to exercise such a great measure of control over their expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will excuse me mixing the languages, but by “voorbaat” I want to thank you for your undertaking not to “vat” me “kort”. I have a few things “op die hart” that I should like to get off my chest. In particular I would like to reply to my good friend the hon. member for Springs, who was good enough to drag me into this debate; although very gently, for he is a gentle man. He and other hon. members on that side of the House seem to think that there is something wrong for us to suggest that there might be something wrong with the workings of the Post Office. At the same time they also seem to suggest—they do not go as far as to say that it is unpatriotic, but they get pretty close to it—that we are not appreciative of the services rendered by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Of course this is nonsense. We are aware of everything the Post Office does and some of it is, under all circumstances, quite splendid. We are also, however, aware of the shortcomings of the services rendered. It is often, I admit, the circumstances which are difficult, but that is neither here nor there. It is our obligation to draw attention to those shortcomings. That is one of the reasons why we are here.

For example, I think of such things as improved postal services. Here again, everybody admits that there has been an improvement, but there are still far too many delays in the delivery of mail especially, and paradoxically, on short distances. Similarly, as far as telephone services are concerned, we know that there has been a tremendous improvement in some areas, but we are also still aware of the real and very grave shortcomings which exist. There is far too big a backlog and far too many services that are hiccupping along.

I should like to reply in particular to the hon. member for Springs, because he raised the whole question of telephone facilities in African areas. Again he says that we are not grateful for what is being done. We are indeed grateful, but I should like to point out that, according to the information which was given to us in the last week or two, in the Soweto area where there are nearly one million people, there are today only 1 241 telephones which are served by four manual exchanges. There are 71 public telephones and only 1 171 private telephones. Another significant figure is that there was a waiting-list for telephones at the end of 1976 in the Soweto area amounting to 2 338, which is nearly twice the number of telephones that are in fact in operation in this area. We know the problems which the Post Office has had, especially during the last couple of months, in working in this area, but we feel an obligation to draw attention to this kind of deficiency and shortcoming that exist in the hope that something would be done about it.

I want to come back to the Additional Appropriation Bill and should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in this figure of R18 million which has been provided for salaries, wages and allowances, any provision has been made for narrowing the gap between the incomes of White and non-White servants doing the same kind of work. According to the information which the hon. the Minister provided during the earlier part of this session, there are 4 664 non-White officials in the Post Office doing work similar to that of White employees and these are being paid at an average of just over R50 a month less than their White counterparts for doing exactly the same work. According to figures which the hon. the Minister gave me, it would cost R2 900 000 a year to raise the salary scales of non-White employees to the scale of Whites in equivalent posts. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this seems to me to be an area in which the Government and the Post Office can really put into practice the Government’s policy of moving away from discrimination based on race and colour. I do not suggest for one moment that it should be done overnight, but the principle of the rate for the job should be pursued far more rapidly than has been the case up to now.

What is the position in the private sector?

The position in the private sector …

Order! The discussion is going too wide now.

I do not want to be “kortgevat”. There are various spheres in which services of this nature can be improved by better utilization, and I believe this is one of the incentives that we could use in order to increase the effectiveness and the productivity of these people.

In conclusion, I should like to say how grateful we are for the introduction of the African housing subsidy. One of my colleagues will be talking about it in more detail later on. I believe it is a step in the right direction and we hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I understand your ruling clearly and I am the first one to rise with the sword of Damocles hanging squarely over his head. I will therefore confine myself very strictly to the proposals before us.

You had better!

All right, I will. The Post Office is a service department and we accept that it is a service which is to be run on business lines. And at all times it should be run on the strictest of business lines. It is in this spirit that I want to raise a few points in connection with the additional estimates before us. We welcome—as I think any right thinking South African would—the housing subsidies that are to be paid in respect of housing for Bantu employees. This is a completely new item and I feel I can range a bit on it. Our concern is: How far is it to be extended? We would like to know from the hon. the Minister how many new houses does he visualize being sold to Bantu employees between now and 31 March 1977. I would go so far as to hope that the hon. the Minister could tell us what his plans are for the ensuing year, 1977-’78. Perhaps he considers that this is a drop in the bucket and feels that he can do better than this. However, I reiterate that I welcome this as being a step in the right direction.

I move on to item 11.3, namely the ex gratia payment of R120 000 to General Motors. This is quite a sizeable amount and being one who is involved in the motor trade, my sympathy lies with General Motors here …

Is that free advertising?

I am not involved with General Motors, old man. I feel this is something deserving an explanation. We have here an item of expenditure amounting to R120 000 which has obviously been precipitated by the fact that we have had a devaluation of the Rand. The hon. the Minister said as much to us in his address. Is this entirely necessary? Surely there must have been some way that this could have been avoided, perhaps by not calling up the number of vehicles that were originally tendered for. There must have been many ways this could have been avoided. I do feel that we would like to hear more from the hon. the Minister on this subject.

I now want to draw attention to item 18.15—Heinrich’s Restaurants (Tower) (Pty.) Ltd. In this instance a sum of R28 000 has been paid in respect of the cancellation of a lease. How is this figure arrived at? We ask the hon. the Minister what the unexpired period of the lease is and whether this figure is purely in respect of the unexpired portion of the lease or whether it is also in respect of the loss of profits. If it is also in respect of loss of profits, what is the relationship between the two? What is the amount payable in respect of the unexpired portion of the lease and what is the amount in respect of the loss of profits? In order to establish loss of profits, did the hon. the Minister examine the balance sheets? How did he establish what the profits were? How did he establish whether there were any profits accruing to this VIP room which we hear about? This concerns one room, a VIP room, we understand. What profits have there been from this room to warrant the payment of R28 000? It is an interesting point, and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply.

I should also like to know briefly from the hon. the Minister why the increase in standard stock capital should have a whopping 400% load on it in this additional estimate. 400% is quite an appreciable amount. Last year the figure increased from R2 million to R4 million, while this year there is an increase from R2 million to R10 million. I understand that in overall terms there is an increase from R29 million to R37 million. The R8 million, however, still represents, on these figures, an increase of 400%. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to these questions in due course.

Mr. Speaker, in the past we have frequently been told by the hon. the Minister that the Post Office is being run as a business. It is in the light of that statement that I wish to make a few comments to the hon. the Minister which are not really criticisms. First of all I want to say that I have the very greatest respect and admiration—as I am sure we all have—for the Post Office staff, and I should like to pay my little tribute to them for the way they have co-operated with me in my area in Natal. There are certain questions arising from these estimates, however, that I should like to raise.

The first question concerns wages. I know that the increase of 8% is not a very large amount. A very large portion of that, of course, involves actual increases in wages, but does the hon. the Minister not think that there is still some wastage of staff and time? This aspect is frequently noticeable. People often mention the fact that two White men come along to do a job that one White man could probably do easily with a non-White assistant. There may be a good reason for this, of course, but when telephone installations are carried out there are always two White men there to do a very simple job. It may be just a question of changing a jack or some other small repair to an instrument. Is there not, therefore, some wastage as far as wages are concerned?

I think the provision of housing for Bantu is an excellent idea. We are all very much in favour of this. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister perhaps made a mistake in his speech, but he said that this assistance is being granted to Bantu officers who wish to buy their own homes in Bantu townships within White areas. Does the hon. the Minister really mean in White areas? Because this creates a problem as far as many of us are concerned, particularly in Natal where these Bantu workmen can only stay in Bantu townships which are unfortunately in Black areas, i.e. KwaZulu. Will they consequently be assisted in purchasing their houses in the Black areas? Because there is no other area where they could possibly purchase houses.

Let me now deal with the increased cost of transport. Could the hon. the Minister tell me what the policy is regarding vehicles used for transport in the Post Office? Why are big trucks still used for small deliveries in remote areas to which large quantities of postal matter are never sent? In the big towns, however, I have often seen little Mini vans or Volkswagens dashing around collecting the mail. Is it not possible to use more economic vehicles than are being used?

I also want to mention the losses as far as call-offices are concerned. To what extent has the Post Office managed to eliminate the injudicious positioning of public call-boxes? It seems to me that a public call-box is never safe. Even in a police station it still seems to be subject to damage. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far the Post Office has got with placing public telephones in business or Government offices. I think for example of the local railway station where I catch the train every day. The telephone there is out of order half the time even though it is on the railway station. If this telephone were put in the station foreman’s office, for instance, I am sure it would be far safer, and easier to use.

I do not think that the matter of bad debts, to which reference has been made, is anything to worry about. The position is actually very good when one considers the large turnover the Post Office has. However, the loss involving General Motors and the relevant recommendation of the State Tender Board do pose a question. Why is General Motors particularly favoured? Surely, they were not the only company to tender to the Post Office and to supply vehicles. Why were only they compensated while, according to the hon. the Minister, they failed to submit their claim timeously? Surely, this does not sound like the full story. I do not think the State Tender Board would simply overlook the failure to submit a claim timeously.

As we have seen, the Post Office has shown terrific profits. It has been run profitably and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not give some consideration to the lowering of some postal charges. People are going to read in the newspapers that the Post Office has shown large profits and they are going to level the charge against the Post Office that it is taking money out of the pockets of the poor. In this regard I need just refer to one thing, something the hon. the Minister knows about, and that concerns the changing of names in the telephone directory. The charge that is levied for changing a name or initial in the telephone directory is a very sore point with most people.

Mr. Speaker, there are only three or four small items I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. Firstly, we note with gratitude the decision to move ahead with medical aid schemes not only for Indians but also for Coloureds. We find that encouraging. The scheme for Coloureds was introduced on 1 July 1976. I wish to join with the hon. member for Albany in asking whether this is going to be extended to the African workers in the Post Office as well.

Secondly, I wish to refer to the amount of R50 000 under subhead 1.7 to assist Bantu officers in obtaining their own houses. Normally, when an hon. Minister presents a budget of any kind, he is criticized for the amount of money he is spending. However, I should like to raise the question whether or not this amount, which is a very small amount, is going to be sufficient for the purpose for which it is allocated. If it represents a start, it is certainly a very encouraging one. One hopes very much indeed that this will only be a small beginning of something very much larger. There will be problems and, indeed, there are immediate problems which have already been referred to earlier by another speaker. However, there is also the additional problem concerning the whole question of leasehold and the authorities concerned. I hope the Post Office will have more success than other people have had in sorting out all the red tape involved.

Then, Sir, there is the whole question relating to the sum of R4,4 million under subhead 2 in respect of the pension liability that is consequent to the salary increases. Mr. Speaker, before you made your ruling, I was going to make a half-hour speech on the subject, but now, obviously, I shall have to reduce that to about half a minute.

Thank God!

You see, Sir, the hon. members over there have no concern for White people in this country. [Interjections.] None at all—it is always left to the members in these benches to speak on behalf of the Whites. Now that the Post Office is operating so successfully as a business concern—we must congratulate the hon. the Minister on this—and now that they are making such hefty profits, I would ask that we think not only of better services, which of course are always important, but also specifically of the servants who have served the Post Office so well. I am thinking specifically of those pensioners of the Post Office who retired before 1973. The hon. the Minister will know exactly to whom I am referring.

Do you need some votes?

I hope very much that the cynicism of the members on my left will be disregarded. We are concerned about these people and have received many representations from them. We hope the hon. the Minister will keep these people in mind. We know that there was a 10% increase for them, but one must bear in mind that the Railways gave a 20% increase in an attempt to adjust, to adapt and to make up for present conditions. We hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this when we come to the main budget.

Then, finally, I want to ask about a very small and interesting item in the estimates themselves and that is 18.14. I do not recall hearing the hon. the Minister referring to that. It is a very trifling amount of money, only R5 050 representing a gift of an art work to Intelsat head office. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what that art work is and who the artist was. We have to be the protector of the morals of this place and we therefore hope that this is a suitable piece of art work.

Mr. Speaker, had you been strict in the application of your ruling that we should speak on the additional appropriation only, I could possibly have finished before the House suspended its proceedings at 18h30. Since you have allowed hon. members to ask so many questions, however, I shall perhaps need a little more time. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to react to them as concisely as possible.

It is true that every little criticism has been levelled here at the Post Office’s activities, something for which I am very grateful, of course, I think the Post Office deserves this. The absence of criticism is to be interpreted as an indication of the appreciation of the Post Office’s serivces which exists among the general public, too, and as an indication of confidence in the staff who provides those services. Various hon. members have spoken with great appreciation of the work which the Post Office officials do, and on behalf of these officials, I should like to express my sincere gratitude for this. I think they have earned it. There is no doubt that the Post Office officials have set a fine example to the rest of the Public Service—and I should not like to draw any comparisons—in that they, as one of the hon. members on my side said, work longer hours on a voluntary basis than other departments of the Public Service. This is actually in sharp contrast to what the hon. member for South Coast said. He asked whether there was not a wastage of manpower. I want to give him the assurance that the Post Office is very mindful of productivity; that productivity is not only a motto of the Post Office and its officials, but also an endeavour on a day to day basis. Particular care is taken to guard against the very possibility which he put forward, namely wastage of manpower, materials and vehicles.

I shall attempt to group together some of the points raised by hon. members. I want to begin with the amount which has been earmarked here for housing, the amount of R50 000 to which so many hon. members have referred. I want to stress that this is a new item, one which actually has no relevance to the questions put here by some of the hon. members. For example, one of the hon. members asked whether Coloureds and Indians also shared in the housing benefits. The answer to this, of course, is that they share in the 100% housing scheme together with the White officials, but this is not at issue in this additional appropriation. This new scheme represents a start we are making with the provision of housing for Bantu employees. In this instance it is a start we are making only in respect of the one area which constitutes a bottleneck in the Post Office service, and that is the Witwatersrand area. In other words, this amount of R50 000 which we are requesting in the additional appropriation, is sufficient to enable 1 000 Bantu Post Office employees in the Witwatersrand area to put down the deposit on a house which they can, or may, obtain. I was asked, I think by the hon. member for Pinelands, whether this would remain constant. I assume that if the need exists, it will not remain constant, but that it will be extended in due course, even to bottlenecks which may arise elsewhere, so as to enable those employees, too, to obtain a house in this way. However, what we are doing here is making a start, and we do not know whether this will be adequate. We do not have the experience as yet. In the short time up to the end of the financial year it may possibly be too much, but experience will teach us this.

I shall refer to another matter, and hon. members will note that I am actually dealing with the smaller matters first. Mention was made here of the free handling of mail matter which is destined for the men on the border. I find it strange that the hon. member for Wynberg, someone who took part in the last war, is advocating something of this kind now, knowing full well that this was not even the case during the Second World War.

Then it is high time we improved on it!

I think that the hon. members on this side of the House have given an adequate reply to that. The hon. member for Albany also reacted to it very effectively by saying that the Post Office alone could not be blamed for the fact that delays occurred at times. The mail is delivered very expeditiously to the base. From there, it is delivered to the men, wherever they are in the operational area. This poses considerable problems, ones which are not to be solved readily but which, in any event, are not the responsibility of the Post Office.

What has this to do with free delivery?

I have dealt with the free delivery of mail matter. I pointed out that this was not even done during the Second World War. Why should we do it under the present circumstances? Its financial implications will be such that we shall certainly not be able to afford it. Mr. Speaker, the aspect of salaries was also raised. I want to point out that the amount earmarked here for salary adjustments relates to nine months of the financial year only. The hon. member for Parktown specifically asked whether provision was being made in these salary adjustments for a narrowing of the wage gap. Hon. members will remember that the hon. the Prime Minister said in his announcement at the time that provision would be made for this. I want to assure hon. members that provision is, in fact, being made for the narrowing of the wage gaps between the various population groups.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the amount which is being voted here for the cancellation of the lease with Heinrich’s restaurant. I might just mention that that particular establishment is situated on the same floor of the J. G. Strijdom Tower as the one on which the Post Office’s electronic equipment is installed. Particularly at the time of the bomb explosion at the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg, this aspect came to our attention very pointedly and the engineers of the Post Office felt that that electronic equipment—highly sophisticated and very expensive equipment—would be jeopardized if the existing arrangements were to be continued, since it would be possible for unauthorized and uncontrolled members of the public to move about on the same level of the tower. For that reason, we decided that that area had to be isolated and made accessible only to authorized Post Office personnel. Consequently we had to cancel the existing lease with the restaurant which was due to expire only on 31 December 1980. It goes without saying that the cancellation occurred after thorough investigations and after consultation with the person who held the lease. The amount was calculated as accurately as possible from an accounting point of view. I cannot make the calculation for the hon. member for Umhlanga now, but I can assure him that our accounting staff, together with the owner of the restaurant, went into the matter thoroughly.

†The hon. member asked for an explanation concerning the ex gratia payment to General Motors. I think the hon. member for South Coast also referred to this particular item. It is, of course, common knowledge that the Post Office acquires its vehicles through the State Tender Board and the Department of Transport. The contracts into which we enter all contain an item in terms of which requests for price increases have to be submitted within 60 days after they arise. In this particular case General Motors encountered problems with the basis for the calculation of customs duty, and therefore was unable to present a claim timeously for price increases due to the devaluation of the rand, increased production costs and revised customs duty. It was accordingly recommended by the State Tender Board that we pay this amount ex gratia to reimburse them for the losses they had suffered.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the increase in customs duty was in respect of a component part for the manufacture of a model that could be considered a South African model, or was the customs duty in respect of vehicles which were total imports—in other words, completely knocked down?

To the best of my knowledge the type of vehicle that we use in the Post Office is not imported fully assembled. Therefore, although I do not have the full information at hand I presume the increase concerns various items. Then, referring to the question put by the hon. member for South Coast about the reason why only General Motors is involved, the explanation, of course, is that only this particular contract is at stake. General Motors obtained the contract for the delivery of a certain number of vehicles at the time when devaluation took place. The resulting problems therefore concerned only this particular contract.

*I should like to turn to a few other matters raised by the hon. member for Wynberg. I must say that the hon. member adopted what was generally a reasonable standpoint, as did other hon. members who participated in the discussion. Indeed, there was very little criticism. The hon. member referred to the Christiana Post Office and wanted to know the reason for the urgency as regards that post office. It so happens that the construction of this post office appeared in the list of capital works for 1975-’76. At that stage, all Government departments were expected to curtail their capital works and the Post Office, too, got to work with the pruning knife. The Christiana Post Office was one of the works which fell victim to this.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned before supper, I was dealing with the case of Christiana in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Wynberg. I said that provision for the post office in question had already been made in the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital Works for 1975-’76, and that like all other departments, the department was obliged at that stage to impose curbs, with the result that that post office fell by the way. It goes without saying that the whole matter lapsed at that point. In 1976 the matter was once again reviewed but because the economy measures were continued with, provision for it was not made in the new budget. The existing post office in Christiana was built in about 1910. The building itself is old and obsolete and the accommodation is extremely cramped and wholly inadequate. We have found that in the interests of the service of the post office itself and that of its customers, a change is essential. The planning of the new building which was begun at that time has progressed so far in the interim that we can proceed with it. That is why I am providing for an amount of R50 in this additional estimate, just to have it included as an item in the budget again. As regards the total estimated cost—the hon. member also referred to this—I just want to say that in 1975, when it was included in the list of capital works for the first time, it was of course impossible to give a definite indication of its probable cost. At the present stage, now that the planning has progressed further, and in the present climate in which one can build more cheaply than before, we are reasonably certain that the amount may be given as R160 000.

The hon. member further referred to certain shortcomings in respect of the postal services. I want to tell him that postal services constitute the bottleneck in all postal departments in the Western World. This is the one branch of the post office in which one is faced with major problems. This is usually the case because it is labour-intensive, since a vast number of people are required to carry out that task, namely the delivery of letters and mail and its collection, facilitation and despatch. Apart from the fact that this is a problem experienced world-wide, it is also a fact that in our country, with its long distances and sparse population, we have additional problems in this regard. Consequently it is easy to say that we should have more and better-trained people, but this has wider implications, which we do in fact take into account. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we sent a mission abroad last year to find whether we could learn from postal services abroad. I hope that in due course we shall learn from that commission’s report, which is almost ready, and that we shall be able to make progress in this respect.

The hon. member also referred in this connection to a circular sent out here in the Peninsula in an attempt to determine the attitude of the public towards the closure of certain post offices on Saturday. Quite rightly, he, and certain other hon. members as well, related this to the endeavour on the part of some Post Office officials, too, to work a five-day week. I understand the point of view advanced here by the hon. member for Albany, namely that we should rather go back to a 5½-day working week.

We know, too, that the hon. the Minister of Labour and Mines has ordered an investigation into the possible reinstitution of a longer working week. Whereas we do not as yet have those findings, I think that it is a task for the management of the Post Office to institute an investigation into the possibilities of a five-day working week and the possible reaction on the part of the part of the public. If the hon. member is not already aware of this, I want to tell him that if one has lived abroad for some time, it strikes one that because their summer vacations are so extremely short, it is the accepted custom there to close a number of post offices in the larger urban complexes entirely, even for the short summer vacation months, six weeks or two months, let alone keeping on a reduced staff. I do not want to maintain that we should move in this direction, but I think we owe it to our staff to give their appeals a hearing and to consider the implications of their appeals so as to be able to take a sensible and judicious decision in due course. As far as the Post Office staff is concerned, we are dealing with a corps of highly responsible people and I am convinced that we shall have them with us whichever course we may have to adopt in the future.

The hon. member further referred to the increased amount in respect of pension liabilities and asked why the amount appeared to be out of proportion to the increase in salaries granted. In recent times, because the supply of labour has grown and become freer than before, we have been employing more people, and this could be partly responsible. The real reason, however, is that whereas previously the Post Office, just like the Public Service had to contribute R2,47 in respect of every rand contributed by the employee, after the increase in salaries we are now committed to paying R2,70 for every rand, and this has resulted in an increased amount.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the pensions particularly of those officials who retired before 1973. As far as this is concerned the Government has a very good record, because those officials have received everything to which they are entitled in terms of their membership of the pension fund concerned. That the hon. member will grant me. Apart from that, the Government has granted increases of civil pensions from time to time, as money has become available. The latest instance of this took place last year when pensions were increased by 10% to a minimum of R25 per month. One often hears the argument that if the position of officials who retired before 1973 could be calculated in terms of the formulas applying now, they would be better off. Perhaps we could take the matter further in the pensions debates, but if one were to calculate their pensions in terms of the existing formulas, they would be worse off than they are at present, as a result of the increases which the Government has granted from time to time. The reason is that at the time, their salaries were so much lower than the salary carried by the same post today.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the item “Buildings and housing” and he wants to know why the amount is a fairly big one. He wants to know whether I could provide a list of works we have undertaken, comprising the whole amount. In the first place, the cost of services has increased considerably. I am referring to water, gas, power, the cleaning of buildings, etc. which are responsible for R250 000 of the additional amount we are requesting. I want to give a further example. In the post office building in Cape Town, two lifts have been in service for almost 35 years. The condition of those lifts has deteriorated to such an extent that we were obliged to step in and renovate the lifts, and this alone will cost R74 000. The additional amount being requested here therefore comprises a large number of items and I do not think the hon. member expects me to go through the whole list.

The next question which the hon. member asked was: What are our obligations after the independence of the Transkei? These matters are, of course, arranged by way of an agreement concluded before independence, and I want to tell the hon. member that we have no additional obligations there. The services we provide there, are provided on a basis of compensation, viz. we are paid for them. The hon. member also asked why the Standard Stock had shown such a sharp increase, whether it would remain constant and why there was so much more stock. As far as this matter is concerned, there are a variety of reasons, of which I shall only mention a few. In the first place, the price escalation which took place in regard to innumerable items held in the Standard Stock was so great as to be partly responsible for this additional amount. There are items the prices of which rose between 15% and 30%, and some even rose by more than 30%. It is also true that some of the stock we ordered was delivered earlier than we expected, due to the economic recession that has set in. Then, too, we have had a drop in business demand. Due to the economic recession, a drop in business demand has set in and of course we are saddled with this equipment. These are only a few of the reasons and I want to tell the hon. member that if the present trend continues, it will not be possible for this amount to remain constant; we shall have to continue adding to it over the years. I do not want to say to what extent we shall have to add to it or whether such a stock increase will occur again or not, but we shall have to take into account the fact that there will be further increases in the future.

I think I have now replied to the questions which the hon. member for Wynberg put to me and I now want to deal briefly with the questions put by a few other hon. members.

The hon. member for Albany asked whether we were going to introduce a medical aid scheme for Bantu workers as well. As far as the aid schemes for the Indians and Coloureds are concerned, the Department of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and of Indian Affairs took the initiative. They are the schemes of those departments. We merely co-operate and contribute to those schemes from our resources. Apart from that we are not concerned with these schemes. However, it goes without saying that if the Department of Bantu Administration were to propose such a scheme for the Bantu staff, we should consider that too.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the demand for telephones and the available services in the Bantu residential areas of Johannesburg, more specifically in Soweto. He mentioned, quite rightly, that in fact Soweto was served by four exchanges. One of those exchanges, however, was totally destroyed last year during the riots which took place there, and the hon. member will understand that in those circumstances we are unable to comply with many of the applications. One cannot instal telephones if the whole exchange is destroyed. This is one of the reasons why we have such a big backlog there. However, we had to wait for more peaceful times. Nevertheless, we accept our responsibility towards the non-White hirers or users of telephones, and we shall give attention to this matter as soon as possible.

I have already replied to some of the questions put by the hon. member for South Coast. He also asked whether we make good use of our vehicles or whether we do not sometimes use vehicles that are too large for the minor tasks that have to be performed. This is a matter which has already been investigated in the Post Office and which has been decided on. Where possible, large vehicles are not used unnecessarily if a job can be done by a smaller vehicle. However, the hon. member must take into account the fact that the mechanics who go out to perform a service have to take their equipment along with them even though it may be a minor task. For example, they have to be able to take ladders along, and one cannot drive around in a Mini with a ten-foot ladder on the roof. That is why one needs a proper truck. However, I can assure the hon. member that the Post Office is so productivity orientated that this position is watched very carefully.

The last point to which I want to reply was raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. He is interested in a work of art we donated to the head office of the satellite organization. I am pleased he asked the question, because I, too, am interested in this. On the advice of experts, we commissioned the artist A. Baldinelli to create a work of art. He made a mosaic of a South African landscape. I have not seen it myself, but it has drawn very favourable comment and I think the organization in Washington is very pleased with that work of art.

I think that I have now replied to all the points of which I made a note. If I have left any out, perhaps I could deal with them at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Minister tell us whether it is possible for the Post Office to prescribe or limit the size of parcels delivered to servicemen on the border in order to expedite their delivery?

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has been raised before. On the whole, one does not want to place limitations on the size of parcels if certain parcels are extraordinarily bulky. The problems which one has with large and small parcels are in many respects the same because it is a question of communications and transport in the operational area. However, we can give further consideration to the suggestions he made.

I should like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to those hon. members who paid such a fine tribute to the Post Office. There are various speakers on my side of the House who made particular mention of the service which is being rendered and of the circumstances under which the service is being rendered. In this way, they paid the Post Office a fine compliment and I thank them all for this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr. Chairman, I was really quite surprised to hear what the hon. member for Springs had to say in the Second Reading debate after I had spoken. He said that he thought that, if a serviceman on the border received a letter without a 4 cent stamp on it, it would do something to his morale; in fact, that it would make him feel that he was not doing his duty.

No, it is the other way round.

He said it would affect his morale in some way or other.

Order! Hon. members should confine themselves to discussing the reasons for the increases under the various subheads in the Schedules. The hon. member must please confine himself strictly to that.

Sir, I agree with you that I have to restrict myself to that, but I cannot allow to go unanswered what the hon. member for Springs said to me.

Order! The hon. member may react to that during the Third Reading.

He may do so during the Fourth Reading as well.

Order!

Then I want to talk about a matter affecting the hon. the Minister of Defence.

Order! The hon. member must please abide by my ruling and confine himself to the reasons for the increases.

Sir, the hon. the Minister said a moment ago that he felt that, although the finances of the Post Office were buoyant as a result of quite a number of factors … [Interjections.] He felt that the finances of the Post Office were buoyant because there had been savings on a number of heads and that we would end with a reasonable surplus. He was very happy that, as a result of that, there would not at this stage be any increases on any of a number of items. I felt at the time that there was a matter which he did not deal with fully when he introduced the additional appropriation at the Second Reading. I refer to the question of postal services. I suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should, at this stage, consider the question of delivering all post to servicemen as a gratis service by the Post Office.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the various increases.

Mr. Chairman, you know full well that, looking at the schedules, one finds there is an increase in regard to salaries, wages and allowances, and also in regard to pension liabilities and transport. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether under any of these three subheads provision is made for a greater service in respect of parcels and all mail matter to our men on the border. I know, Sir, that you are going to tell me that the hon. the Minister is going to say that it is not so. The hon. the Minister of Defence is present and I want to say that I believe that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is doing part of the job the hon. the Minister of Defence should be doing.

Hear, hear! I agree with you.

On the other hand, I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence is doing part of the job the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications should be doing.

Hear, hear!

I think that the two of them should get together to sort out this problem because it is a very vast problem.

Wouldn’t you do better to sit down?

The problem is

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member a fair chance to complete his speech.

The problem is: How far does the post go? I believe the post only goes as far as Grootfontein. I see that the hon. the Minister of Defence is laughing. He thinks it is a great joke. I do not agree with him on that.

I am enjoying your speech.

No, the hon. the Minister is not enjoying it at all. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Defence is feeling very unhappy about this because he knows that he should in fact have called in the Post Office some years ago and asked them whether they would not provide postal units in the operational area …

Order! The hon. member is circumventing my ruling. He may only ask for the reasons for the increases. If the hon. the Minister advances anything as a reason for the increases, he may discuss it at a later stage, but not at this stage.

In any case, I believe that to be brushed off in the way I was this evening, by being told that because this was not done in World War II, it should not be done now, is arrant nonsense. I believe the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation as to why he has not done so. He has a buoyant budget, he has any amount of money, and I do not see why the men on the border, in particular, cannot receive their mail free, gratis and for nothing. To tell me that he will not be able to sort out the mail—I did not suggest that the hon. the Minister should— because he does not know where they are

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue in this fashion. If he does not abide by my ruling, he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. In so far as the postal services are concerned, the hon. the Minister said that because there was a sparse population in this country, we could not have the sort of postal services that obtain in countries abroad. This is an excuse that has been used for many, many years by this hon. Minister and by his predecessor. I do not believe it is a good and sufficient excuse. I do not think it is an excuse at all. I think it is just a question of passing the buck. I think that the hon. the Minister should go and sit down

I think you must also sit down.

The less the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says about this matter the better. I would like to tell him that the Post Office is far better conducted than his department. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Minister should make a detailed study as to how he can improve the postal service, to see how he can get the mail from the person who posts it to the person who receives it in the shortest possible time. There are several countries in Europe that the hon. the Minister referred to in his reply which are able to deliver any postal article within their country within 24 hours of its having been posted. Here in this country, notwithstanding all the additional appropriations that are being provided for here, notwithstanding the extra amounts that we are spending on transport, and notwithstanding all the other additional appropriations, this hon. Minister cannot succeed in delivering a letter even from Cape Town to Paarl in 24 hours. In many cases it takes 36 hours. I believe that is something which he should look into. I am certain that he can do a lot better than what he has done up to now.

Mr. Chairman, after the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I must make quite sure that I know where we are. I would like to make quite sure, by asking you, Sir, whether we are in fact dealing with schedules 1 and 2.

Yes, we are.

Thank you very much. I should like to refer to subhead 2—Pension liability. An amount of almost R4!/2 million is involved here. When I spoke in the Second Reading I mentioned that in normal circumstances a Minister is criticized for asking for too much. I would like to repeat what I said then, because I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has replied sufficiently, that in this instance the hon. the Minister has asked for too little. I am referring to the pensioners who retired prior to 1973 and who have repeatedly asked for assistance in view of their own situation. The answer of the hon. the Minister was that their salaries were much lower in the olden days and that it was not his fault that they were going to receive smaller pensions. I would like to say that I feel that this amount should be much larger, so as to incorporate an enlarged amount for the benefit of those pensioners who suffered before 1973.

Mr. Chairman, it really came as a surprise to me to learn from the hon. member for Wynberg tonight that the hon. the Minister of Justice was my Deputy Minister in the Post Office.

The Minister of Defence!

Pardon me. I mean the hon. the Minister of Defence.

You do not know how lucky you are! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed very grateful for it.

You may as well appoint Boraine as your postman! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I now want to return to the matter under discussion, but there is not much for me to reply to. I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that the salary increases which were granted, were calculated, inter alia, to bring about a greater measure of satisfaction among the personnel, to retain the people who are in the service of the Post Office, and to attract more people to the Post Office. In that respect, it can be interpreted as a contribution to improving the services of the Post Office in general. If I understood the hon. member’s argument correctly, he related the matter of the unsatisfactory postal service to the increased expenditure on transport. The hon. member ought to realize that when the price of oil and fuel rises, it has an effect on the vehicles which are already on the road, and obviously also on additional vehicles which are acquired in order to perform specific services. Consequently, I feel that I am fully justified in saying that everything the Post Office has spent on salary improvements, as well as in respect of transport services, was aimed at improving the whole spectrum of services which have to be rendered in this large and comprehensive department, and this does not only apply to postal services.

Perhaps the hon. member would have liked us to mention specific and more tangible examples, examples of what has been done to improve the postal service, but I have already said that through the years, we have paid considerable attention to this matter. There has been a continuous process of changes and improvements. Last year, for example—I announced this in last year’s budget—we introduced a system of priority mail. However, the hon. member did not mention that that system is working very well and that there is great public appreciation for it among people who are eager to receive their mail more rapidly. He conveniently forgets about this.

Order! The hon. the Minister is also restricted by the rules. He may discuss here only the actual reasons for the increased expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, then there is no reason why I should continue. I abide by your ruling, Sir. In any case, I believe that I have already replied to all the questions.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, said that he felt that, as there was no cost-free service for volunteers serving in the second world war he saw no reason at all why there should be a cost-free postal service to those servicemen who are serving on our borders and who, as we know, are not volunteers. Well, I beg to differ. I believe that the hon. the Minister has missed the point entirely. The hon. the Minister says it is quite impossible to sort out what sort of mail should be cost-free mail for servicemen. That is nonsense, because it is a very simple matter. If the hon. the Minister will only speak to the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. Minister of Defence will give him a very simple way of addressing all mail. All that he would have to do, is to put the number and name of the serviceman on the parcel or piece of mail which is being posted. That is all; nothing more is needed. This piece of mail will then be collected and, without any trouble at all, would be distributed by the Post Office to the various places at which these people are serving.

Order! I must call the hon. member to order because he is only allowed to make a speech about the increases in expenditure. He cannot, therefore, continue along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these increases can only be justified if the Minister introduces such a service. [Interjections.] There is no reason at all why the hon. the Minister cannot introduce such a service. It is being done in several countries in Europe. I am particularly interested in these services. I have inspected them and I know that it can be done. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that in Switzerland the men serving on the top of the Alps, get their mail 48 hours after it has been posted. I do not see why it cannot by done here too.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage of this Bill, we will support the Third Reading. We had some criticisms of the Bill and voiced them and the hon. the Minister met us by accepting some of the amendments which we moved. One amendment was to give a better definition of the term “operations in defence of the Republic” and now makes it quite clear that it means military operations. Another amendment provides for the State President to give notice in the Gazette or by other means when enforcing censorship in certain circumstances. However, we are not satisfied with the provisions of clause 12, which makes it a offence to take photographs or make sketches of military premises or installations. The present situation is that it is only an offence when done in an area which has been defined in the Gazette. We have made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister as to how our criticism can be met, i.e. by advising the public in some way or another that the area affected is associated or connected with military operations. The hon. the Minister, while not accepting an amendment from us, has agreed to give it his further consideration and, if necessary and if he can find a solution, to do it in the Other Place. We are prepared to accept that assurance from him as long as there is some form of demarcation or notice to the public.

There was also the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville on which the House divided, an amendment dealing with the periods for which servicemen can be called up. We voted for that amendment where it related to the Citizen Force, because we felt that it gave some protection to the servicemen in case the military should act in an arbitrary manner, something which we did not consider likely. We considered it would not happen, but just in case it did, it would give some protection to the Citizen Force.

However, when it came to the clause dealing with the commandos, we supported the Government because we felt it unfair, the House having rejected the amendment in the one instance, to discriminate against the different arms of our forces. I am just explaining why we voted differently. However, since the hon. the Minister ironed out our complaints and we agree with the other measures, we will give the Bill our blessing and support it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to the hon. the Minister responsible for this Bill to hear that we in these benches will vote against the Third Reading. There are aspects of the measure with which we are in agreement. Obviously; it is not necessary to detail them here. We shall oppose the Third Reading because, in our view, this measure includes censorship provisions affecting the private individual, as well as the Press of South Africa, provisions which are not only unnecessary, but also thoroughly undesirable. They could very easily be counter-productive and under certain circumstances even dangerous. Therefore we regard these censorship provisions as being inimical to the highest interests of this country and its people. That is why we are taking this stand today.

I think the censorship provisions in clause 7 go far further than is generally being realized in this House or outside. They will enable the authorities—if I may quickly recapitulate—even in such circumstances as those which exist in this country at this moment, to impose a blanket censorship on South Africa, affecting postal, telegraphic, telephonic or radio matter, as well as—and I quote—

Censorship involving the individual in this country could hardly go further. I say that because these regulations for censoring material such as I have outlined here, can be imposed under well-nigh any circumstances that the Government deems to be appropriate. At the same time the public as a whole—I have already talked about the individual and referred to the Press—is going to be directly affected by restrictions on the Press for which these proposals provide. Let me give an example. Take the case of a relatively minor township or race disturbance. If military forces are even marginally involved in an incident of this nature, the censorship provisions of this measure can be invoked. Under those circumstances the Government could impose—and I hope that if it is not true, the hon. the Minister will refute it—a blanket censorship, because, let it be very clearly noted, the Bill does not confine censorship to military information, it does not confine it to the area of operation. Is that true? It makes no difference whether it be a township or the border. It is not confined to information directly related to these issues. Once that has happened, the Press is restricted and the public would be denied information about what might be going on in their very midst.

I should like to hear that refuted by the hon. the Minister. It can well be imagined what effect this kind of thing can have on public morale. The hon. the Minister laughs; he regards it as a great joke. He does not care a fig about public morale. Everything is a great joke to him. He could not care. If the Press is not going to be able to tell the public the full story with appropriate responsibility and in conformity with the law as it exists at the moment—and there are censorship provisions in the existing law, and our whole argument is that there is no need for anything more—the public will be dependent for their information on official hand-outs. Anybody who has the foggiest notion about the Press and official hand-outs will know what that will mean. Hand-outs have no credibility, none whatsoever. Censored news has no credibility either, here or anywhere else in the world. In spite of the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards this matter, which is one of great amusement, a public which decides or suspects that it is not being told the full story of what is going on falls prey immediately to rumour-mongering and to suspicion. Ultimately that is the real criticism of censorship. Nothing affects the morale of the public more than the uncertainty which is created under such circumstances. People cannot decide how trivial or how serious the situation is, because they have no facts on which to form any kind of value judgment whatsoever. Such people are wide open to scaremongers and to prophets of doom. This is a very serious situation if one takes into account the happenings of the last six to eight months. This is the kind of situation this measure is opening up. I am not in the least impressed by assurances which are implied, that the sweeping powers asked for in clause 7, will be used with care and discretion. That is the usual phrase. They may be, but on the other hand they may not be.

We have heard the story of the discreet use of outrageous powers too often before in this House. When the Terrorism Act was debated, all kinds of undertakings were given that the Draconian powers given to the State in that measure would be used with great reluctance and with great discretion. We now know what happened and how those powers were used. There are hundreds of people in this country who can tell you, from direct experience, how those powers were used. The simple point I want to make is that once outrageous powers of this nature exist, the temptation to use them becomes absolutely irresistible. That is the danger of them. I repeat that existing legislation is adequate to deal with any contingency. Existing legislation provides all the censorship that is needed for the safety of the State and its armed forces. Therefore it is false to say that these additional powers are needed to give protection to our troops on the border. That protection is provided for in existing legislation and there is no need to take any more power.

What legislation?

Just wait; listen and be patient, because I shall tell you. If hon. members have not read section 118 of the original Defence Act, they should go and read it now. Those powers exist and they enable the Government now to act on the question of censorship. These new powers go much further than the existing legislation, because they enable the Government to introduce war-time censorship to a peace-time South Africa. That is some advertisement for the tranquillity of South Africa: war-time censorship in peace-time! There are already sufficient powers in this connection in existing legislation. I say this in reply to the talkative member for Bloemfontein West. Firstly, there is section 118 of the Defence Act which deals with the improper disclosure of information. It is a section containing wide powers relating to the composition, movements or disposition of military forces, and if the hon. member had ever had the misfortune to have to operate under this Act, he would know exactly what that means. We not only have that; we also have the Official Secrets Act with its provisions for prohibiting communication of a wide range of information concerning defence and the safety of the State. It is all there. It has been good enough throughout the years. Why do we need these new provisions now, unless it is to impose a blanket of silence on the Press and the mass communication media in time of domestic unrest? Is that what they want it for? I believe that we have not been given a satisfactory answer to that allegation.

Let us go further and see what will happen even if one has military censorship as we have had. Let us look at the matter through the eyes of a responsible newspaper, a newspaper of standing, namely The Star of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] When The Star discussed this Bill some weeks ago it wrote as follows—

The paper added this—and I hope the hon. the Minister finds this as amusing as he has found the rest of the debate so far tonight—

At best, therefore, we can say that censorship is an unsatisfactory weapon. At worst, it is dangerous from the point of view of the State and all its people.

The problems with this Bill are going to go much further than that and I want to deal briefly with some of the practical implications of the new censorship powers because they affect not only the newspapers, but also the public. I do not expect the hon. the Minister’s heart to bleed for the hardships of the Press, in spite of the fact that he has had long experience as a director of newspapers, although I do not know whether he has learnt anything about them. The problems and the practical implications are important, however, because they affect the public directly. The public’s right to know, the public’s right to information to which it is entitled in a democracy, is at issue here. That is the real issue.

The Minister does not agree with you.

No, of course the Minister does not agree. He thinks this is a big joke. He does not believe in public opinion unless it is his kind of opinion. I can assure the hon. the Minister that newspapers have great practical difficulty at this very moment in implementing the provisions of the existing Defence Act. By extending the scope of the Act as they are doing at the moment, they are now running the risk of creating greater confusion and uncertainty, again, I say, to the great detriment of the State and of the public.

The reporting of such occurrences as urban riots, for example, may under these new circumstances become well-nigh impossible. I speak from personal experience of the Defence Act. I do not know how many hon. members in this House know that the position today is such that if a military aircraft crashed in the middle of Pretoria no newspaper could publish the fact without running into trouble unless it obtained official sanction for publishing the report. That is how strict the Defence Act is at the moment. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West may not realize that. Our press censorship rules are severe and are often vague. They have to be vague because it is impossible to provide for every contingency. What is going to be the result? Amongst the newspapers all over the country and amongst the public there is going to be confusion, uncertainty and apprehension. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how these censorship regulations are going to be implemented. He obviously does not care, but there must be people who care one way or another. Is one going to have a censor sitting in every newspaper office in South Africa as they had in Rhodesia during their time of crisis? Is that what is going to be done? If so, at what cost and with what affect on public thinking? Is there simply going to be a total ban on the reporting of operations to suppress terrorism, locally and on our borders, with a reliance on official handouts? What plans do they have? Newspapers want to know and the public want to know, but the hon. the Minister does not care a damn.

I now want to speak of newspaper experience during a real, formally declared war, that of 1939-’45 when, as some hon. members in this House may recall, there were White South Africans who were trying their damndest to create internal disorder, while this country was at war, by blowing up pylons and post offices and trying to supply the enemy, Nazi Germany, with information which would have enabled them to kill more fellow South Africans. The Government of the day used this instrument of censorship very sparingly, and that is why I am referring to those times. Instead it relied primarily on the voluntary co-operation of newspapers, even of one that made no secret at all of its sympathy for the enemy; but the Government had more sense. That policy by and large— and we know this from practical experience in a newspaper office—paid off. I have a feeling that if the Government of the 1940s were in power today, it would not have asked for these outrageous, far-reaching powers. It would have dealt with the problem differently, wisely. I submit that with the best will in the world defence authorities all over—not only in this country—greatly exaggerate the value of censorship to their cause and their operations. This is understandable. I understand it coming from them, but one would think that politicians would have more sense. That just shows, however, how wrong one can be.

Let us again take the question of Angola. What information did censorship keep from the enemy at the time? It did keep a whole heap of information away from the people of South Africa, and while the enemy in Angola and Cuba and the newspaper readers the world over knew what was going on, Capetonians, Johannesburgers and Putsonderwater citizens did not know a thing.

Including Parktown.

So what effect did that have? Of course secrecy is necessary to prevent vital information from reaching the enemy. Nobody in his right mind argues differently. There has to be war-time censorship of some kind, but certainly not the kind that is envisaged in this proposed legislation. I want to say in passing that I and my colleagues in these benches reject with contempt the suggestion that by opposing this Bill we are, in fact, supporting the enemies of this country. We take it from whence it comes. [Interjections.] Blanket censorship, let me tell the hon. the Minister in case it has not penetrated to him yet, stinks in the nostrils of the Free World.

Tell us about the Day of the Covenant.

That is not the way to achieve the results he is aiming to achieve. There are better and more effective ways, and among them is voluntary co-operation between the Press and the Defence authorities, such as we have in operation in this country today.

Tell us about Dingaan’s Day.

There are other ways of doing it. If he would go to Israel he would find out how they did it. They have a formula for keeping the Press, radio and television informed other than through official hand-outs and censorship powers. Our Government could learn from them. I would like to emphasize that it is today not a question of whether South Africa can afford an unrestricted Press or mass communications media in difficult and trying times. It is a question of whether we can afford an unfree and fettered Press which is not allowed to give the details to the people all the time, details to which they are entitled and which will not endanger the safety of the State or any of its citizens.

This leads me to the final area of danger to South Africa if these censorship powers are adopted. I say without hesitation that if these censorship powers are implemented, our credibility in the outside world will be—if you will excuse me using the phrase, Mr. Speaker—go to hell. South Africa’s credibility will suffer as it has never suffered before, and that is no exaggeration. Nobody will believe any official reports about anti-terrorist activities, or activities to suppress internal disorder, once there has been Press censorship of this nature. They will believe the worst, with the poorest possible consequences for us. The hon. the Minister spoke yesterday in one of his calmer moments—they do bubble up every now and again—of retaining “die vertroue” of other States.

Here is a way, I suggest, of in fact surrendering that “vertroue” and of playing right into the hands of the communists and anybody else who wants to plough us under. [Interjections.] Sir, the House will be aware—I am not going to read it out now, because hon. members can read it for themselves—of the very explicit views expressed only 48 hours ago, about the whole question of South Africa’s credibility in the outside world in relation to Press freedom, when the leading American journalist, Walter Cronkite, said that Americans viewed with suspicion the restrictions placed on the Press in South Africa and that they also distrusted the Government’s policies. How much more suspicious are they going to be after this? Sir, in heaven’s name let this country not take another step backwards into the perilous labyrinth of news restriction and, in so doing, further weaken and even jeopardize our position at home and abroad.

Because of these feelings of ours about this measure, I should like to move as an amendment—

Order! I want to ask hon. members, in selecting the words and phrases they use, to be mindful of the dignity of this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I am really ashamed to admit that the hon. member for Parktown comes from the Free State. It seems to me as if the hon. member and his party think more of the concept of freedom than of the concept of responsibility. Since I have become a member of this House, that party has never supported any matter which this Government introduced, no matter how good it may have been. They usually range themselves with the inciters.

These measures are applicable to the Defence Act and I therefore want to ask: What is meant by the Defence Act? It is an Act which comes into operation as soon as our Defence Force takes action. When does our Defence Force take action?—When our country is in such a position that the assistance of the Defence Force has to be called in, which, thank the Lord, has never been necessary up till now. I would have been very pleased if these measures were applicable during the recent riots—the hon. member spoke about censorship—because the publicity which was given to those riots did us more damage than good. It promoted riots instead of quelling them. I shall leave the matter at that.

The measures embodied in this amending Bill have my wholehearted support, because we are dealing with human lives. In the first place our Defence Force has to protect the population of this country. In the second place our Defence Force must act in such a way as to ensure a minimal loss of life. The action of the Defence Force is usually accompanied by a great deal of security. One’s success is determined by the way in which one can apply security. If there is no censorship, I should like to see what information and reports would be floating around in our country and abroad. What is the result of this going to be? It is going to result in a greater loss of life, not only as regards our population, but also as regards our soldiers. Therefore I say that these measures are justified and must be placed on the Statute Book.

These amendments have two outstanding features as far as I am concerned. In the first place it is aimed at using our national servicemen more effectively and purposefully. I think that the time has come for us to use them more effectively and purposefully. The second feature is that the State President and the Minister are authorized to exercise certain powers during action in defence of the Republic or in prevention or suppression of terrorism or internal unrest. This is just as important as the first point. Since these amendments will result in greater effectiveness, I support them wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Parktown is a true liberal gentleman of the Victorian era whose naivety and starry-eyed innocence should be confined to speaking after dinner in places other than this House. The hon. member has moved an amendment to the Third Reading of this Bill which deals entirely and only with one single clause of the Bill. I listened carefully to the hon. member’s speech. He says there are Draconian powers of censorship introduced into the Bill, we are making censorship stronger and all this sort of thing. The whole thread of this speech dealt with an increase in censorship powers, but if one reads clause 7 it becomes clear that there is not a single increase in the censorship powers provided for there.

It applies under specific circumstances.

I shall come to the circumstances. If these hon. gentlemen have such objections to the provisions of clause 7 and the Draconian powers of clause 7, why do they not object to the provisions of clauses 6, 8 and 9 which have even more extensive powers dealing with the very life of everybody? They do not object to that. I believe these hon. gentlemen are inspired by the Houghton group and are trying to make politics out of this issue. Let us have a look at this. What does clause 7, to which they are objecting, provide? It merely alters the term “in time of war” to the type of conflict with which the whole of the Western world is dealing today. Now they say we must not have censorship under those circumstances. I submit that it is more necessary under these circumstances to have censorship than it is to have it in times of conventional war. I do not know what these hon. members are trying to get at. I believe that the hon. member for Parktown is a very innocent gentleman, as I have said before, but he is being used.

By whom?

By certain members in the Houghton group.

Who is the Houghton group?

We shall define them in due course. Mr. Speaker, why do they not read the clause? It says—

Do they object to defending the Republic?

Do they object to that, Mr. Speaker? Does anyone of them object to that?

Do they object to that?

No!

Now, what is the objection? [Interjections.] I cannot see their objection. Do they not believe that it is necessary to have censorship during such times? Do they not believe that it is necessary to have that censorship to protect the lives of our servicemen? I cannot understand people who call themselves South Africans, and who take up an attitude such as this in regard to this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand that, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here tonight, withdrew an amendment to clause 7 in favour of the amendment which is now printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban Point—a very good amendment. However, the hon. member for Yeoville withdrew his amendment in favour of that amendment and then this party voted against the clause, and now they are voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. They do that for a jumped-up reason, Mr. Speaker, just to make publicity for themselves.

I do not think you know what is going on!

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that all true South Africans, like us in these benches, and like the official Opposition, will support the Third Reading of this Bill because we regard those powers which are taken under clause 7 as absolutely necessary in the time in which we live.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Griqualand East for the support which he gave the Third Reading of this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. It is in the best tradition of this House over the past years that we stand together on these fundamental matters. Therefore what the hon. member did here tonight, was to bring soberness where an attempt was made to cause misunderstanding about a very simple measure, a measure which in the first place, is an old one, a measure which has been embodied in the Defence legislation of our country for many years. It is not a new measure. This measure deals with the rights and powers the State President has when the Defence Force is used in time of war. Last year Parliament in its wisdom decided that circumstances in the world have changed to such an extent that wars are no longer declared today.

[Inaudible.]

I say that Parliament decided this last year, but the hon. member for Sea Point is still dreaming. He is sleeping peacefully on the lap of his liberal, leftist friends. [Interjections.] In any event I am not speaking to him now. I am not speaking to him, because he is irrelevant in this country. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, last year Parliament decided that the Defence Force of South Africa may have to deal with other situations. It may have to deal with a situation in which war has not been declared, a situation in which it must fight terrorism, whether in mild or intensified form. This is the first aspect. The second is it may have to deal with the situation where it has to take action due to an agreement with a friendly power. We do have an agreement like this. We have an agreement like this with an independent country in close proximity to us.

It was not last year that we reached this.

But we knew then that it would be an independent country. However, the hon. member for Sea Point would not believe it, because he believes the policy of his other friends. He does not believe the policy of his own country.

But that provision was always in the Act.

For heaven’s sake stop cackling! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point cannot crow. He is unable to crow. Thirdly, Parliament decided that we may have to deal with internal unrest of such a nature and extent that the Defence Force of the country would have to be used. Apart from a declared war, these are the circumstances: Terrorism, support to a friendly power in terms of an agreement one has with the power, and internal unrest of such a nature that the Defence Force has to be used. This results in two things: Firstly, that, in these circumstances, the State security has to be maintained at all times. In that case the interests of a newspaper or a person who wants to send a telegram are not worth more than the security of the State. This is the one case. The second case is when one calls out one’s Defence Force and uses them to deal with the situation. Then the soldiers are entitled to receive that degree of protection which is their due, while they are fulfilling their duty. The situation which we have here tonight is that the official Opposition appreciates this and wants to afford this protection to the soldiers, together with the Government, and I thank them for this. However, that party refuses to afford the soldiers this protection.

That is not true!

Nonsense!

They stand condemned and accused of the fact that they hide behind smoke screens and are prepared to surrender the soldiers of South Africa in such circumstances. [Interjections.] If they do not want to do so, they must adopt a different attitude here. The time has come for us in South Africa to remove all masks of hypocricy, no matter who is wearing them. [Interjections.] It is quite simple. These powers which we are requesting for the State President of South Africa, are for the security of the State and for the protection of its troops, and as long as this side of the House is in power and as long as we have an opposition with a sense of responsibility displayed by the official Opposition, South African troops will be protected.

You can tell us stories like about Angola …

What did the hon. member say?

I said so that you can tell us stories like you told us about Angola.

If I were that hon. member, I would not speak about Angola, because if he had any say South Africa would not have fought against Castro’s forces. Then Castro’s troops would have been in South West Africa tonight. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had any say he would probably have welcomed them at the Orange River. [Interjections.] He is the last man who should speak about Angola. The hon. member did not contribute anything towards inspiring South Africa or its soldiers to keep our enemies beyond our borders. [Interjections.] The hon. member helped in spreading gossip in South Africa. This is the kind of thing we want to take action against, so that people will not be able to undermine our soldiers by telephone or telegram or by means of other gossip. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants it, I shall give to him; then he can pull faces as much as he likes until his own looks like a rising moon. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, the moon is already rising in the bench in front of him, if one looks at the hon. member for Walmer. [Interjections.]

I return to the second matter which the hon. member for Griqualand East raised. I do not think we should take any notice of that party, the PRP, any longer. They threw in their “also ran” tonight to deal with this matter. They have nothing left to say about defence, and so they got hold of the poor hon. member for Parktown. The greatest authority he ever wanted to be in his life, was when he wanted to abolish the Day of the Covenant. [Interjections.] I shall ask him next time to act as one of the speakers on the Day of the Covenant to that we will at least have a little humour on that day.

The hon. member for Griqualand East raised the question of the other provision, a provision which I myself am doubtful about. This is what we are going to do with the innocent person who wants to take a photograph or use his camera on an outing. As I see it, one will not bother anyone who takes an innocent photograph of a normal military installation such as a shooting range or something of that nature. A person who does not have any malicious intentions will also know that if he arrives at Simonstown or Ysterplaat, he should be careful of what he photographs. However, there may be people who take photographs without any knowledge of the circumstances prevailing there. I have given the assurance that we shall issue instructions in this connection. I have no doubt that our commanding officers will act in a very decent manner, but I think that we ought to make an administrative attempt— even if it is not in legislation—to see what we can do to take steps to prevent innocent people from getting into trouble when circumstances such as these arise. I now give that undertaking to the hon. member.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is unfortunately not available this evening and, accordingly, I should like to move the amendments which appear on the Order Paper in his name. That will be amendments Nos. 3 to 10 because we have been informed that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will not be in order and therefore I shall not move them. I now move amendments 3 to 10 as they appear on the Order Paper and which will now become amendments 1 to 8—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 8, after “(1)” to insert “(a)”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 24, after “citizen” to insert “or his spouse”;
3. (3) on page 4, in line 28, after “citizen” to insert “or his spouse”;
4. (4) on page 4, in line 40, after “agreement” to insert “in writing”;
5. (5) on page 4, in line 51, after “(b)” to insert “(i) and (iii)”;
6. (6) on page 4, in line 54, after “(i)” to insert “or (iii)”;
7. (7) on page 4, in line 56, to omit “subparagraph (i)” and to substitute “sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii)”;
8. (8) on page 4, in lines 65 and 66, to omit “to permit the issue of a writ of civil imprisonment of such citizen or”.

I believe these amendments were motivated in the Second Reading and therefore I shall not motivate them again, but only express the wish and hope that the hon. the Minister will accept them.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not moving amendments Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper?

†Must I accept that the hon. member is withdrawing them?

I was asked by the hon. member for Yeoville not to move Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper.

I am prepared to accept the first amendment he did move.

†I am not prepared to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which he moved, because I think they are unnecessary.

*The citizen is excluded in terms of this provision, and I see no reason why his wife should also be excluded, since he has already been excluded. The husband is legally responsible; I think is the case under normal circumstances, but he is being excluded by this provision, so it is unnecessary to move those amendments. As far as the fourth amendment is concerned, I shall accept it with pleasure, because I think it is an improvement. I am also prepared to accept the fifth, sixth and seventh amendments, as well as the eighth one.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move two of the three amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for East London City, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 33, after “him” to insert:

1. (2) on page 2, in lines 35 and 36, to omit “a period equal to the period during which he is rendering service” and to substitute:

I wonder whether it is necessary for me to address the Committee, as the hon. the Minister is in such an accepting mood tonight. Shall I address the Committee on it or is he prepared to accept the amendments? He may find that the third amendment on the Order Paper has already been accepted.

Mr. Chairman, it is unnecessary to move the third amendment. The wording thereof is better in amendment No. 8 which I have already accepted.

*Let me see now what I can do about the other two amendments. These are legal terms, and where there is any doubt about these matters, the Minister must be guided by what is said in the Bill as drafted by the law advisers. I had a discussion on this subject this morning and I satisfied myself that the formulation contained in the Bill is safer than the one which is now being suggested. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept amendments (1) and (2). If one has to make a choice in these matters, one had better make the choice recommended by one’s law advisers, especially if one has consulted the Government law advisers as well. The minister must accept the final responsibility, and it is better for him to be able to say that he chose the wording recommended by the Government law advisers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that he cannot accept this, apparently because his law advisers have told him that it is not advisable and he must be guided by his law advisers. Naturally it is advisable for any layman to be advised by a lawyer …

To his detriment sometimes.

In this case it is to his detriment. That is quite right. That is why I want to put you right. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered that as the Bill stands at the moment, when a serviceman comes back from service, he becomes liable to carry out his commitments. If the hon. the Minister looks at our second amendment, it will be quite clear to him that in terms of it the obligation to pay his instalments will not become due till one month after the serviceman has come out of service. When a man comes out of service from the Army he will have to find accommodation for himself and he will have to pay rental for a house in advance. He will have received his salary and will use that to rehabilitate himself when coming back to civilian life. All we ask there is that the duty to pay back the obligations …

If that is the point I agree with you on that one point.

But that is what the amendment is all about.

I do not like the amendment as you have it on the Order Paper.

But that is what it says.

I am prepared to consider another amendment which will be moved. I am prepared to accept the provision regarding one month.

That is provided for in my amendment.

No.

My amendment provides that “the obligation to pay such payments or instalments shall recommence only one month following the termination of such service”.

That is the second one. You are now referring to the second one.

No, the first amendment is to make it quite clear that the obligation …

I am informed that that is precisely what is in the Bill.

The Bill reads as follows—

We want to make it quite clear that a contractual debt does not only mean a debt which is already due. The reason why this amendment has been placed on the Order Paper is to make it quite clear that reference is also being made to a debt which may become due, for example, debts incurred on the instalment plan. We want to make it quite clear that this not only refers to debts which have fallen due at the time. If the hon. the Minister says, however, that he has been satisfied by his law advisers that that is what was intended, accepting also our proposed intention, I have to accept that because he will not accept my amendment. All we wanted to do was to obtain clarity about the situation, i.e. to make quite certain what the position would be. I do not see why the hon. the Minister cannot accept the second amendment.

The one relating to “one month”?

Yes.

Because I am awaiting another amendment which I believe to be a better one.

Where is it coming from?

It will come.

Stick around!

Well, we do not have much time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment I wish to move will solve the problem of the hon. member for Griqualand East. I therefore move as an amendment—

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I want the words “te betaal” to be inserted into line 33 of the Afrikaans text. This is essential, because the words “to pay” already appear in the English text, and for this reason they must be inserted into the Afrikaans text as well. I also propose that “plus one month” be added at the end. I do not think any further motivation is required. It is a reasonable amendment by which a citizen who has returned from service will be relieved of the obligation to start paying at once. On the other hand, it is reasonable towards the creditor as well. He is not losing any of his rights. He will just have to wait a month longer. I simply feel that this wording is better, and that is why I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that I am not trying to be funny. I really did give my attention to this matter this morning. My information—and it is information that I do have to take notice of, because it is controlled information from various sources—is that the first amendment will obscure the issue and weaken the whole formulation. I am no lawyer, but the hon. member will understand that when I have to make a choice between lawyers, I must accept the advice of those lawyers after having pointed out to them the various interpretations of which I am aware. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg moved that the Afrikaans version of the proposed new section 2(1)(a) be replaced by a provision which is better worded, as follows—

This is the same concept as the one proposed by the hon. member, but the wording is better. In the English version, the following is proposed—

This I am prepared to accept. I think the hon. member for Griqualand East and I had better try to reconcile ourselves to this.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, which the hon. the Minister has indicated he will accept, does not incorporate the whole principle of the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Griqualand East. It does not answer the question whether or not the provision covers such debts as are payable in regular instalments. That is the reason why he moved that amendment.

However, Sir, at this stage I should like to address the hon. the Minister on the provisions contained in subsection (2)(b)(iv). In the meantime, it would be appreciated if the official Opposition could be given the opportunity of studying the amendment of the hon. member on the other side. A written copy of that amendment would be most welcome.

I suggest we accept it as it has been proposed. Then we can go into the matter again after the Bill has passed through the House. We shall then have ample time to reconsider it before it is dealt with in the Other Place.

I appreciate that undertaking by the hon. the Minister.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider a further amendment when he takes this Bill to the Other Place. As I have said, I refer to subsection (2)(b)(iv) which provides that the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), which concerns the moratorium, shall not apply to “any amount becoming payable under a hire-purchase agreement”. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton which the hon. the Minister has accepted, an obligation is now placed on the serviceman when he enters into a hire-purchase contract to first advise the dealer with whom he enters into that contract that he has been called up or that he is in the process of doing his service. I do not know how the hon. the Minister intends advising servicemen or those who have received their call-up papers of this obligation which is now being placed on them. It is now a twofold obligation. Firstly, the serviceman must advise the dealer and, secondly, such advice must be in writing. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of the type of person who is generally involved in hire-purchase business today. It is one of the “dirtiest”, if I may use that word, aspects of trade in this country today. It has been alleged, and it has been proven on many occasions, that many of the dealers who deal in hire-purchase have one object only, and that is to have their client default so that they can repossess and resell. I believe that this amendment, as it stands, an amendment which is designed to protect the national serviceman, will in fact put him in the invidious position where he will not know of his obligations. I agree that the hon. the Minister might set out his obligations in the booklet that is sent to every national serviceman when he receives his call-up papers. However, I do not believe that many servicemen read those booklets in the first place, nor do I believe, secondly, that they understand them fully when they do read them.

I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this clause should rather be framed in such a way that the obligation is placed on the dealer to ascertain whether the young man, with whom he is trading, is a national serviceman or whether he has perhaps received his call-up papers. I believe that if the onus were placed on the dealer in this way, it would be fairer because the dealer would then have to prove that he asked the young man concerned whether he was a national serviceman. In this way the national serviceman would be protected. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware that for a hire-purchase agreement to be of force and effect, it must be set down in writing. I do not believe that this would cause any hardship to the dealer concerned because such an agreement contains a declaration by the purchaser. It would then be a simple matter to add to that declaration a clause as follows: I am not a national serviceman and I have not received my call-up papers. Then it is in writing and will be signed. The special clause in the agreement would also have to be signed. It is no good for us at this stage to try to formulate such an amendment, but I commend this thought to the hon. the Minister for consideration when he takes this Bill to the Other Place, because I believe that this is a way of protecting the servicemen concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept it. Allow me to say that I want to be quite candid with hon. members. I do not believe that this legislation is the solution. It has never been and it is not the solution now. The real solution lies in another direction, namely to get the co-operation of all the employers, and that is what we are trying to do. In spite of what is laid down in the Act, I do not think you can solve the problems of the servicemen unless you have the co-operation of the employers and their associations. The hon. member is fully aware of the fact that we are putting in an extra attempt to solve this problem through co-operation. In any case, I am prepared to consider his suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the hon. the Minister on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and which he has accepted. I do not have the amendment before me, but as I understood the amendment as read out by the hon. the Minister, it is the same as it appears in the Bill with the addition of “plus one month”. My trouble with this clause is that as it stands at present there is a suspension while the serviceman is rendering service “for a period equal to the period in which he is rendering service”. That is while he is on service.

Plus one month.

Plus one month. If the debt is to be paid in instalments I want clarity. If he is paying by means of hire-purchase, the full amount will become due at the end of that period. He will only have one month in which to pay. That is how it reads. That is why we have made it quite clear in our amendment which reads—

That means that the obligation to pay in instalments shall be put forward for, say, six months, or whatever period and he has been on service. As it stands in the Bill, it can be interpreted that the instalments which fell due while the serviceman was away, but which could not be claimed because of the moratorium, will all become payable at the end of his service plus one month. Let us take the example of a man who has been called up for service and who has purchased a motorbike on hire-purchase. He has to pay, say, R20 per month. He is called up for six months, and so in terms of the Bill as it is now worded, for those six months he cannot be sued. But at the end of six months he will owe R120 because six months’ instalments are due. As the Bill now reads he can be sued after one month for the full amount, the R120. Under our amendment, however, once he comes back only after one month does he start repaying his instalments of R20 per month. That is the difference. I want the hon. the Minister to consider that, because we went into this clause very thoroughly and that is the conclusion we have drawn, namely that it had to be amended, and that is why we have taken the trouble to amend it not only for one month. We could also just have added one month, but that was not sufficient to meet the case. We have to make it quite clear that all the obligations to pay will only commence one month following the termination of service. I want the hon. the Minister to consult with his legal advisers and to give this aspect further attention.

Mr. Chairman, I gave very thorough consideration to that argument this morning. I was advised that he does enjoy that protection. However, if that is not so, I still have time to reconsider the matter. I repeat that I do not believe that this legislation, even in an amended form, offers the solution. I still believe that the solution lies in the co-operation of associations of employers. Without their co-operation this legislation will achieve nothing. We can only be grateful that we do not have many matters which are subject to this legislation and that we have the amount of goodwill on the part of employers that we do have. However, I am prepared to re-examine this aspect as put forward by the hon. member for Griqualand East.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. J. Vlok agreed to and amendments moved by Mr. T. G. Hughes dropped.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling agreed to.

Amendments (2) and (3) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived.

Amendments (4) to (8) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture once more to what he said at the end of his reply to the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister referred to the interprovincial report and said (Hansard, 16/2, Col. 1531)—

Before that, when introducing the legislation at the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister said that the legislation was based on the interprovincial report. I subsequently asked the hon. the Minister whether he had read the report and whether he would make it available to me. The Minister then said (Hansard, 16/2, col. 1531)—

It is now the third time I am asking for that report. [Interjections.] No, I also said that I should like to have it before the Third Reading and I have not received it yet. [Interjections.] I am asking you now, Mr. Speaker, what those words of the hon. the Minister mean? What do they mean? Surely they mean that the hon. the Minister will furnish me with the report?

All you had to do was telephone the Secretary and ask for the report.

Oh, please!

The hon. member for Piketberg does not yet know what an assurance means. If the hon. member for Piketberg gives someone the assurance that he will give him something …

If you want it. [Interjections.]

Yes, I have asked for the report on three occasions. This is the fourth time I am asking for it. The hon. Minister is now showing me the report. However, I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister would ask someone to send me that report. After all, I cannot go to the hon. the Minister now and I should like to see it before the end of the Third Reading. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister takes no notice of that. Mr. Speaker, how can one pilot through this type of legislation at the third reading if one has not yet read the report? [Interjections.] During the second reading, the hon. the Minister said the following (Hansard, 15/2, col. 1501)—

†That is what this Third Reading is all about, and that is why I would like to have that report. From the hon. the Minister’s attitude I think I must assume that he is reasoning, “I have got the report here, but I will be dashed if I will give it to you”. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon. the Minister is playing the game.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! Is the hon. member for Wynberg allowed to be guilty of a tedious repetition in the House of the same arguments?

Order! The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon. member should know that that is no point of order. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for your protection, but in fact I like a bit of noise while I am speaking. [Interjections.] That is to say, I like it if it is noise that is worth while listening to. I would like to talk to the hon. member for Waterkloof.

*The hon. member for Waterkloof told me that I should not speak in this debate because he did not want to be here this evening. However, I am so pleased to see that he is in fact here, because now I can say a few words about him.

How many times have I not listened to you, Jack?

The hon. member said at the end of his speech in the second reading (Hansard, 16/2, col. 1519)—

I am so pleased because I understand it too—

Here are the important words—

The words are “shall continue to guard jealously”.

No, he said: “… will become jealous”. [Interjections.] In other words, the hon. member is not jealous yet, but he will become jealous. He is asking me to become jealous.

If the hon. member looks at the revised copy, he will see that it is “shall continue to guard”.

The hon. member said—

I must say, Sir, that this is fine language and a wonderful idea. I fully agree with the hon. member for Waterkloof, but the only point on which I do not agree with him, is that we will become jealous. I am already jealous.

I said “shall continue to guard”.

I was already jealous before the introduction of the Bill. I was jealous of the uniformity and am still jealous of it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member must wait a moment. I now want to refer to another Bill which was introduced in the Other Place. This Bill, which has already been read a first time, was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It is the Community Development Amendment Bill. Clause 5 thereof reads as follows—

1. (c) If the board or such local authority or statutory body or other body corporate or the said commission and the lessee or occupier are unable to agree as to the amount of such compensation within a period of 60 days after the termination of the lease, such compensation shall be determined …

Now certain words are omitted and substituted by—

This is where the jealousy of the hon. member for Waterkloof is being confirmed. This is what Parliament is going to do in future, The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is actually the one who initiated the entire Expropriation Act, has introduced an amending Bill at the first opportunity since the Act was placed on the Statute Book, which will now throw everything open for the local authorities. Any local authority may now expropriate at will. I have already said what happened in the case of the Cape Province. I have already given proof of what was done there, namely that, through provisions of the Cape Provincial Administration, the doors were thrown open for local authorities. I regret the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is leaving the Chamber now, because he is interested in divisional councils. I am discussing divisional councils now. He knows what the divisional councils have been doing recently. I want him to come back.

Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the hon. member a question?

Does the hon. member want to answer a question?

Yes, Sir, I shall.

Since the hon. member has asked me whether I have read a certain report, I want to ask the hon. member whether he has read the correction version of the speech which I made, and whether he has seen in it that I said that we “shall continue to guard jealously”. I also want to ask him whether he perhaps listened to the tape recording, because then he would also have heard that I said that we “shall continue to guard”. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member has finished his speech, I want to tell him that what I read was the unrevised copy of his speech. [Interjections.] I also have ears and I heard it. The hon. Whip opposite may feel free to shake his head, but I was amazed to hear what the hon. member for Waterkloof said and that is why I wrote it down in my notebook. I compared what I had written in my notebook with the hon. member’s unrevised Hansard and the meaning was exactly the same.

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg must accept the hon. member’s word.

Yes, I accept his word, of course. I am quite prepared to accept it, but I am just saying that the purport of his speech remains the same. He was in favour of uniformity and now, at the first opportunity of attaining such uniformity, he says that he is quite prepared to see something else done. I like the hon. member for Waterkloof very much because he was the chairman of the Select Committee and the two of us worked very well together. I know that the hon. member thinks exactly the same as I do about the matter. Naturally, the hon. member does not want to disappoint the hon. the Minister. He wants to try and pretend that he is prepared to support the legislation, but that it is the last time he will make a concession. This is what the hon. member for Waterkloof … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterkloof should not make this concession, because it is unnecessary.

What is going to be the effect of this legislation? This is very easy to ascertain. Last year, the Cape Provincial Administration substantially watered down the concept of compensation. The manner in which compensation is actually determined, has now been substantially watered down. What is preventing the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal or that of the Free State from saying before the end of the year, or during next year, that they are no longer in favour of the principles contained in the expropriation legislation, when land is expropriated for road construction purposes? This is what is really of importance to the hon. the Minister. When we are going to build a splendid highway running from north to south through the Free State, the Provincial Administration of the Free State can very easily decide that they are no longer going to pay compensation for that land. They can very easily do this, because there is no opposition and the one-eyed man is king there. What they will do is to appeal to the provisions of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation and make them applicable to the hon. the Minister. If they were to do this, I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister would have to say about it. Then he would agree with me and say: “outrageous”, as he said a few years ago. This is what he would say.

†I thought we were going to bury Sir John Cradock. I hoped that we would have had the wake this evening. I thought that on this occasion we would have had the wake.

Oh, really?

Yes, and I thought this would really be the wake. Do hon. members know what is going to happen now? We are going to postpone this wake and we are going to have it next year or perhaps the year after. It is a terrible thing that that hon. Minister has done, and I do not think that he is ever going to recover from it. His name will go down in history as the man who postponed the wake.

He resurrected him!

Yes, he has probably resurrected him also. At this late hour I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to have second thoughts on this matter. I appeal to him also to let me have that report. It is to tempting …

Order! The hon. member should not repeat it.

Then I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do what he said he was going to do as far as the report is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg said that he likes a noise while he is speaking, on condition that the noise is worth listening to, and I do not think he said so without reason. I want to agree with him, because it is worthwhile to have a noise in the House when he is speaking because this is usually all that is worth listening to when he is speaking.

You get the first prize!

The hon. member has the exceptional ability to carry on speaking when he has put his intelligence in neutral. This really is an exceptional talent, for which one can sometimes envy him. The hon. member for Wynberg is an important member of this House, and I definitely do not think that he underestimates himself. If he makes a strong objection here tonight about the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture did not run after him to give him a report, then he is overestimating his importance in this House a little.

Now you are getting personal!

Towards the end of the hon. member’s speech, when he really did not have anything more to say, he began to conjure up spectres about what could possibly happen in the Free State in the future and then tried to shoot down or not shoot down those spectres. However, in the Third Reading we are not dealing with the spectres which the hon. member sees or dreams about or with the spectre of Sir John Cradock. We are dealing, rather, with the actual words in the Bill. The only amendment about which the hon. member spoke for such a long time, is that in the Bill the case of expropriation for road-building purposes by a local authority or by a provincial administration is removed from the Act. This is the only point at issue here. The hon. member’s entire argument during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, and again here this evening, is quite irrelevant to the provisions of the Bill before the House. The debate which the hon. member tried to conduct here, is not a debate which should be conducted in this House. The hon. member for Walmer has already told the hon. member that this is a debate which should rather be held in the Cape Provincial Council. It is not a debate which should be held in this House.

You have missed the point. Try again!

I do not believe it is necessary to waste much more of the House’s time on this matter. I do not believe that the hon. member had any case at all. He only argued by implication that this House was going to concern itself directly and interfere in the powers which inherently belong to the provincial administration.

You are missing the point.

However, the hon. member failed utterly to present a case in favour of non-acceptance of this Bill by the House, and we on this side of the House therefore support its Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches do not want to enter into the quarrel over the funeral arrangements of a gentleman long dead. I merely wish to say that we are going to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch whether the hon. member for Wynberg said the UP were supporting the Third Reading or not. [Interjections.] I am being quite serious. At one stage there was quite a bit of noise in the House and I did not hear what the hon. member for Wynberg was saying.

Do not worry about me; worry about yourself.

I am worried about the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to give hon. members the reason for his impassioned appeal here tonight. During the Second Reading debate the Official Opposition felt very strongly about this matter. In fact, they recorded an objection to the Second Reading. Tonight, however, they feel so strongly about the matter that there are only six of them sitting in the House while the matter is being debated.

Disgraceful!

We support the Third Reading of this Bill. I just want to add, however, that the hon. member for Wynberg has a very real problem because he has definitely not done his homework properly. Of course, the hon. member for Wynberg is in a very special position. He is a past leader of the UP in the provincial council, and as such he is also the liaison officer between Parliament and the Cape Provincial Council. It was therefore his job to brief the provincial councillors on this ordinance which deals with this matter and was debated in the provincial council in 1976.

I taught you how to conduct yourself; you do not have to tell me.

Now the hon. member for Wynberg wants to rehash the ordinance tonight because he did not do his briefing properly.

Oh, what nonsense. That is absolute rubbish you are talking.

When ordinance No. 19 of 1976 dealing with compensation for road material—an ordinance which is dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill—was debated in the Cape Provincial Council, the Opposition raised certain objections, during the Second Reading debate, in regard to the compensation and the arbitration tribunal, but at the end of the Second Reading debate they agreed to the Second Reading without any objections. In the Committee Stage they did not even speak about the ordinance at all and during the Third Reading debate they also just accepted it. The reason why the hon. member for Wynberg therefore has to rehash the matter in Parliament tonight is because he did not brief his colleagues in the provincial council properly, as he should have done. In terms of this Bill the hon. the Minister of Justice can now proceed with the appointment of compensation courts. It is absolutely imperative that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should see to it that his colleague makes the appointment as a matter of urgency.

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member for Wynberg says I am talking nonsense. I have listened to him talking nonsense for half an hour this evening so why can he not bear with me for just a few minutes? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has a very vast responsibility in this matter because he knows he has delayed the matter since the Act was passed in 1975. I therefore appeal to him to ensure that implementation now takes place as a matter of extreme urgency. The property owners throughout the Republic of South Africa will be suffering serious losses and damages if this 1975 Act is not implemented immediately. I put forward a suggestion to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate which he promised he would attend to.

It came into operation on 1 January.

For the information of the hon. member for Green Point, who says it came into operation at the beginning of January, I just want to point out that it did come into operation, but that the compensation courts have not been appointed yet. The president of the compensation court has not yet been appointed, so no matter could have been heard since 1 January. I am amazed at the interjection of the hon. member for Green Point.

Whose fault is that?

Obviously, it is the hon. the Minister’s fault, but the interjection was irrelevant. This Bill allows the 1975 Act to operate, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are very real benefits contained in that Act, benefits which favour the property owners throughout South Africa.

I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will make representations to the Cape Provincial Administration to consider amending the Ordinance under discussion. I was perturbed to read in col. 1768, Vol. 83 of 1976, of the Cape Provincial Council’s debates, that the M.E.C. in charge of roads feels that materials can be taken from farmers without compensation. In fact, section 34(1) of the ordinance does not incorporate the spirit of the Expropriation Act of 1975. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that he will speak to the Administrator of the Cape Province and that he will come back to us, even if not in the House itself, and tell us what the outcome of his discussions has been. We feel very strongly on this particular point. I should like the hon. the Minister to respond to it. With these few words, I should like to say that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, now, in the dying moments of this debate, at last we are getting into the thick head of the hon. member for Walmer exactly what we have been trying to say throughout. We have been making precisely the point which that thickheaded member now raises in the dying moments of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South refer to me as a “thick head”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Why has this Bill been presented to the House? Some years ago there was an attempt to achieve uniformity in the legislation of the various provinces, and that attempt succeeded until the Cape Province broke faith last year by passing the particular provision which the hon. member now sees for the first time …

I referred to it in my Second Reading speech.

I refer to section 34(1) of the Roads Ordinance of the Cape, which provides that the Cape Provincial Administration may take material for roads without compensating landowners. The other three provinces have passed ordinances which provide that compensation “shall” be paid, and not “may” be paid or “may be paid at someone’s discretion”. They provide that it shall be paid without any questions whatsoever being asked. Because the Cape Province broke faith and because the hon. the Minister does not have the courage to take the Cape Provincial Administration by the scruff of the neck and shake it, the House is now being asked to pass this Bill to validate an ordinance which that Administration passed last year and which was ultra vires.

The Opposition supported it.

The ordinance which they passed last year in the Provincial Council was ultra vires.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir; that hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The ordinance which was passed last year, was ultra vires because it went against the provisions of this particular Act.

The Opposition accepted it.

That is why we are now being asked to pass a Bill with retrospective effect to 1 January. It is being done in order to validate an ordinance which was ultra vires. Sir, I believe that we have been consistent and have taken the right line in that we have consistently said that we are here to protect the rights of the landowners against the likes of the Cape Provincial Council. Therefore we will oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything against the hon. member for Wynberg. He is the kind of instrument in one’s life that is sent to try one, to steel one’s nerves to adversity and to endure which one is given strength, when one is trying to place a piece of positive legislation on the Statute Book. In all the explanations of 1975, with all the opposition, I repeatedly said: We have something positive here, something which we feel strongly about, and this holds for all hon. members, like the hon. member for Waterkloof who served on the committee. However, when it came to implementing the legislation, the province said that it was strip acquisition, it was something special, it was a strip which runs across a farm and that one need only make a few amendments to rectify it. We looked at the ordinance which came into effect on 1 January. The hon. member admitted it and I shouted “Disgraceful!” According to the ordinance a road could be built across a man’s farm in the Cape Province without his receiving any compensation. The Expropriation Act is applicable when a road is built across a person’s property and he is not satisfied with the compensation which he receives. The owner may then invoke this Act, and the province will have to pay for the land which it took to build the road.

Not materials.

In regard to the removal of materials, I explained the matter carefully during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. It is not a problem in practice, but, when gravel is removed, the owner can still invoke this Act, something which we did not have before. However, I had to consult the provinces about the matter.

The hon. member says I told him that I would get the report for him. If the hon. member would only look up in Hansard, he would see what I said. The provincial office is a stone’s throw away from this building. It is there. You can look it up yourself. I said so, after all; why does the hon. member just read the first part?

That was on a later occasion.

I told the hon. member that, but he only reads the first part of it. The hon. member is not a cripple and he can go and fetch the report himself. With all due respect, I should like to help the hon. member.

May I go and fetch it now?

The place is closed now. The report is an inter-provincial report and I said we should get it for the hon. member. After all, I do not have anything against the hon. member for Wynberg. Even though he is like the dripping of a tap, he is still a kindhearted, good person. I want to help him too, after all. I was then informed that the four Provincial Administrators had to approve it, but the chairman is in Bloemfontein. We have to write there to get hold of the report and I shall get hold of it for the hon. member. After all, I am not underhand. I am not trying to do anything to the detriment of anybody here. I do not want to bedevil anyone with this legislation. I am trying to help someone.

Does the hon. the Minister want me to go to Bloemfontein? [Interjections.]

I really do not think I can take the hon. member seriously if he makes remarks like that. It is a serious matter to me. I should like to make the legislation effective, and I should like to get finished. After all, hon. members know how many Bills we have already dealt with. I considered this Bill to be cut and dried, and expected that it would soon be finished, but there has really been a lot of humming and ha-ing about it. Can hon. members believe that the hon. member came and told me this evening that since the Orange Free State was a one-eyed government—can you believe it: just imagine—Sir John Cradock will be brought to life once again. Cap hon. members believe that the Free State will revive Sir John Cradock? I cannot think there is any danger of that.

I want to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove. I said this before. It helps me.

I mentioned the hon. member for Waimer in the specific case to which he referred, and I can now give him a written reply on the case of expropriation which he mentioned and which is not in time for the putting into effect of the legislation. We can look at that very sympathetically.

I have already replied in connection with compensation. The delay was due to the Minister of Justice who had to establish the compensation coûrt.

We are definitely not going to vote on this legislation because there is no time left. I want to conclude by thanking all the hon. members who served on this committee, from the hon. member for Waterkloof to the hon. member for Wynberg, every one who made a positive contribution towards having this legislation placed on the Statute Book. I also express my thanks for all the other contributions which they made. If another amendment to the Expropriation Act has to be made, I shall undertake to wait until the hon. member for Wynberg goes on a far journey, because I do not want to be held up with this one amendment for such a long time again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.