laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) [B 60—86 (HA)]—(Minister of the Budget).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Order! I should like to inform hon members that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills reported to Mr Speaker as follows in regard to the proposed Population Registration Amendment Bill, submitted by Maj R Sive, and the proposed Population Registration Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr K Moodley:

Mr Chairman, are you in a position to indicate to the House what the vote was?

Unfortunately I am in no position to indicate that. However, I am sure that the hon member, in his capacity as Chief Whip, will be able to ascertain what the vote was.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Hon members will remember that I obtained the approval of Parliament during March of last year to include an appropriation of R23,234 billion in the Main Estimates for 1985-86. Adding on estimated statutory amounts totalling R8,226 billion, total Government spending under Part I of the Main Estimates came to R31,46 billion. It was planned to reduce this level of expenditure by R417 million through savings on staff-related expenditure.

Factors such as the lower level of the rand against other currencies, unemployment, riots, greater demand for services by Government and consistently high interest rates caused the level of expenditure of R31,46 billion to be exceeded.

Hon members will have noted speculation to the effect that Government would have to contend with excess expenditure of at least R2 billion. I am able today to present to this Joint Session of Parliament a considerably better picture. Gross excess expenditure is now estimated at R1,817 billion, consisting of an additional R1,163 billion to be appropriated and R654 million payable statutorily—primarily to service the State debt. The main reason for this increase in State debt costs is the exceptionally low exchange rate which the rand maintained for part of the year and which accounts for more than R330 million of the excess. In the course of applying sound monetary policy the Exchequer during 1985-86 borrowed both earlier and more than was dictated by fiscal requirements. This further increased the interest burden. Interest rates were also higher than originally budgeted for.

Net excess expenditure and, therefore, the additional financing requirement is not, however, R1,817 billion but only R1,517 billion—an increase of 4,8%. That is after anticipated savings on Votes—including savings on staff-related expenditure—amounting to R300 million have been taken into account.

Summarised the position for 1985-86 is as follows:

The drive to reduce Government expenditure to a minimum inevitably entails sacrifices. This is particularly so in seriously recessionary times, compounded by our present political situation in which large segments of the population have high expectations. I should like to place on record my thanks to all my colleagues and their departments for their support and to the State President for his deep understanding of our country’s financial situation and of my task. Without this support and understanding a already complex task would have been even more problematic.

The Estimate of Additional Expenditure is a measure, the details of which are discussed mainly in the Committee Stage, where my colleagues will elucidate further. I shall therefore confine myself to the following brief remarks.

Protection Services

Under this heading are grouped the SA Police—Vote No 10—the SA Defence Force—Vote No 16—and Prisons—Vote No 20. An additional R42 million is sought for the SA Police, R245 million for the SA Defence Force and R1 million for Prisons—a total of R288 million.

A sound economy is essential for prosperity and prosperity for a contented population. Both are largely dependent on internal order. Hon members will agree that action was necessary to maintain peace, and, where necessary, to restore order. This entailed the country-wide deployment of large numbers of police and troops. It was not possible for us at the beginning of the financial year accurately to estimate the additional cost.

The cost of combating the unrest nevertheless accounts for only a small part of the R288 million. Of the R245 million requested by Defence, R100 million represents that portion of the estimated under-expenditure approved by Parliament in the Main Budget, which failed to materialise. Another R95,5 million is needed to pay for deliveries against orders placed in previous years. Only a fraction of the remaining amount is related to the unrest.

Of the additional amount requested by the Police approximately 50% can be linked to the unrest, while the remainder is needed to bring the ration of police to population nearer to accepted Western norms.

* Development of Local Government

In common with many service institutions, owing to cost escalations development and community boards are experiencing shortfalls when it comes to rendering the necessary services to the relevant communities. In order to meet the development board shortfalls, R94 million is being provided, in the Vote Constitutional Development and Planning, for the granting of bridging finance. Considerably aggravating the position of these boards is the high incidence of defaults in the payment for services rendered and rental—in many cases not for economic reasons. That the country as a whole would suffer if the boards were to collapse, goes without saying—hence the request to Parliament for assistance. It nevertheless is and continues to be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs that the users of the services of local authorities do not meet their reasonable and equitable obligations, and it is to be hoped that this situation will be remedied as soon as possible.

Provincial Subsidies

The customary final adjustment to the provincial subsidies amounts to R85 million this year. This is a normal adjustment of the subsidy formula that manifests itself annually in the additional estimates. Increasing cost pressure and demands for the furnishing of additional services give rise to higher expenditure, for which R40 million is needed. An amount of R50 million has also been allocated to provincial administrations for the Government’s job-creation programme. Savings of R72 million on staff expenditure has, however, reduced the gross requirement of R175 million so that only R103 million is being requested in the Additional Estimates. The payment of the final adjustment and the additional amounts are to be made via the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote—Vote No 4.

Job Creation

In the economic climate of the past year, unemployment has unfortunately begun to assume alarming proportions. The Government has therefore started with a positive programme to help alleviate the distress of the unemployed in various ways. Initially R100 million was specifically earmarked for this purpose in last year’s Vote. It soon became apparent that this amount would be inadequate. Owing to the high priority assigned by the Government to this service, on 20 September 1985 a R500 million expansion to this programme was announced. This is being financed by R400 million from a 10% surcharge on imported goods not bound by GATT and an additional R100 million from the Exchequer.

A large number of Government departments, the four provincial administrations, local authorities and private organisations participated in this successful project. A particularly successful aspect of the project was the training programme which not only provided temporary relief for the needs of the unemployed, but also better equipped them to look after themselves in future. Estimates seem to point to the fact that it will not be possible to spend the entire R600 million during this financial year. The balance will be carried forward to the next financial year. Expenditure on this very deserving programme up to 31 March 1986 will total an expected R530 million. The expenditure has been divided up amongst departments as follows:

Some of the departments involved in these projects have succeeded, either in full or in part, in meeting the expenditure involved in the job-creation programmes from savings on their Votes. With due consideration for the savings and the R100 million already voted, an additional amount of R368 million is needed for this service.

Hon members will probably be strongly in favour of this excess expenditure. Thousands of people from all population groups have benefited from the project. When there is an upswing in the economy, we shall also have the benefit of better trained people who will be in a better position than before to take their place in society. More rapid economic growth must, of necessity, follow.

Exchange Rate Losses

Apart from the effect on the servicing of the State debt, the low average rate of the rand caused actual shortfalls of R350 million in the amounts appropriated. The lion’s share of that expenditure can be covered by savings. Therefore only R60 million is being requested for this in the Additional Estimates.

Housing Assistance to Black Population

In the course of the year my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, drew attention to the acute housing problems of Black people. Notwithstanding the difficult economic climate, it was decided to earmark, specifically for this purpose, an amount of R100 million for inclusion in the Additional Estimates being presented to hon members today.

Other

The foregoing items represent the major portion of the amount requested. The balance of R178 million is for other services spread out over various Votes. My colleagues shall, when their Votes are discussed, also furnish further information about this.

Financing

The nett excess expenditure of R1,517 billion must, of necessity, be financed. Without anticipating the usual overview of Government finances given on Budget Day, hon members may rest assured that adequate additional funds will be available for the sound financing of the excess expenditure.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the customary question that has to be asked of the hon the Minister of Finance and which unfortunately he did not really address himself to in the speech introducing the Second Reading of this measure, is whether the additional expenditure which he now asks the House to authorise was unexpected or unforeseen expenditure. He also has to answer the question whether in each case there were a change of circumstances which could not have been foreseen at the time the Budget was presented. That crucial issue is the one to which there is only a limited form of address and in some cases no form of address at all by the hon the Minister. The importance of this on this occasion lies in the fact that the hon the Minister made an issue of the question of not overrunning the Budget. He made an issue of it in his Budget Speech. He made the point that the evils of the past were now not going to be repeated but that there was now going to be a new era and that there was going to be a new scheme for expenditure control. He went even further and he did what was unusual in that he appropriated an amount of R400 million to cover unforeseen expenditure so that we should not be in a position of having to face additional estimates other than where the matters were completely unforeseen, unexpected or due to completely changed circumstances. Having made that an issue, he therefore now has perforce to be judged on his own standard which he set for himself.

If we are to judge him on that standard let us listen to what he has now said. He says factors such as the lower level of the rand against other currencies, unemployment, riots, greater demand for services by Government and consistently high interest rates caused the level of expenditure to be exceeded. A little later on in his speech he says—he now uses a new form of terminology for what we ordinary people call inflation—that certain services faced “cost escalations” or “cost pressure”. Those are his fancy words for inflation which have been evolved in order not to use that harsh but quite clear and meaningful term.

I now want to test the hon the Minister in regard to unemployment. Can the hon the Minister actually say today with any degree of fairness that the level of unemployment and the level of poverty—both issues with which he has had to deal—were unforeseen when it was, in fact, the nature of the policies he applied which caused both greater unemployment and bankruptcies in South Africa during the year under review? How can the hon the Minister say, Sir, that these factors were unforeseen when he in fact precipitated them? It was his action and his policy that gave rise to these factors!

This situation, however, becomes even more interesting. The hon the Minister made provision in the Budget for R100 million to deal with this very problem. Yet, what did he say in reply to the allegation that this amount was insufficient? Let us see what he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 7 June 1985, col 7130). The hon the Minister repeated what he had said in his Budget speech and went on to say:

I then interjected and said:

I am sure the hon the Minister remembers this. I wonder whether he remembers his reply. Does the hon the Minister remember his reply?

Read it.

The hon the Minister says I should read it. I had every intention of reading it, that I can promise him! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister replied then (col 7131):

What is fascinating now, Sir, is that in these additional estimates the socialist side of the hon the Minister comes to the fore, because he has now told us that the R100 million was insufficient—just as I had pointed out to him then—and that he has, in fact, allocated an additional R500 million in respect of this programme. He went on to tell us that he could not spend it all and that there was really going to be only R430 million extra which was to be spent. So now we have the picture of the admitted socialist who would not admit that he was a socialist when he was asked to be one, but who has since become one—and a converted one at that! [Interjections.]

I should Uke to ask the hon the Minister in all fairness whether he can, in the light of what he said then and had to do thereafter, possibly say to this House today that this is really unexpected expenditure. It can only be regarded as unexpected expenditure, Sir, if the hon the Minister had, in fact, actually closed his eyes to the reality of what was happening in South Africa and to the consequences of the policies of this Government that were being applied at that time. The hon the Minister has had to eat his words. Oh yes, Sir, the hon the Minister has indeed had to eat his words; and he has been forced to deal with this matter in the manner—of which I approve—in which he has since dealt with it. However, I asked him to deal with it in time, and not a little later. What seems remarkable now—and I recommend that the hon the Minister read all of these—are the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech last year, his reply to the Second Reading debate, and his speeches at the Third Reading in respect of this Budget. Then, after he has read them, he can come along to this House quite penitent and say: “Mea culpa, I have actually made a complete mess.” [Interjections.]

That is the reality. What the hon the Minister said he was actually going to do, has not worked out. Thus, I invite the hon the Minister also to read the opposition speeches—I unfortunately do not have the time to do so now and I do not normally quote my own Hansard—before he presents his next Budget. These speeches contain criticism of his last Budget, so he might learn something from them instead of being bitter and twisted and trying to take political advantage. [Interjections.]

Let us take another example. The hon the Minister said that having the financial rand and exchange control in South Africa were socialist measures. Does the hon the Minister remember that?

Import control, yes.

Oh, was it import control that the hon the Minister regarded as a socialist measure? Was it not the financial rand? Really, the hon the Minister has a very bad memory, and that is not something which he should have. [Interjections.] What did the hon the Minister then go and do? He abolished the financial rand. Then he had to bring it back. He criticised us when we said that he should have retained the financial rand.

I did not abolish the financial rand.

The hon the Minister’s Government did! Is he now walking away from his Government? Does he not take any responsibility for the actions of his Government? Does he not take any responsibility for what his predecessors did while in office? Is this perhaps a government in which each Minister stands on his own? Some Ministers not only stand on their own, they even walk out when they think one is going to talk about them. I want to issue another word of caution to the hon the Minister of Finance. He is again talking about abolishing the financial rand. I say to him that he is playing with fire and with the future of South Africa. With great respect, he is going to do us harm once again. One has to look at the situation realistically and not use the approach the Government favours. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who is sitting next to the hon the Minister of Finance, is smiling, but he should take that smile off his face. I shall explain why. The hon the Minister of Finance is complaining about inflation, or whatever the fancy new words are that he uses for it, and the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is one of the causes of inflation in South Africa.

You should not be laughing.

Between the two of them, what are the hon Ministers doing at the present moment? I shall tell them what they are doing, and invite them to enter the debate on this subject. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, together with the hon the Minister of Finance, is taking 32,7 cents off the price paid for every litre of petrol out of the hands of South African consumers. And what else did they do? When the rand fell in value, the Government was quick to increase the price of petrol. [Interjections.]

That is nonsense! That is absolute rubbish!

Now that the rand is rising …

That is absolute nonsense.

Is it rubbish to say that the rand is rising? Very well, that is your view, but I believe what the hon the Minister said. The rand is, in fact, at a higher level than it was when the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs increased the price of petrol. [Interjections.] That is a fact. Another fact is the drop in oil prices. As the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs seems to be having a fit, I shall ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether it is true that something is stopping our reducing the price of petrol.

Sasol.

Are there conditions which prevent it?

Such as what?

I am asking the hon the Minister. What is actually stopping it? As I see the situation, the rand has gone up in value and the price of oil in world markets has gone down, and yet the Government has not reduced the price of petrol. What is the hon the Minister doing? With great respect, I suggest that if the hon the Minister of Finance wants to do anything about inflation, and do it now, he should today persuade his colleague that a reduction in the price of petrol of anything from 20 cents to 25 cents or even more per litre should be announced. [Interjections.]

Otherwise just resign!

There is no by-election shortly!

That is what should be done. I do not know whether there are long-term contracts, into which the hon the Minister should not have entered, which bind him to certain prices. If this is so, he should be a man and tell us. If there are no such contracts, he should tell us why he is not reducing the price of petrol. I can think of no other reason.

Let me deal with another factor which, according to the hon the Minister of Finance, is contributing to increased expenditure. I find it interesting that, in addition to unemployment, he refers to riots. Having suggested that riots cause this problem, he goes out of his way to point out that, in respect of defence—and I use his own words—“only a fraction” of the amount relates to unrest. With regard to the Police, he says that only “approximately 50% can be linked to the unrest”. In other words, the additional expenditure with regard to unrest would not account for any meaningful portion of the R1,8 million excess expenditure. That second reason, therefore, also does not appear to be valid.

The third reason the hon the Minister of Finance suggests is the greater demand for services by the Government. There comes the rub. The hon the Minister committed himself to financial discipline just as his predecessor did. He committed himself to keeping within the expenditure limit. He allowed himself R400 million in order not to have an overrun. He said he had a special system to monitor expenditure. He said he would keep his colleagues under control because they had been undisciplined in the past. He was going to keep an undisciplined group of Ministers in order.

How is it then that the hon the Minister has an overrun in expenditure? The reason is that there is no adequate control in respect of these matters. There is an inability on the part of this Government to ensure that people keep within their budget limits. An analysis of the individual items will prove this beyond doubt.

I can tell the House why this is the case. Firstly there is supposed to be a Priorities Committee in which the Government stubbornly refuses to allow the private sector to participate. I ask again that the private sector should be given representation on the Priorities Committee because the priorities that are to be determined for South Africa are not the prerogative of politicians. The country as a whole is involved in the determination of priorities. The hon the Minister of Finance smiles, but there is not one member of the private sector serving on the Priorities Committee.

Secondly we have not heard so much as a whisper as to what priorities have been determined by this committee.

Don’t be so inquisitive!

The hon the Minister says we must not be “so nuuskierig”. In other words we are not entitled to know according to the hon the Minister of Finance—that is if his interjection has any meaning other than that he wants to be funny or difficult—what the priorities for South Africa are.

I believe the people of South Africa are entitled to have a say in the determination of priorities. They are also entitled to know what the priorities of the NP are for South Africa. The hon the Minister said that we must not be “so nuuskierig”. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are not inquisitive. We are entitled to know the facts; to know what the priorities as determined by the Government for South Africa are.

Another factor is the consistently high interest rates. Immediately the new financial year started—this was even before the Third Reading of the Budget—the hon the Minister of Finance rushed into the market when the interest rates were high and borrowed money.

This was because we had to.

He had to because he was short of money. [Interjections.] That is a wonderful admission.

What the hon the Minister did—we told him that at the time—was to enter the market in regard to amounts in excess of what his immediate requirements were at rates which were then regarded as substantially high. His going into the market helped to keep those rates high. So what the hon the Minister does is to create a situation in respect of these interest rates and then he complains about it.

Since then we have had a most remarkable phenomenon in South Africa. There has been a deliberate action on the part of the Government to try to bring interest rates down. They have done that. The discount rate has been changed repeatedly. What has happened in the circumstances is that short-term rates have come down but long-term rates have resisted it for the following simple reason: The institutions do not have confidence in the ability of this hon Minister of Finance to control inflation in South Africa. That is one of the reasons why he battles with long-term interest rates.

We have a situation where the ordinary investor—that is the man in the street or the pensioner—suffers. The old lady who lives off the interest on her building society deposit suffers because she has been put into the position of having to draw the lower interest rates on her fixed deposit from the building societies and the banking institutions. Institutions which are more sophisticated realise that one cannot invest money on those terms and that what one has to do is to hold out in respect of long-term rates because there are no real returns offered by way of interest rates in South Africa. Until such time as real returns can be offered in regard to interest rates we are going to experience the same phenomenon. There is going to be this resistance against savings because nobody wants to invest money in a building society for 12 months at 14% and at the end of the year still find himself with less purchasing power than at the start of the period even if he does not spend the interest. That is what is happening to the ordinary people in South Africa who are trying to save because of the effect of Government policy on interest rates in this country.

There are a number of other matters that arise in this regard. There are a few questions I should like to put to the hon the Minister to which I should like him to reply. In the first instance I should like to know why at this stage we have unforeseen expenditure of some R25 million in regard to secret services. I think we can deal with the Police in the same category. The hon the Minister says that half of the additional amount had to be used to bring the ratio of police to population nearer to the accepted Western norm. If this is unforeseen as far as he is concerned, it is not as far as the rest of Parliament is concerned because the hon the Minister of Law and Order announced his intentions in this regard almost two years ago. He told us the same thing last year. However, no provision was made for this in the estimates and we now have it suddenly appearing on the scene as an unforeseen item.

There is another matter in regard to which I think a number of people would like an answer. It deals with the hon the Minister’s own department. In the Johannesburg office of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue there is a bonus scheme and we are here voting an additional amount of R1 060 000 in respect of that bonus scheme. Perhaps the hon the Minister would like to tell us what that bonus scheme is, what it involves, how it has suddenly arisen, how this expenditure has come to be unforeseen and what the circumstances are relating to this scheme generally.

When we go through these additional estimates we find a number of very clear characteristics. In the first instance, the Government has failed in its efforts to fight inflation. I do not believe that there can be any argument about this any longer. In fact, the figures prove it. However, the hon the Minister boasted—if I may use that term—that of the three pillars of inflation, he had already dealt with two successfully. The first of these was cost pressure, and this has certainly been dealt with because there is hardly any demand.

The second one was in connection with the money supply, and it is quite obvious today that the rate of increase in the money supply is at a relatively low level; in fact, some people think that it is even too low.

The third aspect mentioned by the hon the Minister was labour costs. The hon the Minister said that we would not be able to crack that pillar which is boosting inflation and keeping it at an inordinately high level. The hon the Minister therefore regards labour costs as being the final pillar that is causing inflation. I say that that is absolute nonsense because there are a number of causes of the inflation that we are currently experiencing. The imported content shows quite clearly, the rand value shows quite clearly, and these are the factors that have caused inflation. To try to tie the whole inflation problem to these three pillars two of which the hon the Minister says he has cracked and the third of which is to my mind a fallacious one—even though productivity may not be as high as we would like, it is in fact not the major cause—is incorrect.

Until the hon the Minister realises just how inflation in this country has to be combated we are not going to solve our problems. It is for this reason that on each occasion we find ourselves faced with a budget in which we are promised financial discipline and control, and then, when we come to the additional estimates, there is a confession of failure and a demonstration that there has been a lack of discipline.

Mr Chairman, I am glad to be able to say that the hon member for Yeoville calmed down somewhat towards the end of his speech. He conducted a relentless vendetta against the hon Minister here across the floor of the House. He even went so far as to say to the Minister that he should read through all his speeches again. By that time I had already begun to think: “Who is talking now?” I often reread the speeches of the hon member for Yeoville and I believe he would do well if he were to reread the speeches that he has made thus far this year—just as his former leader did. Maybe he will also take to the road.

Give me an example of what you mean.

Furthermore the hon member for Yeoville omitted to mention what was stated on page 2 of the hon Minister’s second reading speech. I shall quote it to him, as follows:

The hon member for Yeoville knows as well as I do that since the excess expenditure of the past two financial years appeared to be 8,5% and 10,5%, respectively, it most certainly indicates a significant improvement.

Furthermore I should like to refer the hon member to a report which appeared in Rapport of 23 February 1986 under the headline “Addisonele Begroting word more ingedien”. What did Leon Basson say in this report? He said:

When one reads it and considers it, one simply wonders what the hon member for Yeoville was carrying on about.

Upon the examination of the Schedule it appears that the important additional amounts are the following: Constitutional Development and Planning, R386 million; Defence, R244 million; Manpower, R121 million; Foreign Affairs, R109 million; Finance, R86 million; Public Works, R57 million; Agricultural Economics, R50 million; Police, R42 million. These are the higher amounts.

In the first instance I should like to refer to the rationalisation of the functions of the Department of Constitution Development and Planning as well as the consequent effect thereof on the budget. Firstly certain functions have been transferred to various other departments with effect from 1 July 1985, while functions concerning Black local authorities have been transferred to us with effect from the same date. On 1 September 1985 all functions such as community development, housing and population matters concerning the Blacks were also transferred to this department. As regards these functions, an additional amount of R285 million is required inter alia for community development, special job creation programmes and a marketing strategy for the sale of houses.

As far as provincial subsidies are concerned, an additional amount of R102 million is required, which can be attributed to the normal growth as well as the creation of job opportunities. A factor which is often overlooked in the Defence Budget, is the effect of the Commitment Authority/Estimated Under-expenditure technique, the so-called EUE. According to this technique Parliament authorises a commitment level which is higher than the cash voted, and further undertakes to make good any shortfall in cash which may arise from the approved budget amount. The additional required amount is then set out in full in the explanatory memorandum.

The additional amount required by the Department of Manpower mainly entails amounts connected with special job creation programmes which include the following: R75 million for bridging funds by way of an advance to the Unemployment Insurance Fund—this was done as a result of the increase in unemployment—R35 million for the training of unemployed persons and R13,1 million allotted to the private sector in order to alleviate unemployment by means of job creation.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has an increase in its budget which is mainly due to the decreasing value of the rand, to measures that have been taken to counter the disinvestment campaign as well as the increased budget aid and subsidies to the TBVC countries.

The additional amount required by the Department of Public Works for inclusion to the capital of the National Housing Fund and for the acquisition of land in certain areas, including the De Hoop missile testing site in the Southern Cape.

The additional amount of R49 million for the Department of Agricultural Economics represents mainly the aid given to agricultural activities as well as the payment of consumer subsidies.

The increase in the budgeted amount for the South African Police can be attributed mainly to the increased interest subsidies on mortgage loans payments of leave gratuities and the purchase of stores and equipment as a result of the country-wide unrest.

Upon examination of this additional appropriation it is very apparent that the economic policy of the Government also has a personal dimension of which the Government takes cognisance and acts accordingly in cases of individual hardship. Therefore help has been given in an imaginative way where it has really been necessary. Such special programmes which require additional expenditure, some of which I have already referred to briefly, of amounts in the region of R500 million which have been allotted in order to alleviate the distress and suffering as well as to make provision for training and the creation of job opportunities.

The philosophy which emerges is that the real need must be identified and the quantifiable help must then be given on the basis of sound financial principles. Therefore I gladly support this philosophy and the measures.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to refer to a report which was tabled yesterday entitled: The Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Structure of Remuneration and Conditions of Service for the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Members of Parliament and President’s Council. The hon member for Waterberg, leader of the CP has issued a Press statement which reads as follows:

Hear, hear! We stand by the workers. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon member for Yeoville that he is under the wrong impression if he thinks for one moment that the hon Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon Minister of Finance can increase the petrol price, or allow it to fall. We have seen what happened on 1 January. The price of fuel was increased by 2 cents although neither the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs nor the hon Minister of Transport Affairs knew what was going on. They scurried around aimlessly, not knowing who had increased the price.

I would now like to ask the hon the Minister which sinister force caused the price to rise. Were the petroleum companies responsible or merely the service stations or the petrol pump attendants? [Interjections.]

What happens to the petrol price seems to happen to the price of milk. The price of milk was arbitrarily increased by 6 cents. [Interjections.]

Is that the work of the Mafia?

I think the hon Minister of Manpower has a lot to do with the Mafia. He knows something about the Mafia.

But the Government does not control the price of milk.

The price of milk rises by 6 cents—that is the price rise of milk in certain containers—without the producer receiving an extra cent.

I want to know from the Minister of Agricultural Economics whether he is happy about prices rising to such an extent. I hope he is able to tell us how we can allow such a situation in the country, even under the Government’s free market mechanism. Everything is uncontrolled and prices can rise arbitrarily, except the price of wheat, mealies and so forth which are the farmer’s produce. While the price of fuel and fertiliser rises by 20%—in the case of fuel it was far more, namely 40%—the price of those products remains pegged down. That is the way things are happening in this country.

I want to repeat what the hon Minister for Finance said in his speech:

All those causes, all those factors, were a direct result of the Government’s policy. They are pre-eminently attributable to the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. After all, it is his new dispensation. He is concerned with the matter. I now want to ask the hon Minister what is going to happen to the regional services councils when those tariffs and related matters are introduced. What does this new year have in store for us? Can the hon Minister please tell us on which date he is going to institute the regional services councils? They should have come into operation a long time ago and I expect the hon Minister to tell us during this debate. I shall put that question to him when we come to the discussion of his vote. I am glad that the hon the Minister is here. I appreciate it and I thank him. [Interjections.] He must please tell us when those regional services councils are going to be established.

The hon Minister of Finance has now told us that the level of expenditure of R31,46 billion is going to be exceeded. May I ask the hon Deputy Minister to pay attention? [Interjections.] As far as the official documents are concerned, I have a copy of Finansies en Tegniek with me in which the official particulars are given on page 59. It is very clearly set out—and I quoted it recently—that the expenditure of the State from April to December was 20,8% higher than during the corresponding period the previous year. The budgeted percentage for the full year was 13,6. If the hon Minister wants to compensate for that increased expenditure by reducing expenditure so that it comes down to a level of 4,8%, it means that he would have to have negative expenditure. Where is he going to save? [Interjections.] I think the hon Minister must elucidate this matter a little. He should make a few calculations. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister of Manpower is asking a question. He only knows the value of R10 million if he himself is being enriched by that amount. He does not know about other things. [Interjections.]

The hon Minister must also tell us how he arrives at an increase of 4,8%. I do not believe that we can arrive at that. [Interjections.] Seen against the background of what is going on in the country today. I again want to quote from Finansies en Tegniek. What is South Africa’s position compared to the outside world?

As far as inflation is concerned, we had an inflation rate of 18,5% in December last year. At the moment it is 20,72%.

What is it going to be next month?

It will be even higher. It is going to be more than 21% and will keep on going up. The hon Minister is not going to bring it down. What was the inflation rate for the same period in the United States? There it was 3,8%. In West Germany it was 1,4%; in Britain 5,7%; in France, 4,7%; and in Japan, 1,9%. [Interjections.] Those were the figures as far as our trading partners were concerned.

Let us take a look at the industrial production of the various countries. In South Africa for this period it was negative, namely minus 2,5%. In all the other countries it was positive. In the United States it was 2,2%; in West Germany, it was 4,6%; in Great Britain, 7,2%. Although that country’s inflation rate is 5,7% its growth in industrial production was 7,2%. In France there was an increase in production of 3,8%; and in Japan, 0,5%. It shows that the hon Minister is guilty of mismanagement of South Africa’s finances. It is mismanagement in the worst sense of the word.

I would like to ask the hon member if the Government is serious about dealing inflation a fatal blow. Are they really serious in their attempts at doing so? Initially the hon Minister said that he was making an amount of R100 million available for the creation of job opportunities. The hon member for Yeoville has frequently referred to this. Subsequently it appeared that there was an additional R500 million and the hon Minister then said that there was R600 million available for the creation of job opportunities. Now, at the end of the saga, he says that he is not going to spend everything. He says he is saving R70 million and that it is being carried over to the following bookyear. Is the hon Minister really serious when he tells the public that he is creating work? An amount of R70 million is now being carried over, and the hon Minister also said that certain savings had amounted to R300 million. Of that R300 million, R70 million is being set aside for job creation as the hon Minister announced to us with much gesticulation.

South Africa is perturbed by this kind of administration, management and budgeting which this coalition government is manifesting. I do not want to discuss this matter any further now we are going to ask the various hon Ministers a few questions. If they are unable to reply then the hon Minister for Finance must provide the replies. We shall return at a later stage with a few questions concerning the matter at hand.

Mr Chairman, this additional appropriation covers the estimates that were prepared in March 1985. That is a long time ago and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Many peculiar things have happened. I believe that at the time the estimates were originally prepared, in February-March last year, nobody could really have anticipated the hammering that the South African economy was going to take from overseas.

It may be thought that I am becoming an apologist for the hon the Minister of Finance. I can assure hon members that I am no apologist for the hon the Minister of Finance—I never have been and I am not likely to be his apologist. However, I believe in fair play. In so far as this particular estimate of additional expenditure is concerned, when one has this sort of percentage—and it is a relatively low percentage compared to what it has been on previous occasions—and one takes into account the hammering that we have taken with regard to our finances on the international market and, furthermore, one takes into account that an additional R600 million had to be found for the creation of temporary employment opportunities, training and the like, then I would say that this estimate of additional expenditure is not as bad as it could have been and, I should like to suggest, possibly would have been under a previous Minister of Finance. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a point which the hon the Minister made when he spoke about protection services. He said:

Those are his own words. I do not think it can be gainsaid that we do not have prosperity in the country at the present moment and in no way can it be suggested that we have a contented population. As has been mentioned before, bankruptcies are the worst in years, inflation is reducing the standard of living of the man in the street, and unemployment is causing real distress and hardship—not only to the Black population but to a large section of the White population as well. I believe that this is a very serious matter. However, among the major causes of this distressful situation—apart from the Government’s apartheid policy as it is referred to overseas—is in my opinion the excessively high taxation that we have in South Africa. Taxation is far too high; a businessman cannot make ends meet. It is one of the primary causes of inflation and, without doubt, this is in my opinion one of the real causes of the problems that we have in South Africa.

Taxation in itself has proved to be a subject difficult enough over a long time when one thinks of ordinary company tax, import duties, GST and so forth. There are many examples.

As I mentioned earlier, I fully subscribe to having made R600 million available for the creation of emergency work opportunities and training but I am afraid I cannot subscribe to the specific way in which that 10% on imports was raised.

Your figures are wrong. It is R430 million extra, not R600 million.

Well, R600 million had to be raised for that purpose. That was the intention. I believe that putting that 10% on imports was again highly inflationary because not only did it jack up the price of the products being imported, but by the time it had gone through the wholesaler and the retailer and what have you with all their profit margins and mark-ups all the way along the line because merchants of one sort or another are going to demand their cut on what they have expended—this is normal business practice in the free enterprise system—it meant that for every R50 one ostensibly gained at the beginning, one in fact gained R88 to R90—something of that order—by the time one added income tax and company tax and GST on the profits that had been made. However, for every R500 the individual was actually paying another R100 odd on imported goods. Therefore this was highly inflationary. As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is very important that that 10% surcharge on imported goods be removed; it is one of the most inflationary things that has hit us in quite a long time. I realise that this is being used as part of the balance of payments thing as well. That is an alternative reason for using it, I am perfectly well aware of that. However, I believe other means should be used for this purpose.

As I mentioned during a previous financial debate, the price of petrol is something which is really hurting, and again is very inflationary. Some friends of mine are very knowledgeable on the petrol and oil business and they feel that now is a good time to make a very substantial reduction. There was a substantial increase when we had to pay a higher price for oil; it is low on the spot market by comparison to what it then was. The rand relative to the dollar is good again and I cannot help but feel that this is something that really must be taken into account.

Finally, I must raise the point of high expectations on the part of the members of all communities who are developing in South Africa today. We have to be very, very careful if we do give them these expectations—because I do not think their expectations will be fully realised—that do at least go some way towards realising those expectations. If we are going to do that without completely ruining everybody else, then we have to be far more economical in our spending in our new budget than we have been doing.

Mr Chairman, we are in what a man such as Mr Rudie Frankl, previously of Barlow Rand, recently called “the worst depression this country has ever faced”. In connection with this Additional Appropriation Bill, and the additional amount which is being requested, I should like to put this question to the hon the Minister: When are he and his Government going to end the enormous overspending of money in South Africa? When are they going to stop squandering and wasting South Africa’s money in a way hitherto unknown in this country?

Recently during another debate, the hon the Minister himself asked how one finances a reform programme. I replied to this by means of an interjection, viz by overspending. The big question prompted by this Additional Appropriation Bill is how, when and in what way the Government is going to begin spending South Africa’s finances in such a way that the enormous overspending is ended. Let me give a few figures. From 1910 to 1966, a period of 56 years, South Africa’s State debt rose to R3 700 million. From 1966 to 1986—that is within 20 years and approximately the period the hon the Minister would call the reform programme period today—it rose to R37 600 million. South Africa’s debt has increased tenfold in the last 20 years of its existence since being a Union.

At present the State debt amounts to a third of the gross domestic product according to a recent report in Rapport. The interest on this debt totals approximately R4 500 million per year. This is itself is one of the very largest items in the budget and is also the reason that additional amounts have to be requested. This points to the following: The Government borrows money and increases taxes, but keeps on spending money it does not have.

A very large percentage of this terrible State debt is short-term debt. According to one of the estimates, it is 60% of the total. In 1984 a financial writer said the State had to borrow R2 000 million that year to cover running costs. A Sake-Rapport of 1984 said: “Die Regering betaal nou lopende kostes met lenings.” Any undertaking, whether a business undertaking, a farm, a government or a state which carries on in this way, must end up bankrupt.

That is why no one less than Dr Joop de Loor said that technically speaking, the Government is bankrupt. The Government was bankrupt when he said it, and it is still bankrupt! One cannot doubt these words of Dr Joop de Loor because he has the necessary knowledge, expertise and insight at his disposal. One can doubt the words of the hon the Minister, however; one is entitled to! There are few people, however, who will argue about Dr Joop de Loor’s statement that at that time South Africa was technically bankrupt and is still bankrupt today.

He said it, and now the question is: How does one live in such a situation? Naturally one lives beyond one’s income. The Government is always saying it is the people who are living beyond their means. The people get the blame for inflation and are accused of overspending. One hears: “You are too extravagant, you live too well,” while the State and the Government are the ones who are overspending. That is why an additional appropriation has to be submitted again today to request more money because too much money has been spent.

How does a government keep this up? It increases tax, but despite constant tax increases, still does not manage. There is no plan according to which the Government can save South Africa from this greatest economic crisis in its whole history and that is why the Government is constantly printing more money.

This brings me to a sensitive matter. The other day I quoted from the International Currency Review, and one of the hon PFP members said it was not an authoritative publication, because it is a right-wing publication. I shall not say that is exactly how he put it, but that is what it amounts to. It is high time this House got used to the idea that there are conservatives too who have knowledge about and insight into economic affairs. [Interjections.] According to the International Currency Review, the Reserve Bank has become “one of the most prolific printing presses of all time” under Dr De Kock.

Prof Milton Friedman, an even greater authority than Dr Joop de Loor, said on a visit to South Africa even in 1978:

That is short, concise, succinct and on target. It is not the people at large who have to take the blame for inflation, but this rotten Government. The Government has the printing press and it prints the notes. If that is what Milton Friedman says, one cannot merely push it aside.

A further basic problem in connection with the buying power of the rand is the fact that South Africa’s inflation rate was 16% when the USA’s was only 4%. There were so many rands in circulation that the rand’s value in comparison with other monetary units dropped as a result of an over-supply. That is the problem. The rand did not drop because of the drought. The rand did not drop because of some or other secondary factor. The rand dropped because the Government uses the printing press on an enormous scale to help itself out of its problems. South Africa is then plunged into a crisis. The Government cannot keep on increasing the State debt. It cannot keep on increasing the burden of interest on the future generations. The Government is committing a crime. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Government is committing a crime against the people of South Africa and against future generations by constantly, on an immense scale, increasing the burden of interest.

In the meantime the Government and that hon Minister of Finance muddle along. It is as the State President said—we are in the dark, we do not have the answer to issues and the light does not fall upon us. We do not have light and that is why we have to feel our way along in the dark. The Government is muddling along in the financial sphere as well; it has no wide-ranging plan to save South Africa from its crisis.

The State debt has to be repaid, and if it has to be repaid, there have to be drastic reductions. Yesterday the Government tabled a document which the hon member for Sunnyside has referred to already. Without any fear of contradiction I say that a government has never displayed such measureless insensitivity as that displayed by this Government when it tabled that report. Marie Antoinette asked on the eve of the French Revolution: If the people have no bread to eat, why do they not eat cake? This Government overshadows her completely. They do so by acting recklessly while children do not have food to eat at the schools, while the farmers are being strangled by the drought and while the inflation rate has broken through the sound barrier. This is how they act while the State debt is piling up. All these things are symptomatic of a rotten and sick economy.

In these circumstances the Government, thick-skinned as an elephant, tabled a report yesterday in which it offers some people a salary and benefits increase of 100%. The result is that South Africa is shocked today. From the Cape to the Transvaal, South Africa is shocked as it has not been shocked by anything in the past months, I almost want to say years, by the Government’s action. It is not only the HNP and the CP who are shocked. It is the Nationalists who cannot by any means understand that this Government could even have laid this Schlebusch Commission’s report on the Table. Naturally this would have led to a further spending of funds.

Not long ago the vice-president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Mr Christie Kühn, said:

Mr Kühn went on to say at a management seminar in Stellenbosch:

What measures did the hon the Minister and his Government have? What plan containing four, five or six basic steps they want to take, can they advance? They have absolutely no plan. They are sitting and waiting and hoping for better days. In the meantime the people at large are leading a wretched existence. In the meantime South Africa is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, inflation is getting worse and worse and the whole of South Africa is becoming impoverished. Normally I am the first one to stand up for the White people. Here, however, we have a situation which is changing the whole of South Africa enormously and causing it to deteriorate enormously. A man like Dr Joop de Loor says without fear of contradiction that technically we are bankrupt.

South Africa’s problems will not be solved before there is a broad plan to save South Africa from this crisis. That is something we shall not get from the Government. There must be a change of government. The Government, and the hon the Minister of Finance in particular, do not have the economic honesty, insight or drive to elevate this country by means of a great economic recovery programme, if I may call it that, from the crisis into which they have plunged us. [Interjections.] The Government will submit one Additional Appropriation Bill after another because it is powerless to save South Africa from this crisis. This problem, even more than the abolition of the legislation on mixed marriages, was the reason for our victory in Sasolburg.

Mr Chairman …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon the Minister is speaking.

You know that …

Order! It is customary in the House that when the Chairman calls for order, hon members will at least show him the courtesy of maintaining order. We cannot continue in this way, and I am not prepared to put up with it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to say that a promise was made to hon members on this side of the House that they can get these increases to prevent their going over to the CP? Is an hon member entitled to make such an accusation against any hon member? [Interjections.]

Order! I did not follow in detail what was said.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member for De Kuilen not say what I really said?

Mr Chairman, I very clearly heard the hon member for Langlaagte say the promise was made to hon members on this side of the House that the increases would be approved so that hon members on this side of the House would not go over to the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Langlaagte say that?

Yes, I did, Mr Chairman. Does the hon member for De Kuilen want to say that such promises were not made?

Order! What does the hon member for Langlaagte mean by that? Does he mean that the hon members on this side of the House can be bribed?

No, Mr Chairman, I did not say they are being bribed. I said the promise was made to them. I do not claim, however, that they accepted it.

Order! Now I understand the situation. The hon the Minister of Finance may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Yeoville must have enjoyed this occasion. He had two previous opportunities to criticise us but he blew them. Today at least he rose to the occasion. I believe that never in the history of this Parliament has the chief spokesman on finance of the Official Opposition had better circumstances in which to debate. When one listened to the hon member one could have drawn the conclusion that nothing had changed since 18 March 1985. The hon member will remember that I said to him that he was free to put into an envelope his estimates of the parameters which determine a budget, that he could submit it to Mr Speaker, and I would do the same. We could then have opened the envelopes this year during the no-confidence debate. However, I do not think that anyone could have been correct in predicting logical developments in respect of certain figures and variables last year. Nobody could have foreseen the extent of the violence that erupted last year, and nobody could have foreseen the extent of the reports in foreign media and the consequential lack of confidence in the South African economy. I am sure that the circumstances we have this year will provide a much better opportunity for predictions concerning the South African economy, but such predictions are still subject to gross variations as far as certain basic and fundamental variables are concerned. I want to repeat my challenge to the hon member for Yeoville. I want to ask him formally across the floor of this House please to put in an envelope what he would say would be the average exchange rate between the rand and the dollar or between the dollar and the Deutsche Mark. He must also say what his estimate would be of the average gold price in rand for this ensuing year. I would also like him to say what will happen to the oil price and in the international commodities market. When we make our estimates, we have to take into account all of these variables and more.

Will you do the same?

I will do the same. We have to do it anyway and have done it already. I can tell the hon member that at this stage of the development of next year’s budget, we are already virtually revising our figures daily. This is the insecure and international world situation we live in.

I envy the hon member the opportunity he had to really try to tear us apart today in the way that he did. We are the ones who have to put onto the table everything that we did and it is open to scrutiny. We welcome it. I am not begrudging the hon member.

I was very gentle.

He says he was gentle. Maybe I will remind him about a few things he has said later on. The hon member apologised for his absence as he has to leave now. I just wanted to convey those few thoughts to him.

Last year the hon member said that we had to spend more money as far as unemployment was concerned. With the wisdom of hindsight, certainly I agree with the hon member. In fact, I need not agree with him today, because I already agreed with him in September and we made the necessary adjustments. However, at the time—this is the crucial point in our debates—that the hon member mooted that suggestion, he did not make any suggestion as to how to go about financing it. Within the confines of our previous budget, it is too difficult—or may be the hon member did not take the trouble to do it—to rearrange the priorities. We have never got him so far as to tell us what his priorities will be and how he would construct a budget. I want to ask the hon member whether, if at all possible in his criticism of the coming main Budget, he will please tell us where to get the money from if he has suggestions which will entail additional expenditure to what we have already included in our income estimates. That will certainly make for a much better debate.

I never said that the abolition of the financial rand was imminent. I said that we would certainly like to abolish the financial rand as soon as we possibly could.

You said you were considering it.

I did not say I was considering it. [Interjections.] Oh no, I said we would like to abolish the financial rand as soon as we possibly could. I repeat that, because it is not the kind of system we would like to see perpetuated in South Africa in circumstances which do not demand the existence of a financial rand. I would like to make that point absolutely clear.

Let me deal briefly with the accusations that the hon member levelled at my colleague, the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The fact is, and we have repeatedly stated it, that the Government has no vested interest in keeping the petrol price high. I quoted a figure previously that my hon colleague gave to me. In the previous two years, or just less than two years, my hon colleague from his reserve funds subsidised the fuel price by R1,4 billion. In fact, in January and February this year the petrol price was subsidised by not a cent less than R355 million. Why was that done? It was done to prevent the petrol price from rising again. Where did the money come from? Those reserves were accumulated at times when there was a positive cash flow and when the exchange rate allowed us to do it. My hon colleague will suggest to the Cabinet that the petrol price be reduced the moment he feels comfortable about the position of his reserves. It will be absolute folly to start reducing the petrol price the moment the exchange rate appears to be approaching a higher level again. It must reach a higher level and settle there. Then it must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it will maintain those relatively high levels, and in the process generate some reserve funds Then, when the moment arrives that my colleague the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is satisfied that he will be able to maintain the petrol price in the event of another drop in the exchange rate by drawing from his reserves in order to subsidize the price, he will certainly recommend a decrease in price.

With great respect, Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member that the amounts which we ask for in this Additional Appropriation Bill represent unforeseen and unexpected expenditure and were arrived at on the basis of the best available information we had at the time of the Budget last year; and we will have to go through that very same cycle again. We certainly did not foresee that it would be necessary for us in this Parliament to vote R94 million in order to help the community councils or development boards. We certainly did not foresee the need for those funds. That need arose as a result of very unfortunate circumstances which we hope will be redressed at the earliest possible opportunity. I see the hon member wants to go, Mr Chairman, so I will not detain him. I shall put the rest of my remarks on record.

As far as the special monitoring of state expenditure is concerned, there is no question that we were greatly encouraged by the cash flow profiles up to December last year. There is no question about it; we made tremendous progress. Not for one moment did I then or will I now argue that we shall be able to do this in future on an absolutely accurate basis. It is just not possible. Certainly, however, we have taken giant strides towards developing proper cash flow profiles in each of the various departments, thereby enabling us to develop an overall cash flow profile for the State as a whole.

Of course, tremendous demands were made on the cash flow in the early part of the current financial year. Hon members will recall that an arrangement was made with the teaching profession in the previous financial year. According to this arrangement certain salary payments were to be postponed until the current financial year. That aggravated an already uncomfortable cash flow situation, a situation that traditionally prevails in the early months of the year. That is not the time of year when we enjoy our normal inflow of revenue from various State revenue sources. So, quite apart from other considerations which I will deal with now, that situation already created for us a need to get into the money market and capital market quite early.

It is quite obvious from all this that we were not in a position—we do not have a completely controlled economy—where we as part of the monetary authority of this country could have correctly estimated the interest rate pattern for the current financial year. We estimated then that the average interest we would have to pay would be lower. That was our expectation. However, it did not happen. The market did not allow that to happen, and we could not manipulate the market to fit our particular demands. It is simply for that reason that our estimates were wrong. We are thus going to have to pay a higher amount in interest than we originally anticipated.

Furthermore, for the purposes of ordinary money supply management we had to accept an account for tapping—if that is the right word—exercises in the money supply. We simply had to pay the account.

*I shall come to the hon member for Sasolburg in a moment as far as the money supply is concerned. Shame, the hon member thinks we simply print money. In any case, I shall come to the hon member in a moment.

†It is simply not possible to predict in advance exactly what will have to be done in the execution of a sound monetary policy in regard to interest rates.

The hon member said a lot about the Priorities Committee. This is not an easy exercise. The Priorities Committee is a very special area of interest for the State President. Representation there is solely in his hands, and I am not prepared to comment on it except to say that with its present composition, I consider it to be a concentration of all the expertise this Government needs in order to plan its priorities. The difference is this: It is not the private sector which received a mandate at the ballot-box in terms of policies which have to be financed; it is this Government. We have to design and finance our policies. That is a basic fact.

The hon member complained on the one hand about high interest rates, and on the other hand that the old ladies, as he put it, were not receiving high interest rates any longer. I do not know how it is possible to have low long-term rates and still provide the old ladies with high short-term rates. I have the greatest of sympathy for those people who have to live on the yields of their investments, especially while the current inflation rate does not make it very attractive to save. That is why the Margo Commission is also looking at certain incentives.

*That is why it is an extremely important principle to consider, viz that some of the benefits from a savings transaction should be returned to the saver by the financial institution. That is one of the things we are considering very seriously.

†The hon member for Yeoville said that I could have foreseen that bringing the Police Force up to Western norms would demand more money and asked why we did not budget for it. We certainly did budget for it, but we also decided to accelerate the process on account of the prevailing situation in South Africa which could not have been foreseen. It was the right thing to do and it was responsible government.

I want to address the issue of the Johannesburg bonus scheme now, as we might not have time later. The Johannesburg office of the Receiver of Revenue which generates, I think, half of South Africa’s revenue, had a choice with regard to the explosion in the volume of wealth. We could either appoint more people or we could require the existing staff complement to work overtime. If one had adopted the latter option, one would obviously have had to make sure that people did not sit idly all day simply in order to work overtime. That is why a proper investigation was done by work-study officers. They had to find norms for people who work an ordinary eight-hour day so as to determine what volume of work qualified for overtime pay. That is all it is; there is nothing sinister attached to it.

I wish to make a last point about the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. I cannot understand his reasoning. How can he possibly say that productivity is not a factor in inflation? I cannot understand his logic. If I am part of the manufacturing process of this file in front of me and have zero productivity, its price will have to include my salary although I shall have contributed not one bit towards its manufacture. If zero productivity contributes towards an inflated price for this file, how the dickens can a low productivity figure, which we unfortunately have in South Africa, then not contribute? I cannot understand that kind of logic, so I shall leave the matter at that.

*I thank the hon member for Smithfield for giving a run-down of the amounts involved; it saves me a lot of talking, and I am grateful for his support of this measure.

The hon member for Sunnyside really said only one thing worthy of response. He asked whether we are serious in wanting to break inflation. My answer to that is affirmative. I shall appreciate it, however, if the hon member will join us in calling a halt in the analysis of our problem. May we rather concentrate our energy on solving it. It will be a much pleasanter debate to take part in, because we already know what our problem is. The inflation we have now is a cost inflation arising primarily from the low value of the rand.

This links up with a point I made last time to the hon member for Umbilo. We have kept the inflation rate down. I want to put it on record immediately that the hon member for Sunnyside said the inflation rate would rise above 21%. I assume the hon member made his calculations before making such a statement. I want to know from the hon member how high the inflation rate is going to rise. How high will it be?

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, I do not have time now. The hon member can put a question later if I have time.

I did not expect the hon member for Sunnyside to reply to me, since it is an unfair question. I put the question, however, so that the hon member can realise that in today’s world no one can calculate easily what the inflation rate would have been if certain events had or had not taken place.

The inflation rate is held fast by the fact that we have our money supply under control and that demand is on a very low level and plays no role as far as the inflation rate is concerned. There is no excessive credit; we are dealing here purely with a cost inflation.

On a previous occasion I quoted the expert opinion of a person who quantified these things. He looked at comparable countries which have had comparable decreases in the value of their exchange rates. Those countries’ inflation rates rose considerably more than ours has. That happened because they did not control the other inflation-generating factors at the same time. I think the Government should definitely get recognition for that.

†I want to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his fair play in acknowledging the fundamental fact that nobody could foresee the hammering that the South African economy has had to take in the past 12 months. His statement gives me the opportunity to say that the results of the hammering that the South African economy has had to take can be seen in the fact that it was not possible to contain our expenditure and that it was necessary for us to spend R350 million more as a result of the lower exchange rate in terms of essential acquisitions.

I want to agree with the hon member that a tax surcharge levied at the start of the economic sales cycle is inflationary in that the tax gets inflated along the way and that the Government does not reap the full benefit of the eventual effect of the original tax. With this point I agree. That is the disadvantage of levying a tax right at the beginning of the cycle.

However, I found it remarkable—perhaps I misunderstood him—that the hon member said taxation is always inflationary. With this I must disagree because the levying of a tax such as income tax or sales tax is an anti-inflationary measure. It reduces the consumer’s ability to buy and this must necessarily result in a reduction in the overall demand. From that point of view it is certainly anti-inflationary.

I was referring to our taxation system.

We can perhaps debate that matter at a later stage.

*The hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics has just given me a note in connection with which I want to refer to what the hon member for Sunnyside said, or perhaps it was the hon member for Sasolburg. He said we had done nothing for the farmers. Until July 1985, diesel for farmers was subsidised by 10c per litre. From July to December 1985 it was subsidised by 3,5c per litre. That was the best we could do and it was an aid measure. Since then that subsidy has been discontinued. How can it be said now that we did nothing for the farmers?

The hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics gave me the figure a moment ago as calculated by his department, viz that drought aid to the farmers totals R370 million during this financial year alone.

That is still not enough!

The hon member for Langlaagte says it is still not enough. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg has not answered me yet. He reminds me of a story the State President tells splendidly. It is about Oom Paul Kruger and his baboon who were sitting next to the fire one evening. When the baboon’s tail fell in the fire, it burnt and he bit Oom Paul. That is exactly the case with the hon member for Sasolburg. The truth about the nonsense he wrote in his pamphlet of lies is burning him, so he bites me. [Interjections.] The truth burns him, but he bites me. I want to put it to him that he will get nowhere in the debates in this House by making personal attacks on me. He can forget it! He must address the issues himself. He must tell us where he got hold of those lies published in his pamphlet. He must also tell us whom he is leaving his pension to, because he does not have the moral right to share in Parliament’s pension fund. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what he must do!

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, I am not replying to questions now. [Interjections.] We shall have plenty of time for questions later this year, but I must hurry now.

It is true that our debt has increased tenfold. What has happened to the gross domestic product, however? You see, Sir, this hon member, it seems to me, does not understand these things. [Interjections.] If this hon member himself writes the things he declaims, I recommend that he rather obtain expert advice so that we can really understand what he is trying to say. That argument of his means nothing. [Interjections.] No, it means absolutely nothing! The hon member claims the Reserve Bank’s printing press just keeps on printing more money. [Interjections.] As usual, however—and the same applies to his party—he is living in the past. He quotes from documents of 1984. Or when Milton Friedman was here. Oh, shame, Sir! If in future the hon member for Sasolburg wants to say something about the money supply, I advise him to go to the Reserve Bank—which is a non-political organisation—and get his facts from there. If he does not want to take the trouble to go there, he can come to my department. There are enough people there …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, sit down! I am not going to reply to your questions. [Interjections.] If the hon member does not understand what is meant when the Reserve Bank’s annual report says that the money is growing at drastically lower rates than inflation—that actually means the printing presses are not working—he is welcome to approach my department. There are many people who are qualified and who will explain these things to him nicely. In addition he must not talk a lot of nonsense. Of course I have a suspicion, Sir, that the hon member for Sasolburg says all these vindictive things merely to get them recorded in Hansard so that he can go and repeat them in one of his pamphlets of lies again. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to make two further observations in conclusion. The hon member for Sasolburg referred here to the report of the Schlebusch Committee on salaries. I believe he is dealing with this report in an irresponsible way. This report was requested a while ago. The report has been completed. It is that committee’s report and the Government has not yet compromised itself in this connection at all. In fact, the Government has made no statement in this connection as yet.

I never said the Government had compromised itself in connection with the report! [Interjections.]

The hon member insinuated that this was a trick of the Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second remark I want to make is the following. The hon member for Sasolburg quoted someone in relation to selective control measures. How many times, Sir, do we still have to discuss this subject here in the House? It is true that we have a lot of so-called free marketeers on the left-hand side of the spectrum—also laissez-faire economists. I do not know anyone like that in South Africa, however, Sir. Dr Gerhard de Kock is anything but a free marketeer. On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of an absolutely controlled economy—or a kind of approach which amounts to that at any rate. These are the strictly socialistic economic systems. I know few such people. Of course I do know some people who are making such noises. In our own circle of advisers, however, I do not know such people. The people who advise me—and there are people of the highest quality among them—are a group of balanced economists who do not mind employing direct control measures when these are necessary.

The hon member for Sasolburg is obviously confused, however. There are other people who share that confusion with him. When one decides on a certain policy, one can apply it in one of two ways. One can announce it in the Government Gazette and get a bureaucracy to apply it. Otherwise one can use the free market system to implement it.

The best example of this was when the Americans decided the value of the dollar had to be decreased. They did not make an announcement in their equivalent of our Government Gazette, but a meeting of the Big Five was held. There they agreed that the value of the dollar had to decrease. They therefore used the market mechanism for this purpose. Everyone then sold their dollars and in the process the value of the dollar dropped.

There is no such thing as that we on this side of the House give the market free reign, but in the same way we cannot go overboard with control measures. Do the people who are asking for import control know what happens with something like that? We have seven partners in the Customs Union, who can all grant permits freely. We cannot bind them to refusing the same permits we refuse.

Besides, then there is a bureaucrat who decides how many nuts and bolts have to be made. If someone has a manufacturer who manufactures nuts and bolts in his constituency and the bureaucrat decides that manufacturer may not manufacture nuts and bolts any longer, the manufacturer goes to see his MP and tells him 20 people in his constituency will be unemployed because that bureaucrat has decided what has to take place in the constituency. By that time it is no longer an economic decision and has become a political decision. If he cannot have his way there, he comes to the Minister and if he cannot have his way with the Minister either, he opens a branch in one of the seven neighbouring states and then we have no control over it in any case. It cannot be administered.

That is why we do not need ideological considerations for the management of this country in the economic sphere. We need common sense to do what has to be done at any particular time. One must also not confuse strategy and the eventual objective.

One changes one’s strategy from time to time, and I have advisers around my table regularly enough to be able to decide when direct control measures have to be implemented and when they do not.

In December of last year we improved the flow of dollars to this country by introducing certain direct control measures. Despite that the hon member says we have done nothing. Can he not see what happened to the rand when the flow of dollars improved? In the background the leads and the lags have exhausted themselves in any case, and that takes up six months.

This accusation that we have no plan in the economy is nothing but just so many ridiculous words. I do not accept it. In fact, I reject it with contempt. Together with me, knowledgeable people reject it too, the knowledgeable people who come to my office to advise us on how we should apply our policy from day to day.

But at least lay down a few guidelines.

Sir, I shall now give the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to put his question.

Mr Chairman, I want to put my question to the hon the Minister as follows: On 10 November last year there was a meeting of people involved in finance at Sun City. [Interjections.] Everyone who was there had to write in a note what the inflation rate for the following year would be. Can the hon the Minister tell me what figure he wrote in his note? I know what the figures of most of the other people were. They were 24% and higher.

I am not aware of such an exercise having taken place there. I made a speech and left immediately afterwards.

But you were there?

Yes, I was there for about 45 minutes.

I shall not put my hand to paper as far as inflation forecasts are concerned for the simple reason that if I judge that inflation rate at too high a level, according to the best information we have, interest rates are influenced. If I estimate it at too low a level, there are other factors that exert an influence. That is too irresponsible a thing to do. One can say what one’s long-term objective is, but to make forecasts of that kind while one knows we are living in a world in which people and markets react accordingly, would be extremely irresponsible.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Mr Chairman, I have several questions to put to the hon the Deputy Minister in connection with this Schedule.

Mention is made of certain ad hoc grounds on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum to this vote. This is in connection with provincial subsidies, where an additional R124 million is needed. We should like to know what these certain ad hoc grounds, for which provision was not made in the initial appropriation, are.

In addition, mention is made of the creation of work opportunities within those provincial subsidies to the amount of R50 178 000. My question in this connection is what work opportunities are being envisaged in consequence of this provision?

In the third place the curtailment of personnel expenditure of R71 million is welcomed. Once again the question arises, however: What curtailment of personnel expenditure within the provincial system made this decreased expenditure possible?

In respect of paragraph 4.1(a), which deals with marketing action for the sale of houses to the amount of R580 000, I assume this is money for the sale of houses under the 99-year lease period. In this connection I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister when the Government intends to make provision for full right of ownership for Blacks. In that case, it will probably be unnecessary to launch a special marketing campaign. My question to the hon the Deputy Minister is actually a political question therefore: Will it be necessary for additional money to be spent on a marketing action when Blacks realise that in fact they can obtain right of ownership on property?

In addition I should like to know details of the special work creation programme amounting to R99 million which is being requested under that same item. I also want to refer to the R2 million which is being requested as remuneration for the Blacks who were moved from Brits. In this connection I should like to say as I understand it, the Government’s policy is no longer to undertake forced removals. My question therefore is: Did these people move voluntarily? Can we afford to evacuate what presumably was a Black township, at this kind of financial cost?

I have more questions, but for the moment I shall welcome and appreciate replies to these few questions.

Mr Chairman, I should like to place on record that we express our greatest displeasure that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not here. An amount of R385,92 million—about a third of the total additional amount—is being spent, and the hon the Minister has so little respect for this Parliament that he is not present to reply to questions. [Interjections.] I am not talking about hon Deputy Ministers. I want to question the hon the Minister. He should be here. Otherwise, if the hon the Minister has so little interest in this affair, he should resign and surrender his post to the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] I do have questions which I shall put to the hon the Deputy Minister. To start with, however, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all the departments responsible for the publications which were drawn up and for the information given to us. I do that now, so that I need not repeat it later. It facilitates parliamentary work and the task we all have to do.

I want to confront the hon the Deputy Minister, because it says here in the first place that the functions concerning the Central Statistical Service and Social and Scientific Planning were transferred to several other departments with effect from 1 July 1985. When the last budget was introduced, the Department and the hon the Deputy Minister knew these affairs would be transferred to other departments. Why was budgeting not done correctly then with a view to the tasks the respective departments would be taking over?

There are a whole number of further questions which arise from this. I should like to refer for example to item 4.1 in the explanatory memorandum on the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote, which reads:

Did the hon the Minister, who was still known last year as the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education, not budget for these amounts? Was there no consultation between him and the department that was to take over the functions? This points to only one thing: Poor planning. We should like to know why these affairs were not planned properly. [Interjections.]

My third question concerns Khayelitsha. Approximately R30 million is being requested for the development of the residential areas there. Is this orderly urbanisation, to bring all the Blacks here from the Transkei? If, for example, this R30 million was spent in the Blacks’ own residential areas in their own national state, would more work not have been provided there? Would that not have addressed South Africa’s problems in a much better way? Had that been done, the people would have benefited from this in their own areas, work opportunities would have been created there and the money could have been spent in a much better way than in the way for which it has been budgeted here.

Mr Chairman, I had hoped to deal with security matters as a whole but, having to deal with the various aspects individually, I will have to fragment them. Under this Vote I want to raise the question of what I call law and order enforcement units, for which we in this party have pleaded for the past six to eight months. There is no reference specifically to this as a separate item in the estimates but it does form part of the Vote Constitutional Development and Planning.

I want to know how many of the so-called “tuiswagte” have been trained, how many are scheduled to the trained in the immediate future and what the longer-term picture looks like which is envisaged. When I talk of a longer-term picture, I actually have in mind the next six months to a year. I ask this question because I believe this is the most urgent need which must be tackled in order to help to restore and maintain law and order in the townships. I believe this is absolutely crucial and that it will relieve the pressure on the Department of Law and Order and on the Department of Defence.

I should therefore like to know what has been planned, how many people have been trained, how many have been recruited for immediate training and how many the department intends training over the next six months to a year as law and order units under the control of the local authorities dealing with the problems of unrest and the maintenance of law and order in those townships.

I will leave the matter at that. I look forward with interest to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the hon the Minister to item 4.1 in his explanatory memorandum where it is stipulated that an additional R285 million is needed in respect of the transfer of functions from the former Department of Co-operation and Development.

With regard to the amount itself—questions have been posed by my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier and by the hon member for Sunnyside—what one would expect, looking at the estimates, is a corresponding reduction in the Department of Co-operation and Development expenditure which I do not see at all, and I see no explanation for this. The hon the Minister may believe it is up to his colleague to answer this, but I think perhaps he could answer it for us and tell the House what has actually happened to that R285 million.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to apologise on behalf of the hon the Minister who has very urgent business at the moment, and cannot be present here in the House. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is acting in the interests of our country and fulfills his duties in this House very conscientiously, and I do not think the hon member for Sunnyside should have made such a remark about the hon the Minister, since he is here regularly, makes speeches in this House and replies to questions very regularly. In these circumstances, however, unfortunately he cannot be here.

I should like to reply to the questions put here by the hon member Prof Olivier. In the first place he referred to the ad hoc amounts allocated to the provinces. Actually it is the customary deferred payment according to the subsidy formula which is paid to the provinces and which we always budget for. It is the customary additional appropriation in respect of the provinces.

The hon member then asked about the amounts budgeted by the provinces in respect of the provision of work opportunities. The answer to that is that it is also given to the local authorities—to the province which in turn makes it available to the local authorities so that the work opportunities can be created. In respect of the curtailment of personnel and the amount saved for that: It is merely the usual curtailment which took place concerning the thirteenth cheque, the bonus cheque, and the amount recovered there from officials involved in provincial administration.

The hon member also put a question about the sale of houses at an amount of R580 000, and together with that the question about full right of ownership, and whether it would still have been necessary to budget for this amount. The answer, according to the opening speech of the State President, is that legislation concerning right of ownership will still be submitted during this session. We know a campaign has to be launched in respect of the sale of houses—a marketing action—and it is imperative that that be done straight away. It is true that many people are still very ignorant about the procedure involved in buying a house. We have budgeted for this amount in order to remove this ignorance and convey the information so that this marketing action of houses can be launched.

Concerning the work creation programme to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred—an amount of R90 million—it consists of a variety of projects, inter alia the self-help building scheme in particular, in which unemployed people are taken into service by the respective local authorities to implement this self-help building scheme. There will be a tiny surplus in respect of this R90 million because there is a demand for the full amount by the respective development boards, etc.

The hon member also referred to the removal of people to the Lethlabile township at Brits. I can just tell the hon member that those people moved absolutely voluntarily as a result of the very poor conditions in the old town. They are now going to live in a much better town and in much better conditions. It was, therefore, no forced removal; the people moved to better conditions quite voluntarily.

The hon member for Sunnyside put a question about the transfer of the Central Statistical Service and Scientific and Social Planning to other departments. He asked if we had not known of this transfer. It is customary that appropriations remain unchanged when functions are transferred. Decisions are only taken during the course of the year, and therefore we did not know of this transfer. That is why we could not rectify the figures as the hon member requested. As far as the former Department of Co-operation and Development is concerned, the hon member for Sunnyside accused us of poor planning and said there was no consultation. The situation arose, however, as a result of absolutely unforeseen circumstances.

Concerning his question on Khayelitsha, I want to say we do not intend to establish all the Blacks of Transkei and Ciskei in Khayelitsha. That is an impossibility, as the hon member knows. An amount of R30 million is involved and I do not think that amount could provide the work opportunities and housing necessary to have these people stay and work in the national states. It is merely a backlog that we are catching up on. This backlog has developed through the course of years and that is why we now have to deal with squatter conditions at Crossroads. The improvement of these conditions and the R30 million budgeted for this purpose, is an effort to do away with this backlog.

The hon member for Durban Point put a very interesting question about the so-called municipal police. Unfortunately I do not have the figures at my disposal here, but I undertake to make the figures available to the hon member in writing. What he said is very important and we stress that. It can serve a very great and important purpose. I attended a passing out parade of this kind myself, and I want to pay tribute to the people who give the training and also to the people who come forward to serve in this police force. An amount of R24 million was budgeted for the training of these people. The training is in full swing and we undertake to supply the hon member in writing with the figures he asked for.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South put a question about the amount of R285 million which was budgeted for the former Department of Co-operation and Development. He said that department should have spent this money. I do not think that is necessarily the case, since it is logical that many new needs have developed, mainly as far as the development boards are concerned. The need that arose in this connection is mainly associated with the terrible economic recession we have experienced, and which they too have experienced.

For the first time development boards had to ask for additional money. This has been budgeted for. Naturally there had to be an increase in service fees, which simply was not possible in the circumstances. That also creates a backlog. Earlier this afternoon in question time we said there is also arrear rent. All these things have made the development boards’ position frightfully difficult. That is why a need has developed for more money to make provision for the development of these townships, and also for the requirements of local authorities and development boards.

I think I have replied to all the questions I noted down here.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the replies furnished here by the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to say immediately I am pleased to hear that the promise made by the State President as well as the hon the Minister, that legislation making provision for the full right of ownership of Blacks will be submitted, will be implemented during this session. I think it is high time that happened. I welcome the assurance given by the hon the Deputy Minister that we shall be dealing with that during this session.

I am also pleased that R99 million has been made available for self-help building schemes. I think it is a generally recognised fact that no economic activity creates as many work opportunities as the building industry does. Any kind of development in this direction is positive. The use of the self-help building scheme in this connection, apart from the psychological and emotional value it has for the people involved, is to be welcomed. It is important in these times of unemployment that additional sources of labour be created for people.

I also listened to the hon the Deputy Minister’s explanation about paragraph (b) on page 3 in respect of the development boards.

I also listened to what the hon the Minister of Finance said about this. I want to ask the hon the Minister, however, whether there is clarity at this stage about the future of development boards and their place in the new dispensation now that his department has taken over the functions previously handled by the Department of Co-operation and Development. In this connection I should like to determine the plans for the possible transfer of the people active in the development boards. I do not know how far the planning in this connection has progressed, but if the hon the Deputy Minister has further information in this connection, I shall appreciate it.

In respect of Khayelitsha and the question put by the hon member for Sunnyside, I should like to obtain further information about the infrastructure. Transport is an important aspect of this. The hon the Deputy Minister will know that it is one of the primary problems. This is the case particularly because people are placed in places far removed from areas where there is work. In connection with the real development of areas 3 and 4, I should like to know the expected number of people who will eventually be housed in that section of Khayelitsha.

In addition I want to ask the following in connection with the implementation of certain projects in Black areas, which total an amount of R12,26 million: What specific projects are envisaged here and in which Black areas will they take place? In other words, I want to know whether they are applicable to rural or urban areas. What I want to know more specifically, however, is what is meant just before paragraph (c) on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum. I am referring to the last subparagraph of paragraph (b).

In conclusion I see there is an amount of R2 million—no, not in conclusion, because there is another question—included in the increase for the relief of physical hunger among Blacks. Once again this is welcomed very much indeed by me and this side of the House. Once again I want to know where these funds are to be utilised and what machinery exists or has been created for the spending of these funds for the combating of starvation among the Blacks.

With reference to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply about Brits, I want to say the following. He said the people had moved voluntarily from a township where conditions were very poor to another township. I should like to know how many people were involved and how many properties are involved. It seems to me, if the circumstances were as poor as I deduced and the hon the Deputy Minister meant to say, the amount of R2 million for a Black township of this kind is considerable. I eagerly await the replies of the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, in response to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply to me a few minutes ago, where he pointed out that one of the problems in regard to the overexpenditure of the former Department of Co-operation and Development was that of uncollected rentals, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he has any idea what these uncollected rentals amount to, and whether the Government has decided to write these off, or whether he believes it is possible to devise some way in which to collect some of the uncollected rent.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister claims that the Department of Co-operation and Development could not accomplish certain things because of unforeseen circumstances. Can the hon the Deputy Minister explain to us what the unforeseen circumstances were, when they came to know of them and when they took place? We shall appreciate his giving us that information.

This brings me to the question of the development of Khayelitsha. By this time there are probably close to 500 000 of these Blacks gathered together in the Western Cape, which is within the area originally set aside as an area where Coloureds would enjoy priority as far as provision of work is concerned. A great many Coloureds in this area are unemployed. Do the Blacks who come and live here have work? Are they going to be benefited to the disadvantage of the Coloureds as far as provision of work is concerned? This issue is responsible for the large minefield of problems which are going to develop in future and will disturb race relations between the Coloureds and the Blacks. I shall appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister can reply to this.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to reply to the question put by the hon member Prof Olivier, when he wanted the matter of the development boards clarified.

I want to point out to him that we are in the process of carrying out a very incisive investigation into the future of development boards. The members of the development boards themselves are involved in this and the investigation is being carried out by the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government. We have made good progress with this investigation. We have given development boards the assurance—and I should like to repeat it here this afternoon—that considerable expertise has been built into the development boards.

We are indeed permitted to criticise development boards—one has every right to do so—but the staff members have a great deal of expertise and their service over the years has been of a high standard. It is this expertise that we do not want to lose under any circumstances. Also, we do not want to create uncertainty amongst the staff. Development boards are in fact going to be phased out. There is no doubt about it.

Regional Services Councils and Provincial Regional Services are going to be created and the staff of the development boards will be involved in that. No members of staff will be left without employment. That assurance I can most certainly give here this afternoon.

As far as the question of the hon member Prof Olivier on the infrastructure and transport to and from Khayelitsha is concerned, I must point out to the hon member that transport costs are not included in the amount that we have voted for infrastructure.

The amount of R12 million that the hon member inquired about, was voted for financing various projects on which agreement was reached in consultation with the communities of the West Rand.

I unfortunately cannot give the hon member a reply on areas 3 and 4 in Khayelitsha. During question time this afternoon, I could not reply to a few questions on Khayelitsha put by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens either, because my time had expired. I think the statistics required by the hon member Prof Olivier is included in those questions and their replies. The information will be given to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and will therefore be available to the hon member Prof Olivier as well.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the amount of R2 million included in the budgetary increase for the relief of physical hunger amongst Blacks. I do not know if the hon member stated that it was too little, but it is a modest effort that is being made to meet the people’s needs.

As far as the inhabitants of the urban Black residential area of Brits are concerned, I am not able at this stage to provide the exact number of people involved. But what I can say, however, is that 24,4% of these people have already moved.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South asked whether the rent in Black areas was going to be written off. There is arrear rent and there are people who are subjected to tremendous intimidation. There are many people who would like to pay their rent and to live in peace. We all know this. They are exposed to frightful intimidation, however, and so it is not possible for them to pay their rent. We shall not write off the debt, but I think we should make every possible effort and give all the assistance possible to the local authorities to see whether they could not collect these outstanding amounts. I do not of course have the figures. It is available from the local authorities.

Could you get it?

One would imagine that it would be a relatively large amount. In reply to the question of the hon member for Sunnyside, let me say that I do not know whether it is necessary to ascertain the exact amount. We know there is money outstanding, and they know it too. We consult with the Black town and community councils and we support and assist them in their efforts to collect the arrear rent.

I refer to the questions of the hon member for Sunnyside on the Department of Co-operation and Development and the unforeseen circumstances referred to. Surely the hon member realises that there were conditions prevailing recently that we could not have foreseen and that none of us would like to have in South Africa. We did not budget for this nor could we. The development boards could not budget for these conditions. We did not know that unrest and rioting would develop and increase so quickly. We did not know that there would be such tremendous unemployment for which we would have to make provision.

The hon member also referred to Khayelitsha and the job opportunities that will now be given to Blacks in the Western Cape. Let me just remind the hon member that over the years I supported the policy of job reservation for Coloureds in the Western Cape. I also propagated it, but the Coloured people themselves were never enthusiastic about it. The hon member should go and read the minutes of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and he will find they never supported this policy. They asked for this relevant measures to be abolished throughout. I think the Erika Theron Commission’s report also called for the abolition of this measure. We tried to retain them, but the Coloureds were not enthusiastic about it. Black people have, in fact, come to this area and some of them are unemployed. Special work opportunities are also being created for them. I was in Khayelitsha recently, where a number of women are employed and are doing important work. Creation of special work opportunities for Coloureds is also taking place at the moment. I therefore do not think that Coloured people are necessarily unemployed because of the presence of Black people here. I think there are still many job opportunities in the Western Cape that can also be utilised by the Coloureds. By this I do not mean to allege that we do not have economic problems in the Western Cape.

To the hon member Prof Olivier let me just say that the R2 million to help the hungry, is being made available on a rand-for-rand basis to instances where the need is the greatest and they are asking for assistance. I think I have answered virtually all the questions.

Mr Chairman, I should like to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister that certain problems have arisen in the Black areas because the inhabitants felt that the Government was not taking action against people who were not paying their rent. In some cases they point a finger at the hon the Minister who according to them has not yet approved in writing certain increases that were announced a long time ago. These increases can therefore not be implemented yet. Many of these people say that as town councillors they do not enjoy the necessary standing, because the measures they want to implement are not being implemented by the State itself. As a consequence their status as members is reduced. It is particularly the town councillors in the Vaal Triangle who have this complaint. They say there is a small minority who adopt a radical approach. These people simply tell the town councillors that the Minister is not going to do anything about it and that the councillors may just as well forget it. This destroys all the authority the town councillors may have. Tremendous problems have arisen in the Vaal Triangle because of this.

A second matter I should like to broach with the hon the Deputy Minister—he has spoken about it—deals with the fact that people are being trained to sell houses. A while ago the Cabinet did, in fact, allocate an amount for housing. This really cannot be done, however, because the Housing Commission does not have the rights that were referred to. There is something I should like to put to the hon the Deputy Minister. The Blacks, the Coloureds and the Government no longer approve of apartheid, do they? And so the Government is going to train Blacks and Coloureds to do the work I mentioned, in Black and Coloured areas. There are so many people in this country who have been trained to sell houses that I cannot understand why the Government has to budget to train people for it. Surely one does not budget for something like that. One cannot train a person to sell houses and then simply tell him he should physically go out and sell them. The ability to be a salesman is something one is born with; it is something in a person’s blood! Either one is a salesman, or one is not. Either one has the ability, or one does not. It will not help the Government to enrol a few people at a school and then simply to tell them they are going to sell houses. [Interjections.]

This Government must remember that it represents free market system and free … How do they put it again?

Free enterprise.

Yes, free enterprise and so forth. Today there are many people in White, and other areas, who cannot sell their houses because the Government has wiped out every possibility of buying property as a result of its high interest rates. Yet I do think that those people could sell their houses at a reasonable price, and I think it is unnecessary for the Government to make provision in this Budget to train people to sell houses. We should like to hear, however, what the hon the Deputy Minister has to say about this.

The hon the Deputy Minister said he could not have foreseen what would happen in Khayelitsha and other such places. Of course the hon the Deputy Minister could not have foreseen it, because the people who lived there were not permanent residents.

They were squatters.

They were squatters and their staying there was therefore illegal. The Government has now made legal what was illegal, however, and the South African public now has to pay for it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to return to the question of arrear rent that was mentioned again. I also want to respond to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South said.

Let me just say it is part of the entire stabilisation programme. We have been involved with these matters since 1 September. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who sits in front of me, knows much more about these matters than I do, because, amongst other things, he has been dealing with them for longer. What I do want to say this afternoon, however, is we appreciate the fact that there are people who are still prepared to serve on town councils and community councils in Black areas. They work under extremely difficult circumstances, because the entire system is rejected and also because an effort is being made to render all the residential areas—and South Africa along with them—completely ungovernable. We have held many discussions with these town and community councils since 1 September 1985. It is not as easy for them as for our municipalities and city councils simply to announce an increase in the tariffs of certain services or in rent. We have had incisive discussions on this matter with them and they really are in an unenviable position. On the one hand they desperately need that income, but on the other, it merely causes greater problems in their areas creating an untenable position where they put themselves at risk and also eventually leads to their resigning. We are progressing with a stabilisation programme in this area, however, and we are working in conjunction with the local government to collect the rents. We do not merely write it off; on the contrary, we have a very thoroughly planned system. It is being said that the Government is not acting. It is in fact order and stability that we want to bring back to these Black residential areas, and it is to achieve this that we are working in conjunction with the Black town councils. I think we are going to succeed in this, but as everyone knows, we are dealing with forces that do not want order to exist.

I want to respond to the question of the hon member for Langlaagte on housing and the training of people to sell houses. I do not think this is being done for the Coloureds, because they have building societies that are themselves building, marketing and selling houses, and launching programmes in certain areas. We are dealing with the Black people in particular. The R500 000 that has been budgeted, is not going towards training only, but also towards the introduction of the whole programme. At the end of last year, I held discussions with Black people from Worcester, whom we live close to. I was amazed to find that they were greatly ignorant of what was available and what they could make use of. This ignorance, in my opinion, exists because we are dealing with a vast population. It is very difficult to get all this information through to them. And so it is not merely a question of training Blacks to sell houses, although we need such people too. Parliament passed legislation providing that all estate agents have to write an examination so that they would all have to be trained. The amount we have budgeted, however, is intended for a complete marketing programme.

The hon member for Langlaagte referred to Khayelitsha. I was not only referring to Khayelitsha when I said we could not foresee certain circumstances. Indeed, such circumstances exist throughout the entire country and could be foreseen by very few hon members and people outside of this Parliament. What I have said applies to the whole picture in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I am exceptionally pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister, while we are discussing his budget vote, has been able to say what he said a moment ago, that his department closely co-operates with the Black town council authorities. This also applies to areas in the Vaal Triangle, such as Sebokeng and Lekoa, to which the hon member for Langlaagte referred.

Earlier on I placed a question on the question paper which reads as follows:

Due to the good co-operation existing between the hon the Deputy Minister and the local authority of that area, I do believe that he could tell me this afternoon what amounts are in arrears. He also has more time available to him now. This afternoon I should like to pay the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid a compliment, because I put the same question to him last year and he replied to it. I want to thank him again for that reply. If I remember correctly, he told me that an amount of R24 million was in arrears; that was a year ago. With all due respect, I now want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he neatly sidestepped a question which was brief and to the point today. However, I want to repeat what I said just now. If the co-operation is as good as he said a while ago, I would think that that Black council would keep him informed on the outstanding debt. Some of the local officials in the Vaal Triangle’s Black residential areas told me that at one stage they started taking steps to recover the amounts that were overdue. They then received instructions not to do so. I put it to the House as it was conveyed to me.

Everyone, whether they are White, Coloured or Black, finds it increasingly difficult to pay their debts the longer the debts are outstanding and the further the amounts have fallen into arrears. I want to suggest to the Government this afternoon that it should, in conjunction with the local authorities, support those officials. Methods must be found to collect the amounts in arrears and the officials should be assisted in doing so. They should not be opposed in this matter.

What will eventually happen? Once again the White taxpayer would have to meet those outstanding obligations. I think that if there is one small group of people in the world who have done for masses of people what has not been done anywhere else in the world, then it is the Whites of South Africa, and the things they have done for the people of colour in South Africa. [Interjections.] We should not continue overburdening the Whites, who have carried the burden for many years, because eventually we are going to be placing an impossible burden on those who are shouldering the responsibilities in South Africa. We shall break their backs and the whole of South Africa would consequently collapse.

Mr Chairman, let me explain once again to the hon member for Meyerton—I have made it very clear to other hon members—that we held discussions with some of the Black town councils. Naturally we have not held discussions with all the town councils yet, because we only accepted this responsibility on 1 September last year. One has to make appointments, check to see which of the people are available and bear in mind that one has other work to carry on with.

We did not go and talk with these town councils to find out exactly what the amount in arrears was, but we expressed our concern at the town councils not being able to collect the money. They were never told by the department, the Minister involved, or the Government that they did not have to collect the money. We took an incisive look into the whole matter and in conjunction with the Black town councils we suggested to them of certain methods according to which they could collect this money. Hon members will understand that I cannot provide more details on this in the House this afternoon.

I cannot give a specific amount this afternoon. If the former Minister mentioned an amount of R24 million, we can accept it, and perhaps add a few million rand if the hon members want to do so. I accept that the amount will be more or less as high as that.

I want to assure the House that we regard it as an extremely serious matter. The hon member for Meyerton said we should not overburden the Whites. I do not disagree with him, but on the other hand, we cannot simply stop these services, as the hon member for Kuruman asked us to. One cannot simply cut off the electricity supply to a town so that the whole area is plunged into darkness.

We made enquiries at some of the Black town councils and were told that it is impossible to cut off the electricity or water supply to some houses. One would be saddled with tremendous misery if one started cutting off a township’s water supply.

I want to repeat this afternoon that many of the inhabitants of the Black areas want to pay their rent and service charge, but they are simply being prevented from doing so by intimidators. [Interjections.]

You are the people who should maintain law and order!

The hon member for Langlaagte speaks of law and order, but how is he going to maintain it? Is he going to escort the householder at the point of a gun and force him to pay his rent and service charge, when there is such tremendous intimidation? [Interjections.]

Service charges are, in fact, being paid. Under extremely difficult circumstances—let me assure the hon members of that—this department, the development boards and the Black town councils are creating order in those Black areas—more order than the chaos the Conservative Party is causing in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon the Deputy Minister was aware that the present hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said a while back in reply to a question, that an amount of R24 million was owing in this regard. This was a year ago. I want to ask if that amount has remained the same or whether it has increased even more. Could he please reply to this now?

No, he cannot! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, for the fifth or sixth time I now put it to the hon member that we do not have every individual figure.

But you should have it!

Why should I have it?

Oh, you are incompetent, man!

Mr Chairman, but where must we get it from?

Of course you should have it!

Order!

Why should we have it? Each town council manages its own affairs. A town council approaches us and states that it does not have the wherewithal to collect the rent or service charges that it owes, because the people do not want to pay up. What will we gain now by doing a few calculations? Are mere calculations going to solve the problem? Are calculations going to force people to pay their rent and their service charges?

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether the State is granting any subsidies to these Black local authorities.

Mr Chairman, but we are also budgeting for development boards. It is after all the job of the development boards to assist in developing the Black areas. I put it to the hon member for Rissik, however, that he is only trying to make cheap political capital in South Africa at the moment. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must say we are not at all satisfied with the way in which the hon the Deputy Minister revealed the extent of his knowledge about what is happening to the money of the taxpayer. We want to know how much of the taxpayer’s money goes to the relevant local authorities, what becomes of that money, what the outstanding debt amounts to, and what the hon the Deputy Minister is going to do to recover the outstanding amounts. If the hon the Deputy Minister is unable to give a satisfactory reply to this, we shall be obliged to petition the House for an opportunity to request to move a motion of no confidence in this hon the Deputy Minister and to request that his salary be reduced.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik who is putting on such a great performance, such a wonderful, great performance, would do well to listen to what I am going to say to him. The State gives money to development boards. I have said this earlier on. We have now once again voted an amount of R94 million for development boards. For the East Rand development board an amount of R15 million has been set aside, while the Natalia development board will receive an amount of R16 million. The Western Cape development board receives R19 million, the West Rand development board R12 million and the development board of the Oranje-Vaal area receives R20 million. Last but not least is an amount of R10 million set aside for the Eastern Cape Development Board. This money is being given to various development boards but it does not mean that the Government is subsidising Black town councils. The Government provides the development boards with money. This is done with a view to establishing infrastructures and community facilities and to allow other essential development to take place in the Black areas. This surely is not something new the Government has come up with. It is after all something that has been done for many years.

If it is not done, the conditions in those areas would definitely deteriorate completely. We refer to this as bridging finance. Now precisely what the Government does is to allocate this amount of R94 million on this basis and for the purposes I have just detailed for the benefit of the hon member for Rissik.

I have said that an amount of approximately R100 million has been allocated to the department for the creation of work opportunities. This is being used for self-help housing in Black areas, amongst other things. That is all I have to say about this this afternoon, Sir. I cannot supply more details than this. Perhaps I should just emphasise that we provide the development boards with bridging finance, and that this year it amounts to R94 million. More than that I cannot say. I do not know what the hon member for Rissik still wants to hear.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has explained to us the amounts this department is making available to the various development boards in terms of the budget under discussion. Today when we ask him, however, what amounts have not been recovered by the development boards, he cannot tell us. The hon the Minister knows how much he gives, but he does not know how much has to be collected. We expect him and his department to know how much of the taxpayer’s money which cannot be recovered, lies in the black residential areas and is being subsidised by the State. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to make it very clear that what the hon member for Kuruman has said, is irrelevant to this debate. I am dealing with the subject of the provision of bridging finance to development boards. That is what we supply, and a part of that money comes back. [Interjections.] It is, after all, an age old practice of ours to provide bridging finance to development boards. What does the term bridging finance mean? It means that the money comes back. This money is also going to be returned at a later stage. This is done to help development boards under extremely difficult circumstances. [Interjections.] We can all sing together, but we really cannot all talk at the same time.

I want to inform the hon member that it is not the development boards that collect this rent. It is the Black community councils and the Black local town councils who collect that rent and those service charges.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he does not agree that when one asks for bridging finance, one should have a statement of revenue and a statement of expenditure, because how would one know what one was bridging and what amounts to ask for? Could the hon the Deputy Minister give us a run down of the statement of the revenue he will receive? What instalments are in arrears, for example. We know what the hon the Minister wants the money for, but what we do not know anything about the possibilities involved.

This is an Additional Appropriation.

Let me tell the hon the Minister of Communications and Public Works that we are acquainted with his philosophy of R20,00 per month for pensioners.

Order! That has nothing to do with this debate.

We want to know from the hon the Minister how he can come to this House unprepared to ask for an additional budgetary amount, and then speaking of it as if it were bridging finance. He cannot tell us what is lying inside that department. How much debt is there as far as these local authorities are concerned? What is more money required for? What is he actually making provision for? [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister really owes us an explanation. Or else he should acknowledge that he is not competent to handle the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he knew what the debt lying at these Black local governments amounted to, whether he would still make use of this bridging finance that he is now making available.

Mr Chairman, let me try once again to get something through to these hon members. I realise it is very difficult. I want to tell them that bridging finance is granted in cases where there are shortfalls in the funds of these development boards. It is a bridging period. Naturally the development boards approached us. After all, we would not place funds to be given to the development boards on the additional budget. One of the important reasons why a need for bridging finance arose, is due to the uneconomical rent and service charges against which the development boards in the Black local authorities are powerless. They are quite powerless against it seeing that the residents of Black residential areas immediately protest when the slightest increase in rent and service charges is mentioned. [Interjections.]

That’s it!

So the hon member knows this. It is not a secret after all. South Africa knows it.

You have surrendered!

There has been no surrender. South Africa knows it. [Interjections.] Should we sow further disorder? Should we sow further chaos? Should we not try to achieve peace and find a solution? Then we could continue again. No other Government formed by any other party in this House is in a position to do so at this stage. I think every right-minded South African who does not want to make cheap political capital out of this matter, knows it, acknowledges it and accepts it as such.

That is why we have bridging finance. All I have to say is that as soon as the development boards are in a position to do so, these amounts will be returned.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister very nicely: Does he agree with me that if the debt that has not been collected from these Black local authorities were to be collected, it would then not be necessary for him to make available bridging finance to them?

Yes, it will help to a very great extent. Because I do not know now I cannot tell the hon member whether it would cancel out the total bridging amount. It will, of course, help tremendously if we could collect that debt. Today the hon member referred to an amount of R24 million mentioned by the hon the Minister last year. As I have said, let us accept that this debt amounts to a few million rand more. In the nature of things this should surely help.

I put the Vote …

[Inaudible.]

Order! While the Chairman is putting the question, hon members must remain silent.

Excuse me, Mr Chairman, but may we not ask that the hon the Minister be called to the House? We are not satisfied with the reply given by the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members, (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, T Langley, Mrs E M Scholtz, Messrs L F Stofberg, L M Theunisen, H D K van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Vote declared agreed to.

Vote 5—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, I would like to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister relating to programme 2 and involving an increase of R49 950 000. This is an increase over and above the initial amount and is a very large increase, namely 52,1%. The reason given in the explanatory memorandum is that the increase is due to the decrease in the value of the rand and steps taken to counteract the disinvestment campaign. In other words, two reasons are given for this one amount and I think we should separate these two reasons.

Order! I am not prepared to allow the debate to continue while hon members are conversing so loudly. Hon members must keep their voices down while in Committee. The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

Concerning these figures, if I were to give say 10% as the devaluation in the rand which could not have been foreseen that would only amount to some R9,7 million. That would leave R40,2 million for the second reason given in the explanatory memorandum, namely steps taken to counteract the disinvestment campaign.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am not knocking the disinvestment campaign. I think all in this House know that members of the Official Opposition have gone out of their way to counter the disinvestment campaign. They have gone overseas at their own expense, they have used every platform and every opportunity to counter the disinvestment campaign. What I would like to know, therefore, from the hon the Deputy Minister is why this large amount that was not contemplated in the original budget is required now and what steps have been taken to counteract the disinvestment campaign that had not taken before? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the time for this discussion is running out so we may not come to the hon the Minister of Law and Order to whom I would like to put a few questions. However, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs a question relating to programme 1, item b, “Expenditure resulting from the creation of the Bureau for Information”. This involves an additional amount of R2,5 million. I wonder whether the hon the Minister would be able to tell us some of the facts surrounding the establishment of the Bureau for Information. What amount was involved in the creation of that department and has the budget vote been moved to the office of the State President together with the Deputy Minister?

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to Programme 3 which involves Foreign Aid and Development Co-operation. I want to refer specifically to Item (c), ie the creation of job opportunities. I presume that these job opportunities are being created as a result of the unemployment we are experiencing due to the bad economic situation in the country.

In this connection I want to ask the hon the Minister how much has been made available to each neighbouring state. Is it being made available on a conditional basis and how is it being appropriated? Is there a way of ascertaining whether those who are unemployed at present—in other words people who did not have any work previously—have actually been employed as a result of that aid? Is there not a possibility that citizens from neighbouring South Africa are also being attracted to those states by the newly created job opportunities? I should also like to know what kind of job is being created and what workers are being paid hourly or daily or whatever the case may be.

I also want to refer to Item (d) under the same heading. It deals with relief of distress in Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Colombia. I should like to know what the nature of the relief of distress to each of those three areas is, since relief of distress differs from the creating of job opportunities etc.

Mr Chairman, may I start off by replying to the hon member for Hill-brow. He referred to Programme 2 and indicated that there had been an increase of some 52,1% in the amount expended. He wanted to know how that came about. I can give the hon member a breakdown of how the R49,95 million came about. Firstly, I should like to indicate to him that R46 million of that amount is due to fluctuations in the exchange rate and the value of the rand against other foreign currencies. I think the hon member will have to listen fairly carefully to the figures to see how the arithmetic was done. At times there was more than double the amount of money required than was previously budgeted for, entirely due to the fact that there was a change in the foreign exchange rate.

I should also like to point out to the hon member that included in the R49,95 million is an amount of approximately R831 000 which was not anticipated last year due to the fact that we took over in the Department of Foreign Affairs 42 locally recruited marketing officers who were previously provided for in the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry. It may also be of interest to the hon member that we had to make provision for an unexpected amount of R400 000 in the purchase of property to house our Consulate in New York. The hon member will remember the difficulties we had due to the fact that we occupied premises in New York. We were receiving threats—there were bomb threats and demonstrations, etc. That amount of R400 000 had to be made available so that we could move our premises to another building.

The hon member will also be aware of the fact that capital equipment used by this department had to be imported into this country and was affected by the foreign exchange rate. We had to make provision for the expansion of our computer facilities which cost us an additional R2,5 million due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations. I should also like to say for the hon member’s edification that some of the additional expenditure was raised to counteract the disinvestment campaign. We have made provision in this Additional Appropriation for an amount of R3,628 million for the anti-disinvestment campaign. It is, however, not all bad news and the books will balance if hon members take note of the fact that a saving was effected by this department in this particular sphere to the tune of R3,409 million due to the non-replacement of staff in vacancies which occurred in the department. This gives us a net increase of R49,95 million. I hope that that answers the hon member’s question which he raised with me.

We have taken considerable steps in order to bring about as many savings as we can. However, as the hon member will appreciate and as can be understood from the financial experts here today, it is very difficult to anticipate what the actual rate of exchange will be as regards the rand and other foreign currencies. The Department of Foreign Affairs is involved in expenditure which takes place not only in dollars but also in Deutsche Mark, the pound sterling, the yen and in many other foreign currencies. The department will in its forthcoming budget take a figure into account. We cannot however, guarantee that that figure will be correct. I think that hon members will have to accept the fact that this is something which is really beyond the control of most departments in their forward planning. One can, however, make a realistic guesstimate of what the foreign exchange rate will be and try to include this in one’s provisions for the future. Most of these amounts can be ascribed to the foreign exchange factor.

I would like now to turn my attention to the hon member for Johannesburg North who raised the question of the R2,5 million for the Bureau in terms of programme 1. I would like to point out to the hon member that the actual figure involved in the initial establishment cost of the Bureau was only R2 million of the R2½ million allotted to the programme. The Treasury approved an additional allocation for our department after being approached by the Bureau to do so. Therefore for the current financial year the funds of the Bureau come from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Provision will however, be made in the new budget within a vote which is not that of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It will probably be provided for under the Vote of the State President or another department. This provision was obviously necessary because the Bureau had certain establishment costs in making provision for its infrastructure in order to operate. An amount of R2 million was forthcoming from this department. I hope that that answers the hon member’s question.

*I want to refer to the question by the hon member for Soutpansberg about combating unemployment and the provision of work projects. The hon member asked me for details about the amounts made available to each country. I can give the hon member that information, but unfortunately I do not have it available here. However, I just want to say to him that a large portion of that money which was made available—R21 million—came from the R600 million that the Cabinet allocated for this specific project. The amount of R21 million in the programme was made available for this particular purpose.

I have now received the figures and I can give the hon member the details. Ciskei received R14,3 million; Transkei, R12,7 million; Bophuthatswana, R12 million; and Venda, R4 million. The hon member will note that this amounts to a total of R43 million, as various parts of various projects were allocated to this programme. With regard to the R600 million that was made available, this Department appropriated R21 million.

The hon member also asked what relief of distress we were responsible for. This was due to the fact that these TBVC-countries also suffered droughts. An amount of R10 million in the form of relief of distress was allocated to two of these countries: R8 million was made available to Bophuthatswana and R2 million to Transkei because they also suffered droughts. They therefore also needed aid.

With regard to forward planning the hon member wanted to know if we took into consideration that Blacks from neighbouring states in Southern Africa may also have benefited from that programme. It is impossible for us to give a guarantee that no foreign Blacks were involved in this type of project. We can, however, give the hon member the assurance that it would be a very small number of people who may have benefited from these programmes. People cannot be prevented from streaming across from Swaziland to KaNgwane or the TBVC-countries for example. It does happen that people go grom Botswana to Bophuthatswana. I can assure the hon member that a very small percentage of foreigners benefited from it. This happened because it is almost impossible to identify everyone involved with these projects. I want to assure the hon member that we studied the situation very carefully when we were planning the unemployment relief programme. We started labour intensive projects which were very strictly controlled. I personally made inquiries in the TBVC-countries to determine how this money was being spent. I can really recommend to members to go and see for themselves what wonderful work is being done under these schemes. For example I can point out to the hon member that much of this money is being spent on the building of roads, dams, irrigation projects, water purifying projects, housing projects etc, and it is being done with the intensive use of the extensive labour capacity of these people. We are aware of the fact that this only brings temporary relief, and for that reason long-term projects were also started in an effort to overcome the structural unemployment factor and in so doing improve conditions for all these people.

I shall let that suffice. I hope that the hon members are satisfied with the answers that I have given.

Mr Chairman, I do not believe that the hon the Deputy Minister has replied to me in connection with my question on emergency aid to Colombia. That is another question that I asked. Moreover, the hon the Deputy Minister failed to understand correctly my question on how the creation of job opportunities is controlled. There is a possibility that people who already have work, leave their existing work on a farm and go and work on the job creation project owning to the attractiveness of the wage paid there. As a result other people who are genuinely unemployed are not involved in this project. However people are being lured away from their jobs to receive a better wage for their work at one of these schemes. That is the point at issue. I do not think there is any control in this regard. At some schools one sometimes find up to 99 of them being paid R4 per day to sit around the schools pulling out weeds. We are not opposed to job creation; we encourage it. However, the money must be spent and utilised in such a way that it does in fact have a stimulatory effect on employment and the economy.

Mr Chairman I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon member’s question. However, I want to give him the assurance that the amount being paid to labourers by this aid fund today, is the same for all the TBVC countries. If additional money is added to the wage, then it must have come from the Treasury of the country in question. We are aware that it has been decided in some of the TBVC-countries to increase the wage provided by us by R2 per day. However, that is their own decision, and they had to finance the increase in the wage themselves. That was beyond our control. Where these cases did occur, however, we are aware of the disruption it caused in the area where these people were provided with employment. They came to register as unemployed with the governments of the TBVC countries. I do not know whether they absconded from a job at which they were being paid less than R4,50 per day. The maximum amount paid is R4,50 per day, of which this department contributed R2,50. It is possible that there are people who left one kind of job to come and look for a job under this scheme because they were being paid less than R4,50 per day. One can therefore ask oneself under what difficult circumstances they were living if they earned so little in permanent employment that they had to come and seek work where they could earn more. However, we have investigated this matter and negotiated with the relevant government and have tried to persuade them to make use of their own money to make these projects so attractive as to disrupt the entire process of the provision of jobs in that area. Most of them have co-operated well in this regard. I can assure the hon member that that additional amount was contributed by the relevant government of the TBVC countries. I hope that this answer will now satisfy the hon member.

I just wish to mention for the information of hon members that in terms of this project we have provided employment for 55 000 people. Without this scheme all those people would have been unemployed, with all the poverty and misery that that would have entailed.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 6—“Home Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, I refer to Item 9 of the Vote, viz Publication Control. I have a copy of the explanatory memorandum here and I want to quote from paragraph (b):

†Having given this as justification for the additional expenditure, I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could explain to us first of all whether this is an unusual payment or whether it is a payment for which he has budgeted regularly and specifically for the purposes of publication control by his department. If it is not a novelty I would like to ask him whether the extra expenditure represents a significant increase in the bulk of the number of items that have been subjected to control of this nature. Could he also just give a very brief explanation of what this control is all about? I do have some other questions to ask but I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could possibly reply to these questions first.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer the hon the Minister to Programme 3: Immigration. In the explanatory memorandum the hon the Minister states that the levelling off in the country’s economy has meant that the demand for immigrant workers has declined. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister could just give an explanation of how the decline in immigrants is linked to the availability of the necessary funds.

As far as Programme 5 is concerned, the hon the Minister knows, of course, that the CP is a very strong advocate of publications control.

As far as paragraph (a) relating to Programme 5 is concerned, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether the increase in the remuneration of members of the publications committee comprises merely an increase in the existing salaries of the relevant members, of whether the committees of experts have been extended, as well as the total number of committees.

I, too, wish to associate myself with the hon member for Green Point by asking that the hon the Minister give us an indication of the compensation of the Department of Post and Telecommunications in regard to the checking of foreign postal articles.

Mr Chairman, since the hon member for Rissik has raised further programmes, I want to point out that in Programme 3: Immigration, mention is made of a substantial drop of more than R3 million. If in any country less is spent on immigration due to the decline in the demand for qualified and skilled workers, it is perhaps always a good idea from a national point of view if consideration is given to the possibility of utilising these funds to train local potential. This will mean that the need for immigrants or skilled labourers attracted by immigration may decline in future, while the local labour force will be better able to meet the local needs.

I realise that this is a problematical question I am putting to the hon the Minister because it does not entail reallocation of expenditure within his own department. Nevertheless we should appreciate it even if he could just give us an indication whether consideration has been given, in circumstances where there is a drastic decline in expenditure on immigration, to liaising with other departments in that regard. In such a case could the hon the Minister not perhaps approach a Cabinet colleague responsible for national education, education and development aid or a similar department and ask whether, since his department was able to save a certain amount due to a decline in immigration requirements, it might not be a good thing if those funds were to be utilised to train local people? In this way future labour needs could be provided for.

My final question concerns programme 1: “Administration”. Here the additional expenditure is substantial. It represents an increase of more than 50% in the amount originally voted. The explanation is apparently that this has to do with the take-over of the commissioner’s offices from the Department of Co-operation and Development. I have just looked at the vote for the Department of Co-operation and Development and I note that the drop in the amount voted for the programme “Administration” is relatively small. In fact it is R1,3 million. The additional amount requested by the Department of Home Affairs on the basis of their take-over is R6,4 million. This may be a transfer from the pocket of another hon Minister or another department, but nevertheless I should like the hon the Minister to give his attention to this and then to explain to us why there is such a substantial increase in his department’s estimated expenditure on administration whereas there has been a relatively small drop—the drop is about one-fifth of the increase—in the estimated expenditure on administration of the Department of Co-operation and Development. After all, the same basic reason is given for the relevant increase and decrease.

Mr Chairman, I shall begin with the item to which the hon member for Green Point referred, viz the Programme: “Administration”. As the hon member quite rightly remarked, from 1 November 1985 the commissioners’ offices became the responsibility of my department. However, I have been informed that take-over of these offices by the Department of Home Affairs had no effect on the amount voted.

It is true that we under-budgeted, for good reasons. The increase in the estimated expenditure on this item cannot however, be ascribed to the take-over of those commissioners’ offices. If the take-over had not taken place, the Department from which we have taken over those offices would also have had to supplement its vote by the amount we requested. The increase to which reference is made cannot, therefore, be ascribed to this take-over. This increase occurred due to an ordinary instance of underbudgeting. For good reasons the original budget in this regard was inadequate and it is for that reason that the additional expenditure is indicated.

Then that must be clearly stated here.

I concede that it is perhaps not clearly indicated here.

As regards the question by the hon member for Green Point in regard to immigration—the hon member for Rissik also referred to this—I want to inform them that the appropriation of R10 million is based on an expected immigrant intake of approximately 25 000 for the year under review. The latest available figures, however, show that we cannot achieve the expected figure and that the intake will be approximately 19 000. The reason for this is obvious: The levelling-off in the economy has reduced the country’s needs, except in the case of specialised or selected workers. Accordingly we have curtailed our activities abroad. That is why we have achieved the savings.

Let us also state clearly that unrest also exerts an influence on the intake of immigrants.

According to our analysis the real cause of this decline is the fact that the economy has levelled off in this period. This has resulted in greater unemployment in the country and has obliged us to teach skills to an increasing number of our people. The idea of the hon member for Green Point, viz that we should utilize the amount for the training of our people, is praiseworthy. However, we are using it to reduce the deficit in our budget, as we are doing here in a useful way in order to further the other services. However, there is nothing wrong with the idea that we should train people.

The hon member for Rissik as well as the hon member for Green Point referred to publications control, the latter with specific reference to the amount paid to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. The responsible hon Minister indicated yesterday that this represented compensation for the checking of foreign publications. The opening and checking of foreign publications was in the past done for us free of charge by Post Office staff. Because the Post Office is a business enterprise, they now have to be remunerated in this regard. This was done free of charge for a long period but it has now been agreed that the Department of Post and Telecommunications will have to be paid the amount of R82 000 per annum for that service. This is the first time that this is being done, but we believe that this is a good service that they provide.

The hon member for Rissik in fact referred to the remuneration of members of publications committees. That increases a normal increase that has been approved by the Commission for Administration. It is an increase in the remuneration of members of the publication committees, the committees of experts and members of the Appeal Board. As regards the expansion of the various committees in order to be still more effective, that is a matter we would do well to discuss when this vote comes up for discussion. If there is a need for this we shall have to look at the matter then.

Mr Chairman, I have a question in regard to the payment to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. I should like the hon the Minister to inform us in this regard because this is definitely something new.

In the first instance I should like to know whether this opening procedure is carried out under the supervision of any officials of the Department of Home Affairs. Whether or not this is indeed the case, I also wish to query the nature of the instructions in terms of which this takes place. Therefore I want to know what guidelines are laid down for the officials of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications as regards the opening of postal articles. Are there certain items that are opened according to standard procedure for investigation and submission to publications committees? Are there instructions to the effect that they should be on the look-out for certain specific types of postal articles? Does this apply to any book post entering the country? Can the hon the Minister give an indication of the precise relationship between his department and that of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications as regards the implementation of this specific procedure, and as regards the control exercised by his department in regard to this procedure which, according to him, has been taking place for several years? I should like to have clarity in this regard.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point and I should perhaps go and see how it is done in reality. This is in fact merely a continuation of a practice that is already in existence. Of course there is communication with the other department, and control is exercised by the Department of Home Affairs. This is not a new process; the only new aspect is that the hon the Minister of Communications is now being paid for it.

I suggest that we deal with this subject in depth under the vote, or even before that. Then we can discuss the details which the hon member for Green Point apparently wants. I undertake to provide him with those details as soon as I myself have also been fully informed.

Mr Chairman, arising out of the question put to the hon the Minister by the hon member for Green Point and the hon the Minister’s reply concerning the takeover of commissioners’ offices, can he tell me if the operation is complete and, if not, when it is likely to be completed?

Mr Chairman, the commissioners’ offices were placed under the control of the Department of Home Affairs as from the beginning of last November and the act of handing over has been completed. The department is now implementing its own various control measures to ensure that these become an integral part of the department. The takeover is complete as from 1 November 1985.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 8—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”:

Mr Chairman, in the accounts of the Vote: Improvement of Conditions of Service a figure of only R1 000 is asked for. Within the adjustments made there is a transfer to the Revenue Account of White own affairs of an additional sum of R12 million. The original amount voted was R2,5 million and the revised amount is R15 million. In the notes given it is stated that this is for a revised dispensation for educators implemented on 1 October 1984.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister how it came about that an amount of R2,5 million was budgeted for and an amount of R15 million was actually spent. It seems to me to be inordinately casual that in White own affairs this is underbudgeted by R12 million, in Coloured own affairs it is overbudgeted by R2 million and in Indian own affairs it is underbudgeted by R1,6 million. Could the hon the Minister please explain this?

Mr Chairman, this increase is owing to the higher than originally estimated continuation of expenditure of the revised dispensation for educators that was implemented on 1 October 1984. It was more than was originally estimated; that is all. The amount required was higher than was estimated for that particular item.

We are not asking for extra money. All that we are doing is to use savings on other programmes and transferring them. That is being done with the consent of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has just told me what I have told him. I know very well that he underestimated by R12 million. I want to know, however, where that R12 million was spent when he had originally budgeted for R2,5 million. Why did he underestimate it?

This was as a result of improvements of salaries granted to the educators. Moreover, I believe, to underestimate by R12 million is after all not so bad, particularly when one takes into consideration the total amount which is involved. When an estimate of this nature has to be done in advance I believe an underestimate such as the one in question here is not bad at all. It was in fact not an underestimate in relation to the total amount because we do not ask for any additional money.

Mr Chairman, the figures in respect of the original account reflect a sum of R213 million for augmentation of salaries, augmentation of subsidies and contributions to pensions. I am not questioning that. What I am actually questioning is the sum of money transferred to the Revenue Account: White own affairs. Can the hon the Minister explain to us where and how that money is being spent?

Mr Chairman …

Order! Would all hon members pay attention! This is a committee stage and all hon members are entitled to participate in the discussion. However, I shall not allow annoying conversations here while hon members or hon Ministers are speaking. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, my reply to the hon member’s question is purely that whether the amount in question was transferred to the Revenue Account: White own affairs or to any other account, it represents an underestimate in respect of educators. That amount had therefore to be transferred to where the money was needed.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that these changes were decided on and announced in October 1984, which was some five months before March 1985, when the actual budgeting took place, how is it possible then that such a big error of between R2 million and R12 million was made, and what steps are being taken to ensure that that does not happen in the future?

Mr Chairman, the hon member will remember that those particular improvements that were granted in October 1984 were not executed immediately. Some of them were executed only a few months later.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 9—“National Education”:

Mr Chairman, I rise in order to give the hon the Minister the opportunity of explaining two items which result in two major increases—one of R305 000 under programme 1, “Administration”, and one of R196 000 under programme 4, “Sport and Recreation Promotion”. I am actually wondering what the amount of R196 000 is all about. Is it perhaps related to the recent cricket tour? If it is indeed, could the hon the Minister explain to the House in which way and for what reasons he has ratified this contribution. If it is not the case, I believe South Africa would be pleased to know what it is really in aid of.

Mr Chairman, allow me, first of all, to point out that the amount of R305 000 is the result of the fact that I changed portfolios and that the department had not budgeted in advance for the ministerial office, staff and other costs. That is then why the R305 000 is required. [Interjections.] Of course I may also add that I am saving the State one full ministerial portfolio. Own affairs now has one Minister less because I also manage the portfolio of Minister of the Budget. Actually the State is therefore getting a bargain, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.