Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Appropriation Act for the current financial year an amount of R7 076,2 million was voted on the State Revenue Account. The additional amount of R260,3 million which Parliament is now requested to vote on the account represents an increase of 3,68%. In view of the increased costs departments have had to contend with since preparing their estimates some 18 months ago and unforeseen circumstances which normally occur during the course of any financial year, the total increase is reasonable. Notwithstanding particularly severe pruning of the original estimates of departments, the additional amount is comparable, percentagewise, to the additional estimates of previous years. I would of course have liked to present the House with an even lower figure. However, on the whole, and considering the unavoidable major increase in defence spending, I am satisfied that we have succeeded in our aim of curtailing Government spending.

While the additional amount requested in the Bill represents authority to spend, hon. members should keep in mind that substantial savings—probably of the order of R30 million—will be shown on other votes. Furthermore, an amount of R34 million now requested will be self-financing, namely R20 million in respect of the purchase of Government stock which will be used as part payment for land purchased for the consolidation of the Bantu homelands, and R14 million in respect of the Government’s increased contribution to employees’ pension funds which will be invested in Government stock on behalf of the pension fund concerned. After adjusting for these amounts, which add up to some R64 million, the net additional expenditure for which authority is now sought comes to less than R200 million—or 2,8% of the amount voted on the State Revenue Account—which, in the prevailing circumstances, appears to me to be an achievement of some merit.

Apart from the additional amount requested on the State Revenue Account a further amount of R7,6 million is needed on the South West Africa Account.

The specific increases requested in the Additional Appropriation Bill are normally discussed and explained by the Minister concerned in detail during the Committee Stage. Briefly the main increases are the following. Defence requires an additional R14 million. An amount of R28,9 million is included for Bantu Administration and Development, R20 million of which I have already referred to. Non-White transport subsidies account for the major part of the R26,5 million increase on the Transport Vote. Subsidies and loans to the marginal gold-mines require an additional R20,8 million. The sum of R14,l million is provided under the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote in respect of increased contributions to pension funds, and R71,2 million is requested under the Treasury Vote, mainly in respect of subsidies to the provinces to cover additional expenditure arising from improved salaries—R40 million—and escalation in costs—R29 million. The Department of Commerce requires an additional R8,1 million, mainly in respect of its export trade promotion services. For understandable reasons an additional R8,7 million is included under the Police Vote. R20 million, mainly to alleviate the severe housing problem, has been provided under the Community Development Vote. Provision is, furthermore, made for R9,5 million, mainly as a result of increased municipal tariffs, on the Public Works Vote and R10 million on the Water Affairs Vote. The CRC requires an additional R14,4 million, mainly to cover improved salaries and social pensions.

*Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will undoubtedly make available any further details and motivation which hon. members may require.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with this Bill at Second Reading, we realize that this is a Bill that gets dealt with mainly in the Committee Stage. There are, however, two aspects of the Bill that I would like to raise at this stage. The first is that the globular figure of expenditure which is now reflected for the current financial year, including the additional expenditure requested under this Bill, represents a very different picture from the picture which the hon. the Minister presented when he introduced his budget for the current year last year in March. In that budget speech the hon. the Minister stated that it was his aim that expenditure in the year 1976-’77 should not exceed in real terms the expenditure for the previous year, 1975-’76.

He further stated that the increase in expenditure budgeted for the current year, viz R718 million, was equivalent, percentagewise, to 10,5%, which, being near enough to the figure of inflation which he estimated for the current year, meant that his objective in stabilizing expenditure in real terms for the current year, would be achieved. I am not going to argue about the figure of 10,5% which the Minister chose for his estimate of inflation. However, we have not yet got down to that figure on a single occasion and the average for the coming year will be several points higher.

In his Second Reading speech on the Appropriation Bill the hon. the Minister also claimed that if the Defence expenditure were excluded from the picture, the increase in monetary expenditure for the current year would only be of the order of 6%. In other words, this means that if Defence expenditure were excluded there would be a net decrease in real terms in expenditure for the current year. Since we listened to that Second Reading speech this House has in Committee Stage dealt with additional estimates in respect of the Appropriation Bill of last year. These additional estimates totalled some R200 million needed partially to cover increased salaries and wages granted to the civil service. Now we have before us an additional estimate for a further R260 million. These piecemeal additions to the estimated budget expenditure change the whole picture of expenditure. Not allowing for the modest savings which the hon. the Minister announced in his Second Reading speech today, instead of spending an additional R718 million this year, compared to last year, amounting to an increase of 10,5%, we are now going to spend R1 177 million, which amounts to 17,25%. That is considerably above the inflation rate which the hon. the Minister set as his objective last year.

Is the Minister not ashamed of himself?

If defence expenditure is eliminated—and I would like to say that defence expenditure has not been a major factor in the additional estimates, either at Committee Stage last year, or in this Additional Appropriation Bill this year—then, instead of expenditure increasing by some 6%, it would be increasing by 13,4%. This in itself is higher than the inflation rate and means that the expenditure, other than for defence, has also increased in real terms and was not, as we were led to believe in the hon. the Minister’s budget speech last year, decreasing in real terms. If the savings which the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech are made in departments other than those included in these additional estimates, the overall increase is still 1673% and not the 10,5% which the hon. the Minister led the country to believe was going to be the picture this year. If defence expenditure is excluded, the figure is 1273% and not the 6% given by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech. These figures are all a far cry from those given in the hon. the Minister’s budget speech last March.

I think I am fully justified in saying that the picture which emerges from these additional estimates is a sorry one. The budget which we heard last year was not even a reasonably accurate forecast of expenditure, and I go so far as to say that the country was misled by the hon. the Minister in regard to the level of expenditure … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister gave an unfortunate and wrong impression to the country about what the level of Government expenditure was going to be.

Order! The word “misled” is a word that has hitherto usually been allowed, but in a certain sense is doubtful. Does the hon. member mean that the hon. the Minister deliberately misled the country?

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that the country was deliberately misled. I mean that it was misled on account of the incompetence of the Government. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House feel fully justified in criticizing the Government as we have done because of the high level of expenditure which it has allowed to continue, and to draw the conclusions which we have drawn because of it.

Arising out of this whole picture, I should like to ask how all this expenditure is going to be financed. The budget allowed for deficit financing to the tune of R292 million, R240 million to be drawn from the Stabilization Account and R52 million to be drawn by allowing cash balances to fall. If the increase in expenditure—to which I have already referred—is added to the deficit which has been budgeted for, then we get a total of R750 million for which no provision was made in the budget by way of revenue or loan financing. Is it any wonder that we on these benches talk about deficit financing? Is it any wonder that we talk about the inflationary impact of deficit financing? Is it any wonder that we despair of the Government’s financial management where, on the one hand, the Government is applying tight fiscal measures, tight monetary measures, high taxation, and on the other hand it is spending more than the country can afford, without making provision to finance that expenditure by orthodox and sound methods?

The other matter I should like to refer to is that this is the first occasion on which the new form of budgeting by objectives has been applied to a Bill covering supplementary estimates. I find the lack of detail as to the reasons for requiring additional expenditure to be an unfortunate aspect of this new form of budgeting, e.g. the only reason for the largest single amount that is required in the additional estimates, an amount of over R69 million required by the Treasury, is “to cover fiscal transfers”. No other details are given. “Fiscal transfers” could mean increased subsidies to the provincial administrations, increased loan to the Railways and Harbours Fund, increased loans to the Post Office Fund, loans to the public debt commissioners to finance smaller local authorities, increase in capital to the Land Bank, or they could mean increased loans to the South West Africa Administration. Surely this House is entitled to more details than we are given in the additional estimates. I hope that when they are framed next year, the hon. the Minister and his department will bear that requirement in mind.

It is not the practice to oppose the additional estimates, because until we have much more detail of what the amounts are required for, it is not possible to judge them on their merits. We on these benches therefore shall not oppose the Second Reading, but we shall call for substantially greater detail when it comes to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will not oppose the Second Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill. The hon. the Minister of Finance has pointed out that he seeks approval for an additional amount of some R260 million which is, of course, a 3,7% increase on the original estimate of R7 076 million. The hon. member for Constantia made two valid points of importance, of which the first is in regard to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech of last year, in which he said that he was going to hold the increase in Government expenditure to a decline in real terms and, at that time, he included the increase in defence spending in that increase. It was during this session of Parliament that the increase in defence spending became excluded from that equation and therefore the hon. the Minister has changed his ground to some extent.

In this debate we are not allowed to go into the priorities of the Government as displayed by the figures which have been tabled by the hon. the Minister and, therefore, we shall have to wait until the budget is introduced towards the end of next month to do so. There is, however, certainly one new item which we are entitled to raise with the hon. the Minister, namely the question of Glen Anil. Included in the estimates is an amount of R1,4 million which the Government has to repay. This was a guarantee given to certain commercial banks in the country whilst the Government conducted an investigation into the affairs of Glen Anil in order to see whether it was worth while to attempt a rescue operation. Hon. members on that side of the House may find this surprising, but we on these benches would agree with the Government’s decision that there is no way in which it could bail out Glen Anil. On the other hand, the question of Glen Anil cannot be seen in isolation because it affects the banking system and, more particularly, the smaller banks within South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government have entered into an arrangement with the commercial banks whereby the sum of R55 million—perhaps the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is available under certain conditions …

Order! May I point out that Glen Anil was not one of the smaller banks.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the troubles of the smaller banks are directly related to the problems of Glen Anil.

Yes, but only in so far as it relates to this item.

Does your ruling mean that I cannot continue with this point?

The hon. member may not discuss the problems of the smaller banks in general terms.

Sir, I now want to turn to certain other items which are affected by these additional estimates. The first one relates to the encouragement and promotion of exports where there is a substantial increase of R7,8 million and, naturally, we will deal with that during the Committee Stage. If one looks at the items disclosed by the figures set before us by the hon. the Minister of Finance, it is interesting to see where the major increases arise. I am leaving aside, for the moment, the fiscal transfers which I assume—I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us at the appropriate time—were basically to help the provinces who are in severe financial straits or, at least, not exactly overflowing with liquidity. The increase under Social Welfare and Pensions is presumably the result of an increase in the numbers involved, or perhaps the hon. the Minister concerned will tell us that it is the result of an actuarial evaluation. One of the items which we find very interesting, and in respect of which we are looking forward to receiving a reply from the hon. the Minister of Community Development, is the increase of R19,25 million to the capital of the National Housing Fund.

If one looks at the additional amount to be voted, the increase appears to be R18 million but—and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—it is in effect an increase of R19,25 million, which brings the total figure to just over R111 million. The interesting thing about that figure of R111 million is that it is precisely 1,5% of the total amount which is set out on page V of these estimates. Even though there is a substantial increase in the total amount, a mere 1,5% is being spent on housing and this should be borne in mind when one considers the problems we have in South Africa. To put it in another way, this amount is a mere 8% of the Defence budget. To sum up, one can say that we are spending twelve times as much on guns as we are spending on housing.

There are only two other Votes on which we will be interested to hear details. The hon. the Minister of Mines will no doubt tell us about the assistance to gold-mines. In view of the present rise in the price of gold, one would assume that that figure is an estimate which was made sometime in the past. It may be, in fact, a past payment on what was required. In any event, that figure is likely to come down.

I want to sum up our feeling about this Additional Appropriation Bill by saying that although we will support it, we would obviously like to have much greater detail at the Committee Stage in regard to the various items. We appreciate that it is not an easy time to draw up estimates. Anybody who is connected with business will be aware of the margin of error. The figures that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia simply show in one sense the kernel of the problem which is set out in this Bill and its predecessors, namely that if we are going to tackle the problems of our country as we now see them—and I am now talking of economic problems—then we must go much further with the reduction of Government expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious in a budget of this size in a growing and developing country that increases must be expected. We on this side will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill but we have certain serious reservations which I will mention shortly. The increases reflect a country that is compelled to defend itself adequately, bearing in mind our particular situation. This has our total blessing. In order to maintain our defence expenditure and in order to improve the quality of life of all South Africans, our economy has to be much stronger than it is at present. In order to have an economy that can produce these additional funds and the requirements of a modem society, South Africa is going to require a tremendous effort on the part of all South Africans. The Government is going to have to set the lead to inspire all our people to greater heights and to instill far greater business confidence than at present. At the same time Government expenditure must be kept down to a reasonable level.

During the Committee Stage we are going to query various items, but at this stage there is one matter we would like to raise, a matter which was partly raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, namely the sum of R1,4 million relating to the expenditure in regard to Glen Anil. This is a new item. It sets a dangerous precedent and I believe that this matter must be more carefully looked at. The hon. the Minister must agree with us that the money should not be laid out and I want to indicate why I say that. The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech on the Part Appropriation Bill, had this to say (Hansard, 7 February 1977, col. 893)—

Having said that, the hon. the Minister was fully aware of the fact that he could not give a guarantee of R5 million, and neither should R1,4 million be laid out as he proposes to do in this appropriation. Taxpayers’ funds are trust funds and cannot be squandered in this reckless fashion. The hon. the Minister, I believe, took an incorrect decision when the banks came to see him. It is my belief that he made an unjustifiable commitment of trust funds. The hon. the Minister should have said to the banks: Gentlemen, I know that Glen Anil is in your debt to the tune of R100 million, and if you want my department to investigate the matter, we shall do the investigation at our own cost, but while the investigation is taking place, it is the responsibility of the banks to keep Glen Anil alive and not the responsibility of the government; the banks incurred the liability and then come asking the Government for a favour and the taxpayers must be deprived of R1,4 million because the banks have asked the Government to investigate certain proposals. Mr. Speaker, a more ridiculous situation one could never have anticipated. In my estimation this R1,4 million should not be laid out for this particular purpose. We on this side of the House would prefer to see this money spent on building 200 to 400 houses, creating jobs for unemployed people and providing homes for the homeless. The hon. the Minister is obviously on very good terms with the banks. We therefore suggest that he goes back to the banks, explains to them that he has made a mistake and recoups this amount from them. Unless we get the assurance from the hon. the Minister that this matter will be rectified, we shall introduce, in the Committee Stage, an amendment for the deletion of this amount.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on a very serious matter here. In these times we are living in, it is most certainly necessary that there be confidence in South Africa’s financial position. We need foreign investments, and our growth determined largely by the amount of capital we attract from abroad. In order, therefore, to have confidence in South Africa, it is most essential for the Ministers of the government of the day, and consequently the hon. the Minister of Finance as well, to occupy positions of such trust that their credibility is not damaged in any way. It is very important that …

Order! I do not think that the matter which the hon. member is now dealing with, is one which ought to be discussed under the additional appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, may I not perhaps discuss it with reference to the votes of the Treasury and of Foreign Affairs, South Africa’s image and the money spent in that regard, and also, of course, with reference to obtaining foreign capital and balancing our budget?

We are at present dealing with an additional appropriation. Consequently, any additions to a Vote may be discussed, as may their details, i.e. the reasons for the addition, but we cannot have a general discussion on the policy of the Government or of the hon. the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall raise the matter on a later occasion.

Mr. Speaker, after the abortive efforts of both the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Lydenburg, I enter upon this debate with a feeling of trepidation, although not in regard to the hon. the Minister of Finance, because as far as he is concerned, there is no doubt that my friend, the hon. member for Constantia, was completely correct when he said that the hon. the Minister had presented a set of figures here which misled the public. Whether they are designed by him deliberately to mislead the public or not, is not the question at the moment. The fact is …

You said that in a previous debate as well.

That is right. I did say it in a previous debate as well, and I stand by what I said. [Interjections.] The facts are presented to mislead the public …

Order! The hon. member must be very careful. This is a debate on the additional estimates and I cannot allow any kind of general discussion. I do not want to be too strict, but I could even ask members to restrict themselves to asking for the reasons for the additions.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. Your ruling is, of course, correct, as it always is. However, Sir, may I crave your indulgence for one moment simply to reply to one or two comments the hon. the Minister made in his introduction to this measure? That is all I ask of you, Sir. All I ask, is your indulgence of my doing that. Afterwards I shall refer to specific items and discuss them, if I may do so in terms of the rules. Alternatively, I shall simply ask questions, if I may, in terms of the rules.

Order! The hon. member may continue. I shall see by what he has to say.

Thank you, Sir.

In introducing this, the hon. the Minister said that the total increase was reasonable. When he made this statement, he was referring to the total increase of only R260 million. However, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague, the member for Constantia, the increase in expenditure over the previous year is in fact R1 178 million. This is why I say that I believe the hon. the Minister is misleading the people outside. They are getting a too rosy picture of the situation. The hon. the Minister went further and referred to unforeseen circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member persist in stating that the hon. the Minister is misleading the public …

Order! I think the hon. member must now cease using the words “misled the public and the House”. There are other words the hon. member can use to convey his meaning to the House.

Sir, I will abide by your ruling.

I come to another point. The hon. the Minister said he was satisfied that he had succeeded in his aim of curtailing Government spending. However, as I have just said, the increase in expenditure over the previous year is over R1 100 million. What does this amount to? It amounts to an increase of 17,2% over the total expenditure for 1975-’76. According to information I received only this morning from the Department of Statistics, the current rate of inflation is 11,1%. How can the hon. the Minister then claim that he has contained expenditure?

Looking at the estimates, I find against the Commerce Vote an item relating to the campaign against inflation. Do you know, Sir, what has happened there? The amount required under that item has increased not by 11,1%, nor by 15% or 17%, but by 150%. I must ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us why that amount increased by 150%. According to the revised estimate, R500 000 is being spent on this campaign against inflation. I must ask the hon. the Minister what the public in this country gets for that expenditure of R500 000. I do not believe that they receive very much in the way of benefits from that. The hon. the Minister covered himself by saying that a large share of this increase has been on account of unforeseen circumstances. He made the excuse, perfectly valid as far as the officials are concerned, that they were preparing their budgets 18 months ago and that these increases have resulted from unforeseen circumstances. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that two of those unforeseen circumstances were, firstly, the devaluation and, secondly, the increases in customs and excise rates introduced by the hon. the Minister last year.

I wish to turn to the schedules themselves and to deal with the departments controlled by this hon. Minister. Let us look first at the Treasury Vote in respect of which the increase is R71 million. The hon. the Minister said that this sum includes, mainly, amounts to be given to the provinces. In respect of salary escalations an amount of R40 million is required and a further R28 million is put down to, simply, escalation of costs. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what this is all about. Is this also as a result of the devaluation and the increased excise taxes? Why was there the tremendous escalation to the value of R28 million in the expenditure of the provinces, which is included in this globular sum of R71 million?

Under the heading “Professional and special services” we find that there is an increase of 28%, R232 000 over an amount of R830 000 which was originally budgeted. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what that is about.

Then we have a new item under Vote 24, namely an ex gratia payment to General Motors S.A. (Pty.) Ltd.

On a point of order, Sir: The custom is that questions of the kind the hon. member is putting now, and is then elaborating on in the way that is done in a Second Reading speech, are put during the Committee Stage. I therefore object to the hon. member continuing to put questions in this way and then making a Second Reading speech.

Order! I cannot forbid the hon. member to say during a Second Reading debate that he intends to put this sort of question to the hon. the Minister.

Sir, there is a new item which has been referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Walmer, i.e. the question of the R1,4 million to Glen Anil in an attempt to save Glen Anil. I must ask the hon. the Minister in regard to this, what the effect has been on the smaller banks and the larger banks, where I believe there has been a flow of capital away from the smaller banks to the larger banks with the resultant drop in the interest rates which have been paid. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us some more about that.

I particularly want to refer to the other new item which appears in the additional expenditure, i.e. the ex gratia payment of General Motors S.A. (Pty.) Ltd. of R337 075. There was a time when outside of this place we used to see a long line of long “slap” Caddies. Just recently we have noticed a change. Instead of that we now have big black Buicks.

On a point of order, Sir: I object to this general discussion. The item does not concern the details of the motor vehicles at all. He must confine himself to the item and it does not concern the appearance of the motor vehicles or the type of motor vehicle they should be.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that this is a new item; He may therefore discuss it, but he has no information as yet what this item is about.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do have information.

The hon. member may continue, but then he must discuss the item.

With respect, Sir, I am discussing the item and I do have information regarding it, as will appear as I proceed. In reply to the hon. Chief Whip on the other side, I wish to say that at this stage we are dealing with the hon. the Minister of Finance and I believe it is fully within the rules of the House that we should ask questions of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I could be wrong, and here I agree with the Chief Whip, to ask the Minister of Agriculture about wheat subsidies or to ask the Minister of Community Development about housing subsidies. But at this stage we are talking to the hon. the Minister of Finance and I believe that we are entitled to put these questions.

Order! The hon. member is entitled to ask for the reasons for the item, but is not entitled to suggest reasons himself and then to base an argument on those suggested reasons.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When a new item comes up, cannot it be fully debated?

The hon. member may continue to speak on the ex gratia payment to General Motors S.A. (Pty.) Ltd. I have not stopped him.

This item of R337 000 has its counterpart in the additional estimates for Post Office expenditure, where R120 000 was asked for exactly the same purpose, i.e. an ex gratia payment to General Motors S.A. (Pty.) Ltd. We were told then that this was as a result of devaluation and as a result of the increase in the excise tax. I can only assume therefore that we have exactly the same situation arising out of this hon. Minister’s department. Sir, I wonder how many other cases there have been. I tried to look through the Railways’ additional estimates, and I could not find it in there. However, I wonder what the case is in other departments. What about the Government Garage? What about transport? What about those departments? Have there also been increases there as a result of this, or is this only in respect of the big black Buicks which are standing outside, and not in respect of other vehicles as well?

Mr. Speaker, the first comment I would like to make in replying to this remarkable debate, is to comment on the extraordinary ignorance revealed by even the chief spokesman for the Opposition on financial procedures in this country. One would think that by now a man who gets up to lead a debate in a matter of this kind, would know that one has an original budget, that it is absolutely normal procedure to have a supplementary budget, and that it is absolutely normal procedure to have an additional budget. This is not the only country that has these procedures. It is general in many countries.

But not of this magnitude!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this question …

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member for Umhlanga just kindly keep quiet? Last time I spoke I had to listen to 15 or 20 interjections from him, and the one was more inane than the other.

The number you have today will depend on how long you go on insulting us.

If the hon. member for Umhlanga wants to speak in this House, Mr. Speaker, let him get up like a courteous member and address the House. But he does not know what courtesy means.

Order!

Do you?

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the main budget in March last year, I stated that the increase in expenditure in that budget was not more than the rate of inflation, as we calculated it then. That was the statement I made, and the whole House heard it. In other words, in that budget I kept real expenditure zero. I said further, and I repeat it today, that if we excluded the very big item for defence spending, there was in fact a decrease in real expenditure compared with the previous year. That is what I said. That is exactly what I said. The hon. member for Constantia can shake his head until it falls off his shoulders. [Interjections.]

When it came to the supplementary budget, I provided for an increase because of the rise in salaries from 1 July, which arose long after the budget had been set up. I could not provide for it then, because it was not at issue at that time at all. That was an item which came in the supplementary estimates—a perfectly normal procedure. Then, because one draws up one’s main budget estimates with a time-lag of something like 18 months, it is obvious and natural and fully to be expected year after year, in a world in which it is impossible to foresee, even a month or two ahead, let alone 12 or 18 months ahead, that we are subsequently going to have adjustments of certain items and increases, particularly in periods of inflation. One sees it in every country in the world. If the hon. member will take the trouble of going back and looking at the additional estimates of expenditure year by year, he will see that they fluctuate from a minimum of 2% to easily 4% and even to 5%. If I am therefore misleading the House if I come with a net amount of 2,8%, it means that every Minister of Finance before me has misled the House and the country. That is what it amounts to. It also means that every Minister of Finance that I know of in this world today is misleading his own country, because they all come with additional estimates of expenditure, some of them significantly higher than the items that I come with today. Those are the facts, and the hon. member does not express his view on 2,8% or look at the items, where a big one is for housing. Does he query it that we spend more on housing under these conditions? Could he have foreseen the building costs escalation that we have had to contend with in the last 18 months? It is surprising that he did not mention it in all the debates that he had taken part in. Does he cavil about the item of R14 million for defence expenditure? Why does the hon. member not take into account the self-financing items which come back to the Public Debt Commissioners? They amount of R34 million. Why does the hon. member not take that amount off, because it comes back? The hon. member did not take the amount off, but put it in. He should look at his calculation of 17%.

Did you read my Hansard?

Of course, I will read your Hansard.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks glibly about misleading people, and then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South comes along like a parrot and also talks of misleading. It is second nature to the hon. member to accuse people of misleading other people. If the hon. member would only study the facts, he might be able to make a speech that meant something. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Constantia does not wait to see how this perfectly normal amount in the additional estimates is to be financed. The hon. member immediately jumped to the conclusion that it will be by deficit financing. I have recently in a previous debate already queried his reference to deficit financing. It is a term which the hon. member throws across the floor of the House very easily, but does not give anything like a satisfactory explanation what he means by it. I suggest that the hon. member waits and sees how we are going to finance this under the very difficult circumstances prevailing, because I have already said that we will keep inflationary methods of financing to an absolute minimum. The hon. member has only got a month to wait. Then he will see how, in fact, it is done. I hope he will compare it when he sees it with what he said here today.

There have been a number of references to Glen Anil. The hon. member for Walmer spoke glibly and highly critically about this amount of R1,4 million. I would have thought that the hon. member, if it was troubling him, would have taken the trouble of coming to see me and find out the facts. Instead of that, he gets up here and talks about things that, in all fairness, he knows nothing about.

You gave the facts in your last speech.

What happened was that when this very big property company got into real trouble, the big and small banks which put millions into this property company came to the Government and said that they were unable to put any more money into Glen Anil. They in fact wanted a Government guarantee for an amount of some R95 million that they had at stake in Glen Anil. The position was that nobody knew exactly what was going on. After full consultation with these banks, the Reserve Bank took the initiative to study this issue fully. Earlier on it was very apparent to the Reserve Bank that it was a highly complicated matter and that they would need to make a very comprehensive investigation. It spilled over into all sorts of other fields. So the Reserve Bank said to these banks—the hon. member asked why these banks did not pay that amount—that if they could keep Glen Anil going until they could complete the investigation, they could carefully decide what precisely they should recommend to the Minister. The banks replied in effect, “Not on your life; we are not prepared to put another cent into Glen Anil!” At that stage, in November, our information was that unless Glen Anil immediately obtained further funds to keep them going until we could study this fully and make a proper decision, Glen Anil would probably have collapsed there and then. That was the Authoritative view, which was given to us in November, viz. that Glen Anil would not have survived at that point had it not obtained a further R5 million until early February. The hon. member says that I must now go to the banks and ask for that money back. It is ludicrous. At the start the banks said that they were not prepared to put another cent in, so the Government, in order to prevent this huge property company collapsing there and then, took the decision to issue a guarantee for a further R5 million which, we were informed, would be needed. In the event, only R1,4 million was needed. This meant that that investigation could be completed and we could take a coherent and careful decision, which, I believe, was not only the correct one but the only decision any responsible Government could have taken. We were also able to view the position and take a proper decision on the request of the Banks for a State guarantee of R95 million, which we refused to do. We could not have taken that decision had Glen Anil collapsed there and then. What would have been the point? That also goes for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who also spoke very glibly about Glen Anil.

We have had references to a number of specific issues. In terms of the normal procedures of this debate, I propose to answer the specific issues put to me during the Committee Stage. However, I nevertheless want to say here that as far as the provinces are concerned—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South immediately criticized this and said that we must look at the amount of some R71 million on the Treasury Vote— R69 million happens to be for the provinces. I said it in my speech and the hon. member and somebody else too asked what this amount was for. I said in my speech that R40 million was in respect of increases in salaries. What could be clearer? I said, too, that the remaining R29 million was in respect of increased costs of all sorts. The hon. member knows that the provinces do a great deal of contractual work, building and everything else. This is an amount due to them; in fact, it is less than the amount due to them in terms of the subsidy formula. It is substantially less; it is a sort of “agterskot” which occurs every year. If the hon. member would look up the procedures in this regard he would see that there is nothing abnormal about it. It is a perfectly normal figure. Only, it is very much less than it might have been because of the financial responsibility which has been displayed by the provinces, especially since this inflation rate has been so severe.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I should just like an opportunity to deal with this. I should like to take this opportunity today to congratulate the provinces and the administrators on the most constructive and responsible manner in which they have co-operated with us in financing all our manifold activities in these difficult times, and specifically for their contribution to the anti-inflation campaign. I do that with great pleasure. There is nothing mysterious about this item. It is in fact substantially less than what they are strictly speaking entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can elucidate a little further on the statement he made about the R29 million being on account of “escalations”, as he put it?

I shall obtain the details and do that in the Committee Stage.

That is about all I can really say here.

I should like to end on the same note on which I started, i.e. to deny explicitly and implicitly that there is anything misleading in any of these figures in the main budget, in the supplementary budget or in the additional budget. I think it is a great pity that hon. members on that side of the House—when it comes to these matters of finance, where our financial administration, our officials and heads of departments in this very important field are of the highest calibre and of the greatest integrity one can find anywhere— should descend to this sort of attack which I have noticed for some time. When they cannot argue upon the facts, they make the insulting remark that there has been a misleading of the House. [Interjections.] I have already challenged an hon. member in this House to withdraw something which he had said and I am expecting him to do it, otherwise we can go further into the matter … [Interjections.] I remember the time when the spokesman for finance of the Opposition in this hon. House was Mr. Emdin, who still keeps in close touch with me and periodically comes to discuss matters with me. I appreciate his attitude very much. If one reads Mr. Emdin’s speeches, one sees that he did not descend to this sort of thing. I was looking at one of his speeches only the other day. It was a constructive, factual statement based on arguments. If the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members wish to introduce this sort of thing, they must go their way and realize that they are making an extremely poor impression on this House. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us further information on the landward defence programme without actually going into details, but merely giving an indication of the general field which is to be covered by the R14 million which is being asked for in this case?

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to give the hon. member the information. The breakdown of the amount is approximately as follows: Vehicles and spare parts, R6 million; ammunition, R5 million and missiles and arms, R3 million.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 5.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs give us further information about subhead E—Miscellaneous Expenses—where there is an increase of some 80% in the total expenditure and also on subhead H—United Nations—where the original provision of R1 000 has now been multiplied 44 times and now amounts to R44 000?

Mr. Chairman, the increase results from the amended system according to which the entertainment allowances paid to foreign officials are being dealt with as from 1 July last year. The entertainment component used to be built into foreign service salaries and no control could be exercised over the way in which that money was spent. As from 1 July last year the entertainment allowance is separated from an official’s ordinary salary and an entertainment grant is put at the disposal of an official, against which actual expenditure is to be claimed. Consequently he can no longer use it as he wishes, and as a result much more effective control can be exercised over it. The amount was laid down by the Public Service Commission in rands according to rank and the amount is adjusted to foreign currency by means of an index rate of exchange function so as to enable the official to buy the same abroad as he can buy in South Africa with a rand.

As regards item H, in last year’s budget merely a nominal amount was voted and the Treasury indicated that if the department were to decide that a contribution be made to the Children’s Fund, Unisep, approval would be given for the additional funds which would be required. After departmental approval had been obtained, the Treasury was approached and approval was obtained for the inclusion of an amount of R36 000. However, as a result of the change which took place in the rand/dollar rate of exchange, an amount of R43 000 is required. I hope that it is clear that a nominal amount was included as we are not making our usual contribution to the UNO and that we decided in the course of the year that we would in fact make a contribution for these needy children in disaster-stricken areas and that it therefore had to be included in the additional appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to subhead E correctly, the additional amount now being asked for under this subhead is due to a transfer of payment from another subhead to this subhead in respect of entertainment allowance. Could I ask the hon. the Minister whether a corresponding saving under the original subhead has been effected and, if so, where that is shown?

Mr. Chairman, in actual fact changes took place under subhead A. The hon. member will remember that a salary increase came into operation last year, as from 1 July. This meant that the amount required under that subhead is considerably larger. This item purely and simply represents the allowance for entertainment paid from 1 July.

Mr. Chairman, I accept, of course, the explanation given by the hon. the Minister. I do think, however, that it would have been a good thing, that it would have been more complete and clearer if all the changes which took place appeared in these statements …

Order! The hon. member may not comment on that. He may only ask for the reason for the increase.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 6 and S.W.A. Vote 1.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate on item N—Grant-in-Aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund, R24 400 000.

Mr. Chairman, of the R24,4 million, an amount of R20 million is required for the purchase of Government stock, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. An additional amount of R2,2 million is also required by the S.A. Bantu Trust for the development of areas in which the people of Herschel and Glen Grey in the Transkei find themselves in the Ciskei. This amount is required for the erection of class-rooms, the provision of water, removal and resettlement costs and compensation in respect of property. In addition, some of this money has been transferred to the Ciskeian Government, which is dealing with this project for the Ciskei. Then there is a further amount of R2,2 million which is going to be used as a subsidy in respect of the increase in travelling expenses during the year. This brings the total amount to R24,4 million.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us a bit more about the R20 million referred to by the hon. the Minister. Is it that values are greatly in excess of what was anticipated, or is land to be bought in addition to that anticipated? If so, where is the additional land situated and what has necessitated the increase in the areas purchased? Could the hon. the Minister tell us something more about how this is made up?

Is he sure it is not another Port St. Johns?

Mr. Chairman, it is the Government’s objective, having regard to the country’s financial ability, to dispose of the consolidation programme as expeditiously as possible. In last year’s budget R30 million was voted for the purchase of land, and in order to accelerate the programme, a commission of inquiry was appointed to investigate additional methods of financing for accelerating the programme. The outcome of that inquiry was, inter alia, that Government stock was to be utilized for purchasing land more rapidly. Consequently an amount of R20 million was made available by the Treasury for the purchase of Government stock from the Public Debt Commissioner, and such funds are used as partial compensation to the owners of the properties concerned. R6 million of the amount of R20 million was allocated to the Transkei for land purchases within the Transkei. The rest was used within the Republic of South Africa, in the areas in which land is being purchased. This has had the effect that more owners have received offers than would have been the case if Government stock had not been used.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to put a point arising out of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I understood him to say that he had allocated R2,2 million of the R24,4 million under item N for the resettlement of the people from Glen Grey and Herschel. However, in an article I have here, a statement was made by the hon. the Minister, who is not here this afternoon, to the effect that in the additional appropriation a further R3,2 million would be made available for the purpose of resettling these people. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain why he quotes a figure of R2,2 million while the hon. the Minister mentions a figure of R3,2 million?

Mr. Chairman, there is an amount of R2,2 million under item N and an amount of R1,02 million under item 0. All of this goes to the Ciskeian Government for this purpose, and this brings the amount to R3,2 million.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether compensation paid to the immigrants from Herschel is included in this amount of R2 million. If so, on what basis is compensation paid?

Mr. Chairman, the compensation is included in this amount. The additional amounts which are being voted for the action programme in the Ciskei, bring the total amount being utilized for this action programme to R6,9 million. There is an amount of R2,66 million which has already been utilized for this purpose. The people are being compensated on the basis of the valuations of their properties in the Transkei. They are then compensated for the properties when they move to the Ciskei.

Votes agreed to.

Vote 8.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, I do not know who is going to pull the hon. the Minister of Transport’s chestnuts out of the fire for him …

I am handling it.

I hope he will make a better job of it than he makes of his financial policy. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us details about the extra 70% required under item J in relation to contributions, grants-in-aid and subsidies and the additional amount of approximately 33% in item Q for the construction of a departmental ship. Under item L, can he also tell us what relationship there is between the R10 million that is asked for in respect of the loss on the operation of Railway non-White passenger services and the increase in the fares on these passenger services?

Mr. Chairman, to begin with subhead Q, “Construction of Departmental Ship”, the position is that the amount that was originally provided for this was R1,5 million. The revised estimates show an amount of R2 070 000. In terms of the contract for the building of this new ship, two payments of 333 750 000 yen each have to be made during the book year. At the current rate of exchange those total R1 990 000. In addition to that, another R80 000 is required for the payment of consulting fees and travelling expenses. That brings the total to R2 070 000, which leaves the deficit of R570 000 to be voted. That is the information I have on that question. May I proceed?

Yes.

Working back—the hon. member went from one matter to another very fast—I wish to deal next with subhead L. My information is that the amount of R10 378 000 is the expenditure for the year based on an estimate made by the Railways Administration. The amount is in fact due to higher costs, which meant that the subsidies paid on the rail fare for non-Whites have had to be increased by that amount. I did not have time to make a note of it because the hon. member went so fast, but I believe he spoke of the relation between one figure and another.

Well, the fares were increased because the subsidy was reduced. Now the subsidy is going up again.

Yes, but that is because of the higher costs. In costing these services, it was found that the shortfall was in fact that amount which then makes up the subsidy. That is then the Railways’ subsidy.

Subhead J refers mainly to bus passengers. Let me just give you the amounts involved here. These are contributions in respect of bus fare subsidies. The difficulty here, again, is of course to make an estimate in the light of rapidly increasing costs. I have a note here which states: “Die tekorte geld in geheel ten opsigte van die subindeling ‘verliese ten opsigte van vervoer van Nieblanke-buspassasiers’.”

“In die geheel?”

Yes: “In die geheel.” That is the whole amount required by the department in that connection. I trust that that satisfies the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have a “yen” for some further information about the yen, required to begin construction of the departmental ship. If I heard the hon. the Minister correctly, he referred to a contract. Surely a contract is a signed document which specifies a cost, a method of payment and, from what the hon. the Minister said, clearly, also a timetable for payment. If that contract specified a cost and a timetable which required two payments within the one year, then, surely, when the budget was drawn up, it was possible to determine that on a certain date so many yen would be paid and on a further date a further number of yen would be paid since that was what the contract called for. What we want to know, is why we are being asked to vote an additional 33% which, clearly, must be an amount over and above the amount appearing in the contract. After all, the contract was known when this item was included in the budget. The contract was known to the Government. The Government had contracted for the ship and, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own explanation, the amounts to be paid after specified periods were laid down. If that was known, what has caused the additional 33% which was not known of at the time? May I also come back to the question of the loss on non-White railway passenger services? The hon. the Minister’s explanation is that this arises from higher costs. During the Railway budget, however, the subsidy payable was reduced and non-White passenger fares were increased to compensate. Therefore the fares increased and the subsidy was a fixed reduced amount. Now the hon. the Minister says that because the costs have gone up the reduced subsidy has been increased by another approximately 40%. This does not add up. What I am trying to establish is why, if the subsidy was reduced, it has now been increased because costs went up when in fact the increase was catered for by increasing the non-White fares?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the ship, if I have the facts correctly, the procedure was that the Minister approached the Treasury some time ago and said that they badly needed to be in a position where they could commence with the building of this particular ship. We discussed the position and we were in fact not able to give the Minister as much as he would have liked to have had. He would have liked to have gone faster with this matter. We finally decided, in the light of all the circumstances, to provide an amount of R1,5 million. The Administration then had to carry their discussions further with the contractors, and as a result of that the contract was finalized. For this particular period it means a payment of altogether R1,99 million and not R1,5 million. That is what eventuated after the various discussions.

What was the date of the contract?

That I shall have to obtain for the hon. member. Unfortunately I do not have it here, but there is nothing secret about it. Together with that, a smaller amount of R80 000 for consulting fees had to be added. That increased the amount to R2 070 000. That is the information I can provide at the moment, but as far as the date of the contract is concerned, that I shall have to get for the hon. member.

May I ask whether the contract was drawn up before the budget or after?

The budget was about a year ago, and although I am speaking under correction, I think it was finally drawn up later. This is my information at the moment, but I am speaking under correction.

I do not know whether I can add anything further in respect of the loss on non-White passenger services. The hon. member says there were tariff increases, and that there was a reduction in the subsidy paid. The revised figure for the cost of these services for these non-White passengers is in fact given as R38 078 million, and the provision made was for R27,7 million, which accounts for the increase of R10 378 million. I am afraid that is the only information I have in front of me. If the hon. member wants a further breakdown of these figures, I shall try and obtain them for him. That is the best I can offer to do.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, whether he regards a 40% error in estimating the cost of this service as being a reasonable inflationary escalation? Does he regard 40% as a normal inflation rate within the scope of his thinking in terms of South Africa’s situation? The explanation that he gave was that it was due to higher costs. Can he explain the relationship between the 40% increase mentioned here and the 10% which he talked about in his budget speech a year ago? These two things do not seem to marry up and I think we are entitled to ask for an explanation of the difference between the Railways’ inflation and the Minister’s inflation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is dealing with a Railway budget here. I have a budget of my own. The one can hardly be compared with the other. What I can say, however, and I have sufficient knowledge of this, is that the estimating that has to be done to determine the amount of subsidy required for these passengers ahead of time is an extremely complicated exercise. It depends on many variables and it will be noticed that there is also a substantial difference as regards the bus passengers. It is the same type of calculation. It is an extremely difficult thing to estimate precisely what the use of the facilities is going to be in relation to costs. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot compare this with the main budget. The two things are entirely different, and this is a complicated calculation. We certainly know that.

Is it a reasonable escalation?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has the information regarding the contributions and grants-in-aid, in order to tell us whether there has been any escalation in the grant for the maintenance of bus apartheid in Cape Town. Has there been any increase in the grants-in-aid under item J for the maintenance of separate bus services—bus apartheid—in Cape Town?

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the information on that specific point in front of me.

Mr. Chairman, referring to item Q of the Vote, I wonder if I may ask the hon. the Minister whether the construction of this departmental ship is not perhaps an effort to bolster the attempts to save the ship of State!

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to suggest his own reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the difference between items J and L. The one is a bus subsidy. Is the hon. the Minister not aware that there is a formula? The bus subsidy is based on passengers carried, according to a formula which is predetermined, and which therefore is difficult to estimate, because the number of passengers can vary. There could be strikes or boycotts. I did not query the amount. I merely wanted to know what it was. I accept that it is difficult to estimate. However, item L is nothing of the sort. Item L is a normal day-to-day passenger service which year in, year out runs according to a timetable. The timetable is there. So many trains run a day, and the number of passengers makes very little difference. That is a determinable figure. It can vary, I accept, by small amounts, but we are dealing with a 40% variation, and it is not determined by the same formula as item J, the bus subsidy, which the hon. the Minister tried to equate. He said these were difficult to calculate. When one is a formula and the other is a normal service, how can the two be compared?

Mr. Chairman, I have just been given a brief note to the effect that the contributions, the grants-in-aid, which in this particular instance was referred to by the hon. member for Green Point, does not provide for Cape Town. I am anxious to assist the hon. member for Durban Point as far as I can, but my problem is that I am attempting also to assist an hon. colleague who is in the Other Place. All I can undertake to do here is to give the hon. member the undertaking that I will see to it that he gets more information. It is all very well to say that one has a railway service with a timetable and everything else, but goodness me, that does not remain constant through the year. It does not even remain constant through a month. These things are changing all the time in response to demand and numbers and costs, but I can certainly endeavour to assist the hon. member by obtaining more information on that point.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 10.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave aside the two main divisions because we do realize what they are about. However, I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister would explain the more unusual request in subhead P. It coneerns the relief of distress granted to Messrs. I. J. de Bruin and G. Martin. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what this is about?

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member mentioned, this matter concerns the expenditure on “Relief of distress granted to Messrs. I. J. de Bruin and G. Martin”. When the 1976-’77 budget was being compiled in December 1975—hon. members must note that it was the previous year—no amount was budgeted for this purpose. However, in 1974 the Cabinet decided, after heavy flood damage had occurred in that year, to make available an amount of between R600 000 and R750 000 in the form of loans to enable owners of small diamond mines in the Billsbank area in the Barkly West district to drain their mines and in this way enable them to reach full production again. The mine belonging to Messrs, de Bruin and Martin—they are partners—was also flooded at the time but the partners decided to try and cope on their own. What this means is that they tried to pump out the water that had flooded the mine at their own expense. After the heavy rains of January 1975 had flooded the working areas for the second time and the task of drainage had been tackled, the partnership had to stand by and watch the working area being flooded for the third time in 1975. After the third flood the partnership lacked the necessary running capital to continue with the work and this assistance was provided by the State. I just want to explain to the hon. member that this group of mines is situated on what we call a fissure that extends a long way. It so happens that the water that enters this fissure flows underground very easily from one mine to the other, due to the porosity of the region. Because the mine shaft is deep, this means that it fills up easily and in this case a large number of mines were flooded at the same time. It can very easily happen that one small mine pumps the water out rapidly and brings the water level right down, whereas the mine adjacent to it does not pump out its water so rapidly. The water from the neighbouring mine then runs into the first mine. The hon. member will understand that due to the large-scale flooding it eventually became impossible for the small mine to stay in operation on their own and that is why we granted this aid.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 11.—“Information”:

Mr. Chairman, the amount for the particular subhead— Subsistence and Transport—represents an increase of about 30% and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us some detail as to how this amount was arrived at and to what extent this applies to foreign activities and to what extent to domestic activities.

Mr. Chairman, the explanation is a simple one. With a view to the independence of the Transkei the Treasury voted a certain amount of money which could be utilized for that purpose. The amount was distributed over two financial years. We were unable to spend the amount in full in the first financial year because the money required, was needed for the purpose of inviting guests, and the expenses of guests, hotel expenses, tickets etc. It is obvious that the expenditure could not have been incurred in the first year. We repaid R300 000 to the Treasury in that year because it could not be used. When the expenditure was incurred in the second year, we requested in the additional appropriation that the amount be amended so that the expense relating to the Transkei could be covered. This is all this involves.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 15.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the increase under this Vote when he made his Second Reading speech, but I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this Vote is able to give us further information as to why this additional amount of R14 142 000 is required.

Mr. Chairman, the increases being requested are due to the increases in salaries. As the hon. member knows, the officials’ salaries were increased by 10% with effect from 1 July 1976. This of course could not be provided for at that time. Furthermore there is the increase in civil pensions which took effect on 1 October 1976. Finally, there is the improvement in the pension benefits themselves, which also took effect on 1 October 1976.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 16.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, I see that under item M—Financial Assistance to Universities and Bursaries for University Education—there is a small increase of R1 485 300 and a saving of R649 700. Can the hon. member tell us to what extent the bursaries for university education are involved in the saving and in the increase?

In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, the bursaries are involved because the title of item M is “Financial Assistance to Universities and Bursaries for University Education”. There is in fact a reduction in the bursaries being made available, due to the fact that the universities have not made full use of them. This is not really at issue here, except with regard to the title of the item.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 19 and S.W.A. Vote 10.— “Agriculture”:

Mr. Chairman, under S.W.A. Vote 10—Agricultural Economics and Marketing—we have an increase of R226 000, or 25%, in the amount voted for wheat. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some further details on that, and I hope he can also give us details on the R500 000 extra to be given to the National Parks Board under item J of Vote 19. I also hope that he can tell us a little bit more about these ex gratia payments of R30 828 and R62 000 under subhead L.

Mr. Chairman, the consumption of bread has increased substantially in South West Africa due to military activities and refugees from Angola.

Did the hon. member ask about the increase with regard to the Parks Board or the Nature Foundation?

The Parks Board.

The Parks Board has to fence in the northern and eastern boundaries of the Kruger National Park and we did not foresee that it would cost R500 000 more than was originally envisaged.

Is that for the fencing of the game park?

Yes, for the fencing of the game park.

When purchasing land in the Spioenkop dam area, where the ex gratia payments were made, we bought out 5 farmers and there was an arrangement with the Department of Water Affairs that provision would be made for watering of animals and for drinking water. Such provision was however not made. The committee has already agreed to this and it only requires parliamentary approval to pay out an additional R30 000 to those five farmers. We also concluded a transaction with the Potchefstroom municipality concerning the vacating of land for defence purposes. A mistake concerning 25 hectares was apparently made in the calculation. We came to an agreement with the city council of Potchefstroom and paid them an additional R62 000 for that 25 hectares of land. This explains the additional payments of R30 828 and R62 000.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 21 and S.W.A. Vote 13.—“Health”:

Mr. Chairman, I notice that for the item “Stores and Livestock” there is an additional amount of R1 345 000 which represents a large portion of the total amount required under this Vote. Could the hon. the Minister give us a detailed account in regard to this item?

Mr. Chairman, it is extremely difficult for me to give details on the main items falling under a division which still applies to the old budget, and which we have only added here. Unfortunately I can only furnish details concerning the first part which relates to last year’s budget, which was in terms of the new system of budgeting by objectives. The hon. member will therefore have to excuse me, but as far as the second part is concerned I can furnish no details, because to do so I should have to delve into the budgets of previous years.

What is the livestock to which reference is made?

We have livestock of all types. For example, there is livestock for research purposes. We also have many stores in which we store medicine, etc. As far as the figure is concerned, the additional information we provided relates to the previous type of budget. The actual budget which the hon. the member can ask me about is the first part.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty in that respect. Would it be possible, under those circumstances, to give details in regard to subhead 2—Infectious, Communicable and Preventable Diseases—and also in regard to subhead 6—Associated and Support Services?

Mr. Chairman, as regards infectious, communicable and preventable diseases I want to inform the hon. member that in the first place, an amount of R33 000 from the estate of a Mrs. Collison of Johannesburg was made over to the Westfort Institution for lepers. We should like to use the amount to acquire certain instruments and facilities for the handwork section and certain forms of mechanical aid for leprous patients in the workshop and for physiotherapy and work therapy in the Westfort Institution. In a case like this one first has to deposit the money one receives in the general fund and then obtain from the Treasury the right to draw it. We now have that right and are therefore able to use the R33 000 for the sake of our leprous patients. A further amount of R350 000 is being requested. The hon. member will bear in mind that there was an outbreak of what we call swine fever at Fort Dix in America last year. When the outbreak of swine fever occurred there I instructed my people to contact Fort Dix immediately in order to determine the extent to which this could become a world phenomenon, because it is a deadly disease.

†Swine fever is a very deadly disease and therefore we decided that we should organize our laboratories in order to try to embark upon a project of manufacturing our own immunization serum against that disease. I thought that I should not make it known at the time, because it might have led to mass hysteria.

I received an amount of R350 000 from the Treasury to initiate that project and we are now well on our way with it. That brings us to the total amount of R383 000. The hon. member also referred to subhead 6.

*In this regard I want to explain that we really need this amount for the expanding family planning services. Last year we received an amount of R5 325 000 for this purpose and since 1972, when not even 400 000 women had attended our family planning clinics, the number has increased to more than 800 000 in 1975. In the meantime we are also extending our services to the homelands, where we enjoy very good co-operation. Once one has motivated these people to attend the family planning clinics, one does not want to curtail funds in this connection because this is also a matter with a bearing on our survival, viz. when we allow our population to increase unhindered. It was eventually decided that we should ask for R950 000. However the Treasury stated that they could not give us this amount and the amount of R650 000 was the outcome of very earnest appeals which we made. We pointed out that this amount was required for financing in connection with the family planning clinics, the courses given in that connection and the officers appointed to motivate these people, so that the success of the project may be boosted rather than curtailed.

Votes agreed to.

Vote 24.—“Treasury”:

I wish to refer under item 6—Related Services—to the payment of the amount of R1,4 million to Glen Anil Development Corporation Limited. It will be remembered that a few minutes ago, during the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister of Finance gave an explanation, but all he really said was that he threw good money after bad, because Glen Anil went into liquidation in any case. The principle of the Government financing property companies is totally wrong. The hon. the Minister said so himself in the part appropriation debate. In fact he said that it would be difficult to resist demands by creditors of other property companies in the future. The hon. the Minister has created a precedent which is a very dangerous one. The question is: Where is he going to draw the line in the future? We in these benches are totally against the payment of this amount, and in the circumstances I move—

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister if he would tell us about this ex gratia payment to General Motors and whether he would tell us whether it was in respect of the black Buicks that were standing outside or what the real reason for it was.

Oh, please!

It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to say “Oh, please”, but there is another point which I must raise with the hon. the Minister while I am asking him about this particular item. This deals with the way in which these accounts are presented, particularly those of this particular Vote, viz. Vote 24—Treasury. On page 24-1 we have one set of figures where the increase totals R71 276 075. On page 24-2 we, however, have a different set of figures also totalling that amount. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can arrange somehow to advise us on this side of the House exactly how this is working, because we do find it very difficult to read these figures as there is no comparison. For instance, a figure of R69 234 000 appears under programme 2—Fiscal transfers. On page 24-2, however, we find that there is a total of R71 088 075 in respect of transfer payments under the heading “Standard items—Main divisions”. I can only assume that the R69 million is included in the amount of R71 million, but when I come, for instance, to the R337 075 granted as an ex gratia payment to General Motors, I cannot find it. I can therefore only assume that it is included in the transfer payments. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us how this is to be read. Perhaps he could even arrange, in the future, to advise us on this side of the House as to how these figures are to be read.

Where does the Treasury keep its livestock?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer is obviously not going to accept my explanation for Glen Anil, and so be it. I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that this does not mean, and never has meant, that the Government is financing property companies. It was made abundantly clear that this was a very special decision the Government had to take. No precedent whatsoever is created; in fact, we have proved that by refusing, immediately we knew the facts, to grant that very big guarantee to the banks, but it was necessary to have this expenditure to get the facts without allowing Glen Anil simply to collapse in the meantime. The fact that we refused to grant that very big guarantee meant that we were not prepared to support that property company with Government resources. We had to know exactly what the involvement of the banks was because there were huge sums involved and because there were stories flying about all over the place. The Reserve Bank acted for us and did a most thorough and valuable study. It drew up a first-class report which was of the greatest possible value to me. I think the information contained in that report was, in fact, information of vital national importance, and that information was not known. The Government, I think, would have been extremely irresponsible to have refused to keep Glen Anil alive while this important information was being obtained by way of this very comprehensive investigation. The Government, of course, becomes a concurrent creditor of Glen Anil. The hon. member is simply assuming that this money will be lost. I do not think, however, that he can come to that conclusion at the moment at all. The Government is a creditor to that extent. How chaotic would the situation not have been, however, if Glen Anil had simply gone insolvent in November and the Government had not even taken any steps to investigate the full position, with all the various implications, and had not tried to find out to what extent the various banks and the public were involved. That would, in my opinion, have been the height of irresponsibility. The hon. member’s amendment simply means that he rejects the most considered decision taken by the Reserve Bank in conjunction with the Treasury and the Registrar of Financial Institutions, all of whom were fully informed as a result of this valuable investigation. I therefore think the hon. member is making a grave mistake in pursuing this matter, but that is a question for him to decide.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to schedule 24(1) and schedule 24(2). Schedule 24(1) is a presentation, as stated, according to programmes, while the other is a presentation according to standard items. I think the best I can suggest here is that we will set out for the hon. member precisely what we are attempting to do by budgeting according to programmes and what we are intending to do by budgeting according to standard times, because otherwise we could become involved here in a very detailed discussion which might nevertheless not be all that clear in the circumstances of the case. I shall pursue that matter further.

In the Second Reading debate the hon. member raised the question of General Motors’ ex gratia payment. I said at the time that I would reply in the Committee Stage. The General Motors contract for the delivery of motor vehicles to the State contains a clause requiring them to claim for various price escalations within a given period. Formerly there was not a period stipulated, but from 1975, because of various difficulties, it was decided to stipulate that the claim should be made within 60 days of the inception of the relevant price increases. The contracting party in fact applied on 20 May 1976 for the provision of certain price increases, of which he had been sent the particulars three days earlier, on 17 May, through his subcontractor, Bus Bodies of Port Elizabeth. The price increases concerned “bakke”—the information I have before me is in Afrikaans—which were being manufactured by Bus Bodies. The increased costs, and therefore prices, resulted from increases in the price of steel and in wages. Then, on 14 September 1976, General Motors put in a further claim, again in respect of price increases on various vehicles. Various reasons were given for this increase. One was higher costs payable to their principal overseas; another was certain increases due to devaluation, as they claimed; and yet another was the increased costs of certain local components. This claim was not submitted within the required 60 days for reasons which General Motors explained. They said, first of all, that they did not receive within the period of 60 days the decision of the Department of Customs and Excise as to the basis of the calculation of certain customs duties. This was, in fact, something that required very careful study, and they pointed out that that matter was not decided within that period. They said, too, that their auditors were extremely busy and required certain information in order to issue the certificate required in respect of these price increases. The delay on the part of the auditors was given as a further reason why they could not comply with this provision. They went on to say that their auditors were in fact so busy that, even after that, it took them weeks to issue the required certificate. Therefore, according to them, the delay was partly due to the fact that an important issue had to be finally decided by the Department of Customs and Excise, and partly due to the fact that their own auditors could not issue the certificate validating this claim in time. The Treasury went into this carefully and decided, in consultation with the Tender Board, that this seemed to be a reasonable case, nevertheless, for granting relief even though, strictly speaking, the claim had not been received within 60 days. It was in that way that this was decided. In fact, this strictly applies to the financial year 1975-’76. That is the gist of that particular matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister, firstly, for his undertaking, to set out the basis of accounting in the future so that we shall be able to understand the schedules and, secondly, for his explanation regarding the R337 000 for General Motors. I should like to have just one point clarified. The hon. the Minister referred to the delay in working out customs duties. I was under the impression that vehicles imported for Government purposes were free of customs and excise duties. Will he confirm that, in fact, customs and excise duties are paid on Government vehicles?

Could I just answer in a moment on that technical point concerning the basis of the calculation of customs duties, because I should like to give an authoritative answer on that?

Yes. I thank the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the attitude of the official Opposition in regard to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Walmer. We in these benches are certainly not happy with the Government’s action in guaranteeing the assistance which the banks gave to Glen Anil on a temporary basis until the position could be clarified. To us that action smacks of interference by the public sector in the private sector. This was a case where, in our view, a firm in the private sector got into trouble and should have been allowed to get out of the trouble or take the consequences. It was not in our view a case which called for help by the State. But once the State has given an undertaking—I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to what I am saying—it is up to Parliament to honour the undertaking. In other words, our word in a case like this is our bond. I think it is only responsible of the Opposition in this case to back the guarantee given by the Government even though we do not agree with the circumstances in which it was given. We are therefore going to oppose the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Walmer.

Mr. Chairman, we on these bencches are also going to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. I think one has to look at the circumstances with which the Government was faced, and I take it that the hon. the Minister of Finance would agree with me that his primary concern when he gave this undertaking—which, after all, was for an amount up to R5 million to provide time for having a look at the matter—was not so much that Glen Anil was a public company with shareholders, but that the banks themselves were heavily involved. There was also the question of the confidence of the South African public in our general commercial banks, which is obviously fundamental not only to the Government, but, I would have thought, to every member of this House. I also gather that there was a question of differing degrees of security among the banks and, therefore, obviously the banks were not prepared to prop up Glen Anil in the absence of an undertaking. The only thing on which I would disagree with the hon. the Minister of Finance is that while he is quite correct in saying that the money is not lost, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is going to take a considerable period of time to get it back, if he succeeds at all in getting all of it back, although he may get some of it back.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear the attitude of the official Opposition and the attitude of the PRP with regard to this matter. With regard to the attitude of the official Opposition, I can only say that they have adopted the “Yes, but” attitude again. With regard to both parties I want to say to them that as far as we are concerned we are worried about the taxpayers’ money, even though they are apparently not. This report the hon. the Minister has told us about has cost the taxpayer R1½ million. I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister, by way of comparison, that the Theron Commission’s report only cost R½ million. The hon. the Minister said further that if the Government had not given this assistance, Glen Anil would have gone insolvent in November 1976. What difference does it make whether they went insolvent in November 1976 or whether they went insolvent a month or two later? What difference does it make? It went insolvent in any event. Does the hon. the Minister not agree with me that it is a wrong principle to finance a property company? What attitude is he going to adopt in the future? It is no consolation to the taxpayers of South Africa to hear from the hon. the Minister that they are concurrent creditors in a claim against Glen Anil. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it takes no genius to predict that the dividend they will receive as concurrent creditors, will be a pretty minimal dividend, because as the hon. the Minister kowns there are millions of rands of preferential creditors. Therefore this concurrent dividend must be in essence a very minimal one. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very surprised today that he has received the support of the other Opposition parties in this House, but I can assure him that we stand by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia for the explanation of his party’s attitude. I am glad that he sees it that way. I also want to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North put his finger right on the issue which I had mentioned earlier. That is, of course, that the position of the banks was all-important. There were large banks involved and there were small banks involved. The amounts were for all of them in relation to their size, very big indeed. It is all very well for the hon. member for Walmer to say: “What does it matter if Glen Anil goes bankrupt in November or in January or in February?” It is all very well to talk like that after the event, when the company is now being placed in liquidation. In the light of the fact that eight banks had approached the Government asking for a guarantee amounting to some R95 million, action was taken. Had the Government done nothing, had the Government simply refused aid and Glen Anil had collapsed there and then, I believe the hon. member could have got up here today to criticize me. He would really have had a case, but, with all respect, I believe he has missed the point very badly today. It is not a question of pouring money into a property company. It was a case of looking into the implications of Glen Anil’s possible collapse, and also—and more important—looking at the implications if banks had in fact collapsed as a result of this and the Government did not even bother to establish the facts.

Mr. Chairman, may I also just reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on the question of the customs duty on these vehicles. I have a little note here which says—

Completely unassembled vehicles—

It goes on to say—

That is the crux of it, the fact that it had to be established which of the components was for private vehicles and which was for State vehicles.

I thank the hon. the Minister. Can we assume then that General Motors have in fact paid tax on these vehicles and that this is by way of a rebate of tax which has been paid to them?

Yes, I believe that is correct.

Thank you. Just one other point. With regard to the Glen Anil case, this has been dealt with as a matter of principle. Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your ruling, but I wonder if the hon. the Minister would indicate what the Government’s commitment is on the attempt now to bolster smaller banks? Is there a similar commitment on the part of the Government now with regard to the smaller banks as there was in the Glen Anil case?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to put that question.

Amendment moved by Mr. T. Aronson negatived (Independent United Party dissenting).

Vote agreed to.

Vote 29.—“Commerce”:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain the additional amount of R7 852 000 to be voted under subhead G—“Export Trade Promotion Services”—and the additional amount of R300 000 under subhead J—“Campaign against Inflation”?

Mr. Chairman, I want to explain immediately that the incentive or the benefits granted to exporters for the purpose of export promotion in fact represent a large variety of facets. There are no fewer than 16 of these, but the additional amounts budgeted, concern six of them and I should like to give hon. members the particulars. Firstly, they concern the financing costs to exporters. In this particular case the amount represents R2 million of the R7 852 million which has to be voted under main division G. The second item under which there is an increase is interest rate financing in regard to the Exporters’ Credit Reinsurance Scheme which is managed by the Industrial Development Corporation on behalf of my department. In this particular case the increase amounts to R600 000. The third one is in respect of the cost of the electrical power used for the refining of base metals for export. In the case in question the increase is R600 000. In the fourth place, there are the special export rail tariffs available to exporters. In this case the increase amounts to R3,5 million. In the fifth place there are the special rail tariffs for the conveyance of raw materials from the interior to business or industrial undertakings at the coast if the manufactured products are also intended for export. In this case there is an increase of R300 000. In the final instance, my department’s share in the operating losses on the railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and Ermelo amounts to R852 000 for the financial year in question. Here we are dealing with an agreement concluded with the S.A. Railways. The explanations I have just given relate to the total amount of R7 852 million which must be voted under main division G.

I now come to the increase of R300 000 for the Campaign against Inflation. This amount is intended for the publicity committee and I want to explain it as follows: Hon. members will remember that the anti-inflation programme was actually intended to last a limited period of time. Hon. members will also remember that when the programme was launched in October, 1975, the Government undertook, amongst other things, to make the necessary funds available for the launching of a country-wide educational, publicity and information campaign with the purpose of informing the public as a whole as to the causes and dangers of the problem and of encouraging each and every member of the public to make a special contribution to the struggle according to his abilities. Hon. members will also remember that an amount was originally voted to cover the six-month period ending on 31 March 1976. The amount made available for that purpose, was R932 000. However, the amount was spread over two financial years, i.e. R732 000 for the 1975-’76 financial year—i.e. the year in which the programme began—and the amount of R200 000 for the 1976-’77 financial year. Hon. members will understand that when the continuation committee for the anti-inflation programme—i.e. the representatives of the public and private sectors— requested at its meeting on 12 February 1976 that the programme be extended for a further period as a result of the progress made with its implementation, the Government decided to extend the period to 30 September 1976. The R300 000 is therefore an appropriation additional to the grand total of R932 000 originally voted.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 31 and S.W.A. Vote 20,—“Justice”:

Mr. Chairman, with regard to item L, I would like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on the very large increase in legal expenses incurred by the State Attorney. These are in the order of 65%, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us how that came to be.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount being requested under this head is based upon the present level of expenditure. Since the scope of the activities of the State Attorney cannot be determined in advance, expenditure under this head cannot be controlled in any way. We do not know precisely which court cases will arise and what expenditure will be incurred. The State Attorney acts on behalf of all State departments and innumerable other bodies. In the first instance, the department is not aware of the requirements of other departments, and the expenditure cannot therefore be predicted with any degree of certainty. It is true that the State Attorney recovers some of the expenditure incurred, but those amounts are redeposited into the Revenue Account once again and are not used channelled into this specific account. As an example I should like to mention the amount collected and deposited in the Revenue Account in the 1975-’76 financial year, namely R1 169 405,44. This increase—and this is the increase to which the hon. member referred—also includes an amount of R100 000, being the estimate of expected expenditure under the Expropriation Act No. 63 of 1975, which came into operation on 1 January 1977.

Treasury approval D121, dated 17 December, applies to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to perhaps explain why in item G of the SWA Vote there has been an increase of 60% in the casual interpreting and reporting, including mechanical recording equipment. It seems to be quite a great deal of money although it is not a very large sum generally.

Mr. Chairman, the hearing of certain terrorist cases in the Supreme Court resulted in an exceptional increase in the transcription services. To illustrate the extent of the expenditure I have before me the transcription services paid by the Registrar in Windhoek for one month. The bill amounts to R6 616,15. This is actually what the problem is.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 32.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. the Minister the reason for the increase of about 50% in item F—Equipment, arms and ammunition—as well as the reason for the increase of R270 000 in item K—Compensation: Losses, injuries, etc.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the increase under division F, I want to say that while the S.A. Police served in Rhodesia, the regional riot unit practically ceased to exist due to the depleted manpower. When the police were withdrawn from Rhodesia, these units had to be built up again from scratch. A great deal of the expensive equipment of the units had been withdrawn and re-issued for operational activities in the Caprivi strip and Rhodesia. With a view to recent events in this country, which once again proved the necessity of these units for nipping riots in the bud, the department decided to equip 18 units fully with vehicles, general equipment, arms and ammunition and technical requirements. With a view to the events on the northern border of South West Africa and on the Republic’s eastern border with Mozambique, the department also decided to equip 10 companies immediately. Two of these companies are already fully equipped and the increased expenditure for these services has already been approved by the Treasury. As a result of the uncertainty regarding the delivery of weapons, it is impossible to budget for this in a specific financial year and the department only budgeted for its normal requirements. The department has now succeeded, in obtaining, through the Armaments Board, a consignment of 2 500 FN light automatic rifles. Furthermore, the Armaments Board confirms that an offer for another 2 500 FN rifles and accessories has been accepted. This increase in expenditure has already been approved by the Treasury too. As regards the increase of R275 000 under subhead K, I just want to point out that it is particularly difficult to estimate expenditure realistically under this subhead, because it is chiefly determined by the claims instituted against the department by third parties. The expenditure under this service for the financial year 1975-’76 has already exceeded the vote for the present financial year by R158 220. The expenditure for the first seven months of the present financial year already amount to R361 979, and as a result of the present internal unrest, still further claims against the State are being expected. It is estimated that an additional amount of R270 000 will be necessary to finance these services.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I should like to know whether the new equipment which we have read about in the newspapers, is also included in the additional amount which is now being requested?

That equipment is also included.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 33 and S.W.A. Vote 21.—“Prisons”:

Mr. Chairman, under subhead E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”, a payment of R122 500 is to be made to the Brandvlei Koöperatiewe Wynkelder Beperk. Could the hon. the Minister please explain this item?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the Brandvlei Koöperatiewe Wynkelder Bpk. is concerned, an estimate had first to be made in regard to the land we had to buy out there due to the fact that the dam broke and we therefore had to acquire other land. After that we found that the farmers in that area all had shares in the Brandvlei Koöperatiewe Wynkelder. We do not have any legal authorization at all to belong to a private company, and as a result, we estimated the amount which would have to be paid out to the people so as to be entirely unattached to that co-operative. This is the amount which appears there now, but we shall be growing grapes there for some time, which will be sold on the open market and the money paid into the Revenue account. In other words, the amount will disappear again in due course.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 35.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development whether he could indicate the reasons for the additional amounts and to indicate whether these amounts are to cover work which has already gone out on tender, or does it make provision for additional work for which tenders have not yet been called for?

Mr. Chairman, it appeared quite early in the financial year that the work at progress at Mitchell’s Plain—the construction of 4 700 houses and also the provision of the amenities which have to be supplied concurrently under the new policy of the department in terms of the Act as amended in 1975—would exceed the R50 million which was provided for in the main budget for this purpose. Our difficulties were due to the increase in costs and were made worse when the Government agreed to allow escalation recompense to builders who found that they were running the risk of losing money because of the increase of costs.

For those reasons we were compelled to ask for another R10 million from the Treasury to meet the expected shortfall. Our request was carefully investigated, was found to be well-founded and was granted. We shall spend about R8,50 million in the current year. Hon. members will remember that during the course of the discussion of my Vote last session, I announced that the Treasury had agreed to look into a system of construction-and-finance in order to expedite the provision of housing for those people most in need of it. After I had made that announcement, the Treasury, upon re-examination, came to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to finance building on that basis. The municipality of Cape Town had already progressed far in seeking finance for another 5 000 houses which were urgently needed, as everybody will agree, for our Coloured community in this area. I then went to the Treasury again and explained the difficulty and what a pity it would be to abandon the work that the city council had done so far. The Treasury again agreed that we could have a further sum of R10 million in order to build there 5 000 houses as well. The cost of this undertaking will be R2,5 million during the coming year.

As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the acquisition of land at Mitchell’s Plain was the subject of arbitration proceedings. The arbitration court made its award on 17 December last year and faced the Cape Town municipality with an obligation of R4,25 million for the land. We felt that this amount should be paid immediately to avoid an accumulation of interest and extra money was accordingly granted to us by the Treasury, which we then made available to pay for the land. That made a total of more than R15 million.

Another R2,5 million concerned Indians at a place known as Tin Town near Durban.

My hon. friend will recall I announced last year that because these people were living in the most miserable circumstances and had their houses washed away in the excessive floods which occurred during the first half of the year near Durban, we would ask the Treasury for R2,5 million in order to rehouse them as expeditiously as possible with the help of the Durban city council. That money was granted, and this accounts for the total of R18 million as the first item on the additional appropriation. The second item for an amount of R2 million represents a loan to the Community Development Fund. It has a slightly different history. There is a great need for land for housing development for Coloureds and Indians on the Witwatersrand. The Department of Planning and the Environment has been conducting investigations for some time, and earlier this year made land available near Lawley-Grasmere, a most desirable part of larger Johannesburg, large enough for approximately 60 000 stands for Coloureds and Indians. The moment the Department of Planning and the Environment makes land available for such a purpose, it becomes the responsibility of the Department of Community Development to develop the land and to prevent any abuses in the course of development. One of the dangers that one immediately has is that people go in there with the intention of speculating with the land and in speculating they create artificially inflated prices for land. Then, when we come to do the overall planning of the area for urban development, we find ourselves confronted with these inflated prices. Also, because the land has been demarcated for Indians or Coloureds, as the case may be— though especially for Indians—people begin to buy the land and to acquire new vested interests as the new qualifying group. Then, when one has to do the overall planning, one finds the planning interrupted and interfered with because of the vested interests acquired by the qualifying group. Very often one has to negotiate and even resort to expropriation which delays the process and causes embarrassment to all concerned. To avoid that, the department has the right to exercise a right of pre-emption and to buy land as it is made available by the original owners. We went to the Treasury again and asked for a considerable amount of money in order to exercise this right of pre-emption in the public interest. The expected cost for the current financial year will be R2 million, the amount on the budget. I may add that 300 properties have already had to be acquired, and it is quite clear that the full amount of R2 million will be used for this most commendable purpose in the course of this financial year.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 37.—“Public Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to give us further information regarding the increase of R8 666 000 under item J—Rent, Rates, Electricity, etc. This represents an increase of 32% on the amount of R26 579 000 budgeted and is, in fact, a tremendous amount. To save a bit of time, let me refer to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He indicated that this was primarily, as he put it, on account of the increase in rates raised by local authorities. We know, however, that the Department of Public Works does not pay rates as raised by local authorities. This is done by way of a lump sum grant to the local authority by the department concerned. Of course, we are at a disadvantage when we have to deal with an item such as this because the subhead in the main budget is for rent, rates, electricity and various other items as well. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether this is wholly in respect of rates raised by local authorities, or to what must we ascribe this tremendous increase of 32%?

Mr. Chairman, there is of course a total amount of more than R8 million, but savings of more than R1 million must be subtracted from this. An amount of R2 767 000 represents increased rent for long-term contracts of lease which expired during the financial year. Rent increased by as much as 150% in some cases. I can give a number of examples, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. For example, there is the case of the Groote Kerkgebou in Pretoria. The rent was 86c per square metre. This was increased to 215 cents per square metre plus an escalation of 6%. Another example is Vermeulenshuis in Pretoria. The rent was 86 cents per square metre. This has been increased to 194 cents per square metre. To mention separate figures, I can mention the case of the Poynton Building in Pretoria in respect of which the amount was increased from R12 600 to R28 000 per annum. In the case of Locarno House in Pretoria the amount was increased from R46 000 to R76 000 per year. Then there is the question of rents for the programmed new hirings. These rentals which had to be paid during the financial year, were also very much higher than was estimated by the department when the budget was being compiled. Then there is the question of unforeseen hirings which, in the interest of the country, cannot be postponed. The expenditure in this connection had to be incurred during the financial year. All this contributes towards the amount of R2 767 000. Increased rates are responsible for R22 000. Increased municipal rates for water, sanitation and refuse removal and the commissioning of new government buildings is responsible for R2 215 000. Then too, increased electricity rates are responsible for R3 662 000. This gives one a total of R8 666 000.

Mr. Chairman, further to the hon. the Minister’s reply, may I ask what steps his department has taken to ensure that other departments do not waste electricity? One can walk past Government buildings here in Cape Town, and not only in Cape Town, but throughout the country, and one will find that they are ablaze with light.

Order! The hon. member is now out of order.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the figure of 32% he has quoted here, whether he regards it as possible for a person on a fixed income, such as a pensioner, to survive similar rent increases of 30% to 40% ?

Order! The hon. member is out of order.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 39 and S.W.A. Vote 24.—“Water Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs would indicate for which schemes the additional amount of R6,8 million under subhead L is being used, and in particular whether the lining of the tunnel in the Fish River valley will benefit by an allocation?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to inform the hon. member that the amount of R6 838 950 makes provision for quite a few items. The first is the Grootdraai Dam which is to supply Sasol 2 with water. Work was begun on the dam and an amount was budgeted for it. The Government subsequently decided that the whole project had to be speeded up. The Department of Water Affairs was asked to accelerate the supply of water for that scheme. In order to accelerate it, it became necessary to obtain an extra amount of R2 million. The following item is an amount of R1 204 950. This was requested for the Riversonderend-Berg River project, for the rerouting of roads, this being undertaken by the province. The province did not let us know in time last year what they would need for this. They have contractors who are rerouting the roads for them, and according to an agreement with the province, the Department of Water Affairs has to bear part of the cost of the new roads which must be built. During the course of the year, my department was asked to contribute R1 204 950 towards the rerouting of the roads connected with the Riversonderend-Berg River project. It is the Theewaterskloof Dam which has necessitated the rerouting of these roads. Then there are the Bloemhof Dam reroutings to the tune of R980 000, of which the Province of Transvaal gets R918 500 and the Orange Free State R61 500. These are also rerouting projects in respect of which the provinces made claims which my department, according to the agreements, had to pay.

The highest amount here is R2 654 000 which was paid out to ORCO, one of the builders of the tunnels in the Orange Fish River project. I want to add that this tunnel was completed a few years ago and a large claim for more than R12 million was lodged by this company. As regards the R2 654 000, I just want to say that it is not an ex gratia payment, but that it is a different matter altogether. The hon. member did not refer to this. It results from the fact that this firm did not complete the tunnel in time. There is a penalty clause in the contract and at that time the department applied that penalty clause and refused to pay out the R2½ million. Moreover, provision was made in the contract for price rises, and the department did not want to accept these either. They amounted to R154 000. Eventually, after long negotiations, it was decided that the delay was not due to the carelessness of the contractor, and the remaining amount of R2½ million as well as items for which provision had been made in the contract, namely R154 000, were paid out. Therefore, the amounts are R2 million for Sasol, R1 204 950 for the Theewaterkloof scheme, R980 000 for the Bloemhof Dam and R2 654 000 for ORCO, the contractor. This brings the total to R6 838 950.

Mr. Chairman, arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply, I take it there is no money provided under this Vote for the tunnel in the Bosberg near Somerset East.

Mr. Chairman, no provision has been made for that tunnel. The one for which provision has in fact been made is the plateau tunnel. In the normal budget, provision is made for certain amounts, but this is not relevant here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. The first is with regard to the ex gratia payment to the ORCO Consortium of an amount of R2 518 000. The second question is with regard to water affairs under the South West Africa account, viz. an amount of R1 million for Government water schemes. What is this amount for? Is any of it being spent on the Kunene water scheme? Could the hon. the Minister provide further information with regard to that R1 million?

Mr. Chairman, my first reference is to the ex gratia payment. This is a settlement of a claim of over R12 million which we received from this firm. In this case, an ex gratia payment of R2 518 000 is being made. In the contract negotiated between this consortium and the department, it was provided that if cement could not be delivered by the Railways—they were using tremendous amounts of cement—then the department would be obliged to pay them for damages resulting from the delay. There did in fact prove to be a delay as a result of a shortage of cement. However, this was not the Railways’ fault; the factories could not deliver the cement. This caused the contract to be delayed by 18 weeks; in addition, there were those heavy rains we had in 1974, and there was no sand available either. After lengthy negotiations, it was decided that although the factors were not covered by the contract, the department was nevertheless responsible, because they were factors beyond the control of the contractor, i.e. the non-delivery of cement and the lack of sand. There was a delay, and we came to an agreement that this was fair compensation. The claims were in fact a good deal higher, but an agreement was reached after consultations with all the experts and the lawyers.

As regards the amount of R1 million relating to the South West Africa Account, hon. members will remember that the question was asked here last year of whether there was an emergency pumping scheme to replace Calueque, which supplied water to South West Africa and Owambo. I replied that an emergency scheme had in fact been planned. I might mention that the emergency scheme has been worked out in full. In co-operation with my Department, I investigated this scheme during the course of the year, and I came to realize that if problems were to arise with regard to the provision of water from Calueque and the emergency scheme had to be put into operation very quickly, it could create more problems. It would be preferable for us rather to speed up the building of certain permanent parts of the scheme in South West Africa. In this way, the construction of the emergency scheme will be much cheaper in the long run.

I might mention the following example. If a water canal were to be built from Calueque to Oshikati, and if that canal were to be lined with concrete, it would not be necessary, for example, to pump so much water through it, because the loss would be reduced. The lining of the canal, something which must be included in the long-term planning, as well as the installation of a pipeline over a certain section of the route to Oshikati, is in fact under construction at the moment. Consequently, should it become necessary to put the emergency scheme into operation, a certain part of the permanent construction— something which has to be built anyway— will already have been completed. R1 million has been requested for this purpose and this is the amount which is now being mentioned in the budget.

Mr. Chairman, is the Kunene Scheme not included in this amount of R1 million? I am not talking about the amount which has already been voted towards the scheme.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to say which is the Kunene Scheme and which is the Calueque Scheme. The two should actually be viewed together. Water is pumped from Calueque. The water for the emergency scheme will be pumped from Ruacana. Both are Kunene schemes, part of the greater Kunene scheme. The scheme for supplying water to South West Africa from Ruacana will only be put into effect if problems arise with the Calueque scheme. However, that scheme will also use part of the permanent water supply canals and pipelines. This R1 million is intended for use in extending that scheme, so that, if a start has to be made on the emergency scheme, that part of the work will already have been completed. Consequently, these schemes are really concerned with the same thing. Both are Kunene schemes, but the R1 million intended for the construction of the emergency scheme of Ruacana, should it become necessary, a scheme which is, however, also part of the permanent scheme.

Votes agreed to.

Vote 41 and SWA Vote 26.—“Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister for Coloured Relations to item J, where there is an extra amount set aside for the CRC, something one, naturally, welcomes. As the hon. the Minister of Finance said, this is mainly in respect of pensions and increased salaries. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if the increase in respect of salaries is due to the fact that there are more teachers or that there is an increase in the salary scale for teachers? How, in fact, is this amount arrived at—this extra amount as required by the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, this increase in respect of salaries concerns the general salary increase which came into effect on 1 July last year. In the same process, the wage gap was also narrowed by an increase of 15% in the case of Coloureds as against 10% in the case of Whites. However, if the hon. member asks me whether this is also related to an increase in the number of teachers, I want to say that there is no great increase in the number of teachers in the course of the year, and particularly not from July to the end of the year. Consequently, I can say with absolute certainty that there has not been a considerable increase in the number of teachers during the last six months of 1976. There may have been a considerable increase during the first six months of this year, though.

Votes agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate he made a pretty strong attack on what I had said previously in the debate, an attack which actually bordered on the personal, as far as I was concerned. As far as the personal attack is concerned, I take it from whence it comes. However, the hon. the Minister also implied that in the remarks I had made in the Second Reading debate, I had made reflections on the ability and purposes of senior officials in his department. Let me say that nothing could be further from the truth. I do not regard the senior officials in the hon. the Minister’s department as being responsible for fixing the level of expenditure which is reflected in the Bill under discussion and which has been reflected in previous Bills. My criticism, which was primarily based on the high level of expenditure, therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence of the officials of the Department of Finance.

He wants to drag everybody down to his level of incompetence.

I do not believe that one can view in isolation the items in respect of which supplementary expenditure is requested, in a debate on a Bill of this nature. One has to view the picture as a whole, and the picture as a whole was, in the first place, what was presented in the budget, secondly, what was approved in the Appropriation Bill and now what is approved in the additional estimates. It is a fact that the hon. the Minister in his budget speech set out as his aim the fixing of a level of expenditure that would stabilize expenditure in real terms. In that speech the hon. the Minister indicated that in monetary terms the level of expenditure for the current year would be 10,5% higher than for the previous year. As he equated that figure to a likely level of inflation, he patted himself on the back that he was achieving his aim of stabilizing expenditure in real terms. What was the actual result? The actual result, when one takes into account the expenditure we are considering in this Bill, will be that expenditure for the current year will in monetary terms be 16⅓% higher than it was for last year. The significance of that figure is first of all that it is substantially higher than the 10,5% which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his budget. It also, however, means that State expenditure for this year is going to increase, not only in monetary terms, but also in real terms. It is going to increase at a time when our gross domestic product is virtually stationary, which means that the State is once more taking a larger slice of the economic cake. This is happening in a year when the Government has professed to be exercising economies in expenditure of the strictest nature. The State President, in his address at the opening of Parliament, emphasized the efforts being made by the Government in this direction. The figures now revealed, for total expenditure for this year, confirm the view that progressively the Government is participating to a greater extent in the economy, at the expense of the private sector. The significance of this—as we have said before in this House—is first of all that it is inflationary, because the public sector is less productive than the private sector, and secondly, it also tends to intensify our balance of payments problems, because there is normally a high import content in Government expenditure.

To my way of thinking these are significant factors in our economic scene. They fully justify what I said at Second Reading and the criticisms I made of the Government’s administration of the finances of this country. The impression given by the hon. the Minister when he made his budget speech last March, was that he was going to succeed in holding real expenditure. In the event, that impression has turned out to be completely wrong. The hon. the Minister was therefore a long way off the mark in the remarks he made in his budget speech.

There is another point I made at Second Reading which has not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner. How is all this additional expenditure, which has been incurred since the budget, to be financed? There was a deficit of R292 million, estimated and budgeted for in the budget. We incurred another R200 million before the Appropriation Bill was passed. After savings we are now incurring another approximately R200 million. That means a deficit of R692 million, or roughly R700 million, for which no provision was made in the budget for the current year. This is a large amount to be hanging in the air, without this House knowing how it is to be financed. I believe it is up to the hon. the Minister, when such a large amount is at issue, to see that this House is advised as to how it is going to be met.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has said once again that the amounts requested in the additional appropriation are too high. The hon. member said that when I introduced my budget almost a year ago, I gave the assurance that we would restrict our expenditure according to the rate of inflation; in other words, the rate of inflation would not be exceeded, and in real terms this would mean that there would be no increase in expenditure. As far as this is concerned, I have already replied to the hon. member in the Second Reading debate. I pointed out to him that at that stage, I was clearly and unequivocally dealing with the main budget. It is absolutely impossible for any Minister of Finance, particularly under the present circumstances and in view of the uncertainties which we and the whole world are faced with, or for any other person—including, with all respect, the hon. member for Constantia—to foresee what will happen in the course of a whole year. I have never given and I shall never give the assurance that after a budget has been presented, the figures cannot change during the course of the year. It would be very irresponsible of a Minister of Finance to suggest such a thing.

I find it interesting to note the criticism which the hon. member for Constantia has made in regard to the additional appropriation. I want to emphasize once again that the amount which is being requested in the additional appropriation is much smaller, percentage-wise, than it has often been in the past, under much more favourable circumstances. Today, we and the whole world have great problems in the financial and economic spheres, but in spite of that, I am requesting an additional amount which constitutes only 2,8% of the main budget. I think this is an achievement. If it is irresponsible to request this additional amount, what was the position down the years when the amount of the additional appropriation came to 3%, 4% and even 5% of the original figure? What should we have said then? I think that this year’s additional appropriation amounts to a low figure. An interesting fact is that the hon. member shied away from mentioning items for which we are requesting supplementary amounts. Let us take another look at them: we are requesting R14 million for defence. This is quite a small amount on a budget of R1 350 million, seen in the light of the uncertainty which prevailed last year. For Bantu Administration we are requesting R28,9 million, R20 million of which is being voted towards the purchase of land for the consolidation of the homelands; the R20 million returns to the Public Debt Commissioners. We are requesting R26,5 million for non-White transport subsidies. The hon. Opposition did not level any criticism at that. I think that it is praiseworthy of the Government to have been able to vote money on that scale towards keeping the fares of non-Whites within limits. Subsidies to the marginal gold mines amount to almost R21 million. I heard no criticism against this from the hon. members of the Opposition. After all, the expenditure is very important and to a very important end. There is nothing new involved in it. In this regard, we are simply following our familiar policy. The increased contributions to pension funds, which amount to R14 million, also return to the Public Debt Commissioner, so there is no net addition in regard to that item. I have already explained repeatedly the position in regard to the provinces—two or three times during the Second Reading, I think. The amounts involved here are R40 million for the adjustment of salaries and R29 million to cover a multitude of cost escalations.

When one is dealing with a budget for the provinces which amounts to R1 300 million altogether, this is a meagre sum. This is an addition in terms of a subsidy formula on which the provinces and the Treasury have agreed, and it has been worked out in a very responsible and thorough manner. In addition, a supplementary amount of R8 million is being requested for export promotion, and no criticism has been levelled at this. Under Vote 35—Police—an amount of R8,7 million is being requested for reasons which I said would be understandable. As far as housing is concerned, an amount of R20 million is being requested, as my hon. colleague has explained, and I do not think that any hon. member of the Opposition has criticized that. The R15,l million which is being requested for Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama relations is needed particularly for salary adjustments, for narrowing the wage gap, etc. Consequently, if one looks at the reasons for this additional amount, we are faced with very important and very sensible motives, and all we got from the hon. Opposition was criticism which was based on generalizations. Nothing specific was said about the important amounts I have mentioned here, the Votes or the activities.

†I must say that I am very surprised that the hon. Opposition, and in particular the hon. member for Constantia, can persist with the criticism that this is an unusual or an excessive increase. He says again that he would like to know how this is to be financed. The hon. member knows that during the budget speech at the end of March which is just a month from now, it is customary to give the yearly review and to give the facts as to the total expenditures incurred and the total revenues derived from various sources for the year which is then about to end even although one does not always have the final figures.

That is precisely what is being prepared now, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask this hon. House to wait a matter of four weeks for this information, which, after all, has to be very carefully prepared and presented. I say again that the hon. member may be jumping a little ahead of time to suggest, as he did in the Second Reading debate, that there is going to be substantial deficit financing in the current year. I feel that he ought to wait to see the results, and maybe under these very difficult conditions of the capital market abroad and the type of conditions at home, he may just be fairly pleasantly surprised when he looks at the overall figures.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is only a consolidating measure and the necessary certificate to this effect has been submitted by the law adviser concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which is welcomed by us on this side of the House. It gets rid of no fewer than 63 financial and other related Acts and replaces them with one consolidated Act. It must have been a mammoth task on the part of the law advisers and the hon. the Minister’s own department to achieve this consolidation. It is a measure that we welcome and we shall, naturally, support it.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also support this measure. It merely consolidates into one Bill a number of disparate items and gives a briefer, clearer and more readily understandable picture for everyone to scrutinize.

Mr. Speaker, as this is purely a consolidating measure, we in these benches will not oppose it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 51 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, the State President may conclude agreements, generally referred to as “customs union agreements”, with any territory in Africa. Hon. members are probably aware of the multilateral customs union agreement which exists with the BLS countries, that is Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and the similar, but separate, agreement with Transkei. The agreements with these countries provide, inter alia, that the common revenue pool of the common customs area shall consist of the gross amounts of customs, excise, sales and additional duties levied and collected on goods imported into, or produced in, the common customs area. The basis for determining the share of the contracting parties of the common revenue pool is also determined by the agreements.

From what I have said, it should be clear that the customs, excise, sales and additional duties levied in the common customs area are collected on behalf of all the contracting parties. In principle the revenues accrue to the common revenue pool and not to the State Revenue Fund of the Republic. In fact, the State Revenue Fund is, in terms of the international agreements which have been duly authorized by Parliament, only entitled to the Republic’s contractual share of the common revenue pool.

However, the wording of section 51(2) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, as it stands at present, specifically provides that all revenues received within the common customs area shall accrue to the State Revenue Fund and that payment of the BLS countries’ and the Transkei’s shares of the common revenue pool shall be made “out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose”. Clearly the present wording of the Act does not reflect the true situation as I have explained it.

The amendment of the Act now before the House seeks merely to rectify the situation and to reflect the independent and equal status of our partners in the customs union. For practical reasons all common pool revenues will continue to flow to the Republic’s State Revenue Fund. The share of the total revenue pool due to the BLS countries and Transkei will thereafter be determined in accordance with the customs union agreement and will be paid over directly, i.e. without appropriation by Parliament, as a drawback of revenue.

I may add that the proposed amendment is supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and that the Auditor-General has agreed to the envisaged financial procedures.

Mr. Speaker, the principle embodied in this measure is in our view a sound one, viz. that customs and excise collected on behalf of independent African States in terms of agreements made between them and South Africa should be paid over automatically to those States in the proportions that are due to them instead of being subject to appropriation by Parliament. I think that the present position where Parliament has to vote the payment of what is due to independent countries is unsound. It smacks of colonialism and it is high time that this was changed. We on these benches will therefore support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, at present Parliament has to vote the funds for the partners in the customs union to get their share. We do not think it necessary for Parliament to have this measure of control. The hon. the Minister has advanced reasons for this Bill. He said that the Auditor-General and the Department of Foreign Affairs are in favour of this new arrangement. In any event, I presume there must be some delay in making payment if we have to vote the amount every year. I think this measure will expedite the payment of the amount due to these independent countries. In the circumstances we prefer that direct payment be made immediately to the partners in the customs union agreement and we accept the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to thank the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Walmer for supporting this measure. We think it is quite an important measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill takes a very necessary step in the implementation of the plans to place our voters’ registration on an automatic basis. For that reason it has been welcomed, as it was welcomed by the Select Committee. But there is a time limit which has now been set within which the issue of identity documents should be completed, viz. by 30 June 1978. One appreciates the very heavy burden that rests on the department to see that this work is done, as also the necessity for the close and full co-operation of the general public. This is needed if we are not to reach the situation where perhaps there will have to be a further extension of time or where we shall have a roll from which persons, who have not yet received their identity documents, will be omitted. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that later during this session he will give an indication of how far registration and the issue of identity documents have progressed so that we can be assured that there will be no problems arising when the effective date arrives in the middle of next year. We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support of the hon. member for Green Point. I have already explained in the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage that the primary aim of the department is to make sufficient progress with this scheme and to make a success of it by next year. We are providing for an alternative in this legislation. The door is being left open for us to fall back on general registration if the necessary progress is not made in respect of registration on the population register. The aim, however, is to succeed in this. The hon. member can accept that assurance. If it should appear to be necessary at a later stage to provide the details, the hon. member is free to contact me and I shall inform him with pleasure from time to time as to the progress made with the registration of the population and the details of the voters’ roll.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated during the previous stages of this Bill our objection to the inclusion of interprovincial arrangements in the same category as arrangements for assistance and mutual aid as between a province and a foreign State. In the Committee Stage we moved an amendment to delete that particular subsection of the Bill before us, but that amendment was not accepted. Although we deeply regret that that provision has been retained in the Bill, we feel that it is necessary that we should have a measure on the Statute Book dealing with the other aspects contained in the Bill, and for that reason we shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to say that we in these benches support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Maitland for their support of the Bill. I still think that it was a sound decision on the part of the House not to accept the amendment and I should like once again to express my thanks for the support received.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 deals with the registration of inseminators and A. I. centres and the registration of approved animals. Subsection (6) of this clause provides that persons who have been registered in terms of the present Act, i.e. the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, 1954, shall continue to be deemed to be registered until 30 September first following on the commencement of this particular Act. As the clause stands at present it also provides that the registration of a breeder, as defined in clause 8(2)(b), shall also continue until 30 September first following the commencement of this Act. The last few words of this particular clause, and I refer to lines 12 and 13 on page 16, read: “and shall thereafter not be renewed”.

If this clause is read one way, these words “and shall thereafter not be renewed” would apply only to a breeder; that is a person who in terms of section 14 of the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act has been registered as a breeder and is today in fact registered. I believe that there are only five such breeders, and that, therefore, only five people are affected by this. However, if one reads this clause in another way, it would appear that not only may the registration of a breeder after 30 September first following on the commencement of this Act, not be renewed, but also that the registration of an inseminator, of an A. I. station, and the approval of an animal, may thereafter be renewed. I know from the hon. the Minister and from his department that that is not the intention of this clause. It is not the intention that the registration of inseminators, of A.I. stations and the approval of animals should not be renewed. It is the intention only that the registration of a breeder, a breeder who is registered in terms of section 14 of the Act, shall not be renewed after 30 September following on the commencement of this Act.

I must refer the hon. the Minister to his explanatory memorandum in this regard. There it is set out quite clearly. I have asked various people to have a look at this clause and, as I say, I have received these two opinions as to exactly what it means. I believe that the hon. the Minister is right, that the registration of an inseminator, of an A. I. centre and the approval of an animal for A. I. purposes should be continued, or the registration should be extended, beyond 30 September following on the commencement of this Act, but that the registration of a breeder should not be continued. It is for that reason that I wish to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, the effect being simply to clarify the position and to make it absolutely certain that the inseminator, the A.I. centre and the approved animal may be reregistered after 30 September of this year, I assume, and that the registration of a breeder shall fall away after that date. I now move—

1. (7) The registration of a breeder in terms of section 14 of the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, 1954, shall …

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The hon. member acknowledges that he knows what I want. If he looks at line 34 on page 14 he will see the following—

1. (b) shall submit an application for the registration of premises as an A. I. centre

Then it goes on in line 38—

He can always register new ones. The five existing A. I. undertakings are not affected by this. In fact, they were consulted in the drafting of this Bill. If we were now to accept the amendment of the hon. member—and I know what he means—it would only give rise to clumsy wording, according to the legal advice I have obtained. The hon. member must read clauses 10 and 12 together. If he reads clause 12—line 24 on page 16—and he reads it in conjunction with clause 10, then I can tell him that various people involved in the drafting of this Bill are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to accept this amendment; provision is already made for renewal of existing registrations. I hope that the hon. member accepts this. His own words were that he knew what I had in mind with this legislation. I do not believe that it will create any difficulties if the Bill goes through in its present form. However much I may have wanted to, I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is not able or prepared to accept this amendment, I must accept it. However, I must ask the hon. the Minister to set out quite clearly what his intention is. We have an explanatory memorandum where his intention is set out, but that does not form part of the law. What is written in this Bill is what will form part of the law. As I have said, it is ambiguous and I believe that the amendment which I have moved would remove the ambiguity and all doubt. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to place on record now, in the Committee Stage, that it is his intention that the registrations of inseminators, of A.I. centres and of approved animals for A.I. purposes shall be continued after 30 September and that it is only the registration of the breeder which he intends not to continue after 30 September. If the hon. the Minister will just place it on record, I think it will be satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to place it on record that there will be no doubt about the renewability of registrations and approvals for the existing artificial inseminators and newcomers in the business. There will be no doubt about the future of these people.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North is not here and I would therefore like to move the amendments standing in his name, as follows—

1. (1) On page 20, in line 24, after the third “are” to insert “on reasonable grounds”;
2. (2) on page 20, in lines 32 to 36, to omit paragraph (d).

Farmer Dave!

In moving these amendments I wish to assure the hon. the Minister that I know nothing about artificial insemination. [Interjections.] On that matter I am not with it at all, but I read in subsection (2)(a) of clause 15 that the powers of inspection are to—

The only purpose of the first amendment is to put in the words “on reasonable grounds” after the third “are”. This will avoid any unreasonable actions by any inspector. Secondly, there is an amendment to omit paragraph (d) of subsection (2), which gives the inspector the right to—

I think this matter was argued in the Second Reading of the Bill. The point is that the penalties in terms of the Bill are very high, and it is felt, certainly by us, that it is not correct to demand summary explanations from people as these explanations might prove to be an incrimination of the person concerned. We feel that if questions of a legal nature are to be asked, questions which could involve penalties, the person should be entitled to obtain advice before giving answers and should, in fact, not be placed in a position where he, without legal advice, could incriminate himself.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to see how I can help those hon. members who moved the amendments. If we look at the Plant Improvement Act, we find exactly the same wording there. The hon. member for Sandton says that the hon. member for Durban North—who apologized for not being here today, and I appreciate that—is a bit worried about the powers that I am taking. The hon. member for Sandton must remember that one may come to a farmer who is entered under a scheme and who is not prepared to show the inspector for instance the scale on which he is weighing the cattle. We must realize that pedigree bulls are very expensive material and the inspector must have the power to demand to see and check the scale in order to ensure that the farmer is not cheating. One must remember that we contacted the Artificial Insemination Board, the Agricultural Union and the Stud Book Association and told them that proposals had been made to have this provision altered to make it more reasonable. They asked what was wrong with the wording: “ … are suspected to be …”. We must have the same powers as we have in the Plant Improvement Act. They indicated that this wording should not be altered and that the amendment should not be accepted. I therefore feel that the hon. member can rest assured that there is nothing amiss here.

*I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has moved two amendments. The first one just tends to confuse the issue a little bit further. We are here dealing with the provisions of a scheme. What is a scheme? A scheme is something which has been entered into for the evaluation and certification of the performance of animals, with the object of improving the genetic production potential of such kinds and breeds of animals.

In clause 15(2) certain powers of inspection are given to persons connected with the scheme. I must agree with the hon. member for Sandton that under normal circumstances the powers which are given here, would tend to abrogate the rule of law and make it much more difficult for a person, as well as to give rather stringent powers to an inspector. As I have explained, however, we are here dealing with schemes and participation in a scheme is a voluntary act on the part of the individual farmer concerned, so that the only places which would be visited by an inspector, would be places where there are animals being kept which are participating in a scheme to evaluate their production potential. In other words, every person who is participating will be a volunteer. When he volunteers and enters into that scheme, he will be aware of the provisions of that scheme. He will also be fully aware of the provisions of clause 15(2). He will know, when he enters into that scheme, that he is going to be subject, under these conditions, to the attentions of these inspectors. For that reason I do not believe we can support the hon. member for Sandton’s amendment. If this were applied to the public as a whole and if it were applied in general throughout the Republic so that any person could be grabbed under these provisions at any time, we would agree with the hon. member for Sandton and support his amendment. Under these circumstances, however, we cannot support it.

I now want to raise a question with the hon. the Minister as to whether he can explain something which my friend, the hon. member for Mooi River—who also tendered his apologies to the hon. the Minister—raised during the Second Reading. We are dealing here with the powers of inspection. I quote from clause 15(2)—

That is to the person who is designated by the person in charge of the scheme—

1. (a) enter upon any place or premises on which or in which there are any animals which are or are suspected to be, intended for evaluation and certification in terms of a scheme, and inspect or test such animals;

Why are the words “or are suspected to be” included in this paragraph? Surely this is a voluntary matter. A man presents an animal for evaluation and he knows that the inspector is coming to visit that animal. Surely the inspector will know where the animals are and that the owner is going to ask him to come and have a look at his bull or his oxen, if it is a question of meat performance testing, and that they are in a particular camp. Why are these five words “or are suspected to be” here? Are they really essential in this clause or should they not perhaps be deleted?

Mr. Chairman, I have always thought that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is an unreasonable man, but I am busy changing my mind. The hon. member could see right through the whole thing and could explain to the hon. member for Sandton that it is a voluntary scheme, which has been drawn up by the people who are going to participate in the scheme. How can I differ from them if they want these provisions? If there is a farmer who does not like this legislation, he need not go into the scheme. I think that ought to settle the problem of the hon. member for Durban North.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wants to know why the words “suspected to be” or, as it reads in the Afrikaans, “vermoede”, appear in the Bill. The point at issue here is the fact that a man who has enrolled for the scheme exchange animals. This has occurred in the past, and it has been proved. We have evidence, for example, that people take a calf from another cow, a calf which has a better appearance, but is wholly unrelated. If anything of this kind is suspected, the man must have the right to say that he wants to go into the details of this specific animal and that is why we have the wording “suspected to be”. Unfortunately we cannot change this.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Beef Performance Testing Scheme, I want to support the hon. the Minister very much on the particular point he has made in explaining to my hon. friend, who obviously knows a lot about cheese and everything else, that, when it is a matter of rands and cents, farmers are unfortunately not as scrupulous as they ought to be. If one does not have these kind of powers, it is pretty well impossible for the inspectors to control those farmers who attempt to circumvent the conditions of the scheme. The hon. the Minister has given an example of the kind of thing that easily happens in a beef performance testing scheme and I want to support him in that. If one talks to the technicians on the beef performance testing schemes and listen to the stories they have to tell about the ways in which farmers endeavour in many cases—fortunately in the minority of cases and in most cases—to bend the law, one has to accept that there are these unscrupulous people. This is the trouble with the amendment which the hon. member for Sandton has to support. Anybody who has any knowledge of the livestock industry and who is involved in a beef performance testing scheme, will be well aware that these powers are absolutely necessary. Speaking for our party, we have no difficulty in supporting this measure and I believe the hon. the Minister has explained to my senior colleague why we have to have the words “suspect to be”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that my experience is that only 1% of farmers are dishonest. [Interjections.] Another strange thing is that the 1% of farmers who are dishonest are not all supporters of the UP!

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, I think I must explain to the hon. the Minister that I have a contract with the hon. member for Durban North to move his amendments in my name. The arguments here are the same and, therefore, I move the amendments which appear in the name of the hon. member for Durban North on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 32, in line 44, after the second “are” to insert “on reasonable grounds”;
2. (2) on page 34, in lines 16 and 17, to omit “and demand from the person in charge of such operation any information regarding it”.

Despite the arguments that have been put forward, I cannot see what difficulty the hon. the Minister should have in putting the words mentioned in the first amendment into the Act. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not expect that any inspector would inspect any premises without reasonable grounds. He therefore presupposes that a person who does that should have reasonable grounds. To place this matter beyond reasonable doubt therefore, my suggestion is that the words in question be inserted thereby obviating any difficulty which I and my hon. friend may have. The second amendment is to delete from clause 26(1)(f) the words “and demand from the person in charge of such operation any information regarding it”. Here again it is a question of incriminating a person who is making such a statement or giving the information. Secondly, it is somewhat widely drafted. The words “any information” are absolutely unqualified and do seem to us to be somewhat wide. Therefore while not vitiating the substance of the clause, we suggest that those last words be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that the hon. member for Durban North should only object at one place in the Bill to the words “are suspected” and the words “and demand from the person in charge of such operation any information regarding it”.

†If the hon. member will look at clause 26(1)(a), he will notice that the words “are suspected” and “is suspected” appear several times in that clause. In line 56 the words “he has a reason to believe” have more or less the same meaning. Words with a similar meaning appear also in clause 26(1)(c) on top of page 34. The words are more or less the same on both pages and the two ideas are set out in various subsections. I consulted the legal adviser in this regard.

*Hon. members must not think that I am lying, because I did in fact ask the law adviser to check whether we could not accommodate the hon. members. However, he stated that hon. members were going to achieve nothing by their amendments because we should then be drafting an Act which do not correspond with our plant improvement legislation and all our agricultural legislation. No human rights have been encroached upon here, and I do not foresee any difficulties in respect of any of the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the members of the PRP, led by their agricultural expert, have over-extended themselves in their concern in regard to civil liberties. They have in fact extended themselves so much as to make themselves ridiculous, first of all as they are being inconsistent as the hon. the Minister has recently pointed out and, secondly, because they obviously understand very little about what the real point of this Bill is, let alone the complications and the techniques and the abuse that the whole artificial insemination aspect of the livestock industry is open to. I do not believe that we have to explain to the farmers, those who do artificial insemination, the extent to which artificial insemination, whether it is in respect of animals, poultry, or whatever k may be, can not only be abused, but can have a tremendously deleterious effect on a whole livestock industry. The semen of any one bull can be used in any year to inseminate a thousand and possibly several thousand cows. If one does not have the most stringent controls over the A.I. centres, which are voluntarily registered under this Bill, then one can lay oneself open to the most serious kind of abuse. The other point which I believe the members of the PRP do not understand is that one can get use of semen from a bull which may cost R20 000 or R30 000 for the cost of R5 and the cost of the hire of a nitrogen cylinder. As a result, this sort of thing is open to abuse by the unscrupulous person because he can use an inferior bull and substitute the semen. There are all kinds of controls which are absolutely necessary. I want to repeat once again that the AI industry, or the livestock industry, in this country is a voluntary concern. It has to be controlled. This industry has itself requested these controls and I believe that it is in the national interest that we should have these controls. We have respect for the PRP’s concern for civil liberties. They have, after all, inherited it from our party, but here it is not a question of civil liberties. The point is that this legislation does not affect anybody, because this is a voluntary association for the purpose of improving the livestock of South Africa. Nobody who has any insight into the management and control of an artificial insemination centre or the methods of collecting and storing semen and the abuse which these procedures are open to, would ever oppose this kind of provision. I believe the hon. member for Durban North may well have found this to be an opportune moment to be absent because on reflection, he realized that his lack of knowledge would be exposed to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s advice and his belief that these amendments will not be efficacious and that in his view the Bill should perhaps be left as it is. I accept that, and although we shall say “no” when called upon to do so, we shall be in the minority. However, I do cross swords with the hon. member for Pinetown when he says the amendments are ridiculous and that the hon. member for Durban North is absent because he does not know what he is talking about. I venture to say, however, that he knows a bit more about what he is talking about than that pious hon. member when he tries to quote from Isaiah.

Mr. Chairman I rise simply to place on record the attitude of the official Opposition to the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton. I believe he goes very wide when he says that the person concerned will incriminate himself. Again I make the point that this is a voluntary organization. The person concerned will be there as a volunteer and that is the reason why we shall not support his amendment. However, when the hon. member for Sandton says that an inspector can demand any information and that there are no limits, I would suggest to him that he should brush up on his own legal training because he knows that an inspector may only ask for information within the limits of the provisions of this legislation. He cannot go beyond those limits and compel as person to give any other information.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, clause 27 establishes a completely new principle, and as I indicated in the Second Reading debate, it is a principle we welcome. I am referring here to the fact that where an appeal to the Minister involves a matter covered by this legislation, he may appoint an ad hoc board to investigate the matter and to take a decision. Let me refer to clause 27(9). There one finds that—

1. (a) confirm, set aside or vary the relevant decision …

and may—

1. (b) order the Registrar to execute the decision of the board in connection therewith.

In other words … [Interjections.]

Order!

… the full powers of the hon. the Minister to decide an appeal are not vested in a board. We find, however, that the members of this board are going to be burdened with a tremendously onerous task because it is not only a question of deciding on the merits of the appeal. They also have certain other responsibilities. More particularly, one finds that the chairman of this board is vested with certain powers and certain responsibilities. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 27 (4) where it is stated that the chairman may summons any person to appear before him at a specified time and place to be interrogated and that he may summons him to produce a document. When the person has presented himself, the chairman may administer an oath or accept an affirmation and he may call any person present at the hearing as a witness, interrogate him and require him to produce any document in his possession. In clause 27(5) it is provided that the chairman may decide upon the procedure to be adopted at the hearing. In the offences and penalties clause, i.e. clause 30, one finds that a person commits an offence if he refuses to do certain things, e.g. if a person refuses to answer the questions put to him by the chairman of the board, if he refuses to appear before the board, if he refuses to produce any document, etc. We also find further on in the Bill that these offences are punishable by quite severe fines or periods of imprisonment. I believe that for a person to have the responsibility for determining procedure; administering the oath and creating offences, that person should not just be someone with a knowledge of law, as is provided for in clause 27(2)(a)(i), which reads—

In the past we have had provisions similar to this. Provision has generally been made for an advocate or a laywer of at least 10 years’ standing, or someone of that nature, but not simply a person who happens to have a knowledge of law. The phrase “on account of his knowledge of law” is very wide and rather nebulous. In this post I believe one needs, as the chairman of this board, someone who not only has a knowledge of law but also a knowledge of the application of the law, of how a court should be constituted and should operate. For that reason I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I believe that a magistrate or a judge versed in court procedure is the ideal person to conduct the affairs of this appeal board, and I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has quite rightly assumed, appeal boards will be appointed on an ad hoc basis, depending on the nature of each appeal. The necessity to appoint a person with knowledge of legal matters as chairman of an appeal board is fully realized and provision therefor is included in the Bill. Such chairman would, however, be required to have at least some knowledge of the livestock industry. The hon. member did not ask that such chairman should have any knowledge of the livestock industry. He said it could be an ex-judge. It could be Kowie Marais, and he would make a complete mess of this whole thing. In practice the Department of Justice will be approached to make an officer available as chairman or to recommend the person to undertake this task. Acceptance of the proposed amendment would, however, have the effect that the field from which such legal experts could be selected is narrowed considerably. This could create problems when the specific officers, judges or magistrates are for some or other reason just not available. In view hereof, the amendment cannot be accepted although the hon. member can be assured that a judge or magistrate will, as far as possible, be appointed as chairman of the appeal board when the nature of the appeal requires such appointment.

That is as far as I can go. I think the whole thing is covered. The people concerned will see to this matter. I want to say that I am sure that that is the idea when a person is appointed as chairman.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban North, as follows—

I think this also involves the question of incrimination. In fact, Sir, it is not only an offence if a person makes a false statement, but it is also an offence if a person fails to make a statement timeously or at all. I think that the same line of argument can be followed as was used in respect of previous clauses.

Mr. Chairman, the same argument applies here as in regard to the previous amendments. I cannot accept this amendment for the reasons I gave previously. If one goes to a person and says: “Can I have a look at your scale? Give me information on when the scale was last … What is the English word for “geyk”?

Assized.

There, I have learnt a new word.

†The person concerned might say: “I do not want to talk to you about this whole business.” This measure gives us the power we need in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to say that our previous arguments pertain here as well and that, therefore, we cannot support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, clause 33 is a clause to limit the liability of “the State, the Minister, the Registrar or an officer acting under any authorization by or delegation from or under the control or direction of the Registrar” or of any person concerned with this scheme. The effect of this is that anybody, who suffers damage as a result of an act done by one of these persons in terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act, will not be able to receive any compensation if the person involved has acted in good faith. When we debated the Indemnity Bill in this House a little while ago, much was made of the question of negligence. I believe it is not fair or reasonable to the person concerned here that an official, an officer, a registrar or whoever it might be can act negligently and that the person concerned can then still be precluded from claiming damages from the State, the Minister, the registrar, or whoever is responsible. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the persons who act in terms of this Bill do so in the manner in which a pater familias is expected to act in the eyes of the law, viz. he must not be negligent. For that reason I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

In other words, if it can be proved that the person acted negligently and that the farmer suffered a loss, that farmer should be entitled to recover damages. If the officer acts in good faith and does not act negligently, I am prepared to accept the provisions of the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban North, as follows—

This amendment is roughly the same as that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. It includes the word “recklessness”, which is not included in the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. However, I think that either of these two amendments conveys to the hon. The Minister the thought that it is not correct that in circumstances such as these, where thousands of rand are involved, as has been pointed out to us so often, an officer acting on behalf of the State and within the scope of this legislation, but in a negligent or reckless way, should be indemnified so that the State is in fact allowed to escape having to pay damages which may in some circumstances be caused to an individual through the recklessness or negligence of such an officer. Let me say, finally, that I would be happy if either of the two amendments were accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct in saying that the two amendments are roughly the same. Let me say that the limitation of liability is merely provided to cover instances where claims for compensation are received in respect of acts which have been done in good faith. No reference is made to losses suffered from wanton, reckless, negligent or careless acts. If a registrar or an officer acts in such a manner, the limitation of liability is automatically forfeited. Furthermore, if a person claiming compensation alleges that the loss he has suffered does not result from an act done in good faith, the State has to prove the presence of good faith if it wants to defend the claim. Legal opinion has been obtained that the proposed provision does in fact give full protection to the public for losses suffered from reckless, intentional, negligent or careless acts, whereas the amendments that have been moved, only refer to negligence and recklessness. The provision, as proposed, in included in numerous existing Acts and has never caused any problems in the administration thereof. Therefore, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept either of the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to agree with the interpretation the hon. the Minister places on this. It is only two weeks ago that we argued backwards and forwards in this Chamber on the question of “in good faith” and “negligence”. This matter was argued conclusively. I do not believe it is necessary for me to re-advance all those arguments again. We argued about the fact that an officer could act in good faith, but at the same time be negligent. But the officer does act in good faith when he acts in terms of the provisions of the Act, where he is given powers to enter upon premises and to inspect or to take samples. In the case of semen, the officer enters the premises, takes a sample of the semen in good faith in terms of the provisions of the Act. Then he neglects to put the sample in a cold jar and to keep it in cold storage. The result is that the semen is damaged and becomes worthless.

However, when he acted, he acted in good faith. The whole point is that at the time he entered the premises and when he took the semen, he acted in good faith because he had reason to believe there was something wrong and he was acting within the ambit of the powers granted to him in terms of this legislation. Then, having acted in good faith, he acted negligently. He did not then display the necessary …

Good faith.

… good faith, if that is what you want to call it. But it is not good faith; it is diligence. The hon. member has put a wrong word in my mouth. That is what happens when one listens to the Progs. He did not act with due diligence; he acted negligently, and I believe that in that case the farmer should be entitled to claim. I believe it would be wrong for the State, the Minister or the registrar to raise as a defence the fact that the officer at the time he took the semen acted in good faith and that, therefore, there should be no liability pertaining to the negligence which resulted afterwards. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this again. I am not going to force the issue now. I do not believe it is any good forcing the issue now. But I do not really understand all these technicalities. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister that we should have a talk about this matter later on; let us consult again with his legal advisers and let us see if we cannot amend this when he takes this Bill to the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that maliciousness and wilfulness are being eliminated by the insertion of this amendment and this is just my problem. However, in practice we are not going to have any difficulty. I can go so far as to say that I shall review this matter in the Senate, but I shall only do so if hon. members will allow me to take the Third Reading today.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. The hon. the Minister can have his Third Reading. I just want to make the point that good faith is not necessarily incompatible with negligence. In other words, one can be negligent in good faith. One cannot be reckless in good faith. I believe the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is quite correct. But with regard to negligence, one can act in good faith and make a mistake and still cause an accident which results in a man suffering damage. In terms of this section as it stands, the State is covered and will not compensate such person. That was the very argument that was used during the discussions on the Indemnity Bill, where the hon. the Minister of Defence said that in a time of difficulty, where there was trouble in the country and where we had to send men on service, we could not be bothered with negligence. He said that he therefore was in fact covering negligence. I think this was in the discussion on the Indemnity Bill. What is being done here, is that the State is being covered for negligence, and I do not think that that is correct. Therefore we request that the hon. the Minister should look for a way to ensure that compensation is paid to an innocent person where negligence takes place.

We can have a look at it.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived, and amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have had such a delightful atmosphere in this House this afternoon and as we have had a Minister who has been so reasonable—in fact, sweet reasonableness itself—we in these benches will close this debate by simply saying that we wish the livestock industry of South Africa well and that we hope that the benefits anticipated in terms of this Bill by the livestock industry will come to fruition in the near future for the benefit of the Republic of South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.