Mnr. die Voorsitter, dit is vir my aangenaam om weer eens te kan deelneem aan die bespreking van die poste van die Minister van Finansies. Ek vertrou dit sal ’n nuttige en aangename bespreking wees. Ek wil begin deur kortliks na ons personeel te verwys. Dit is natuurlik bekend dat dr. De Loor die Direkteur-generaal van die nuwe Departement van Finansies is as gevolg van die rasionalisering van die Staatsdiens. Ek wil hom graag by hierdie geleentheid gelukwens met daardie belangrike aanstelling. Dan wil ek ook sê dat mnr. Coert Pretorius wat Senior Adjunk-sekretaris van die Tesourie was, nou Sekretaris van die Tesourie is. Ek dink ons is almal baie gelukkig dat ons iemand van sy gehalte in daardie belangrike pos het. Dr. Gerhard de Kock is natuurlik die Senior Vise-president van die Reserwebank en hy is ook die Minister van Finansies se Ekonomiese Adviseur. Dan is hy natuurlik ook Voorsitter van ’n belangrike Kommissie van Ondersoek na die Monetêre Beleid en Monetêre Stelsel van die Republiek. Hy sal ook ’n sleutelrol in die uitvoering van die Eerste Minister se gedagte van ’n konstellasie van state speel waar daar heelwat navorsingswerk gedoen moet word. Ek meen dit sal binnekort deur die agb. Eerste Minister aangekondig word watter soort organisasie in die lewe geroep sal word. Dr. De Kock sal ’n sleutelrol in dié verband speel. Dan is dit ook vir my aangenaam om te meld dat dr. Simon Brand as Hoof van Finansiële Beleid in die Departement van Finansies aangestel is. Hy sal nog Voorsitter van die Ekonomiese Adviesraad bly tot verdere kennisgewing. Mnr. Mickey van der Walt, tans Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste, en mnr. Dirk Odendaal, Kommissaris van Doeane en Aksyns, is twee baie gedugte en bekwame departementshoofde en ons is baie bly dat ons vorentoe nog van hulle baie belangrike dienste gebruik sal kan maak.

Ek wil ook na my eie posisie verwys. Daar is in die jongste tyd heelwat bespiegelings in die pers en op ander plekke oor my eie moontlike posisie. Ek wil net sê dat solank dit die agb. Eerste Minister mag pas om my in hierdie pos as Minister van Finansies te gebruik, ek bly sal wees om so te dien. Ek maak dit net vandag duidelik. Miskien sal hierdie bespiegelings dan ’n bietjie bedaar.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to say just one or two things about one or two matters that I think need clarification. May I in a general introduction say that I think the economy is performing well. The growth in the economy, the expansion that we are seeing, is continuing. We still hope that towards the end of the year we will reach a real growth rate of 5% or perhaps even a little more, which will be very useful indeed. The balance of payments, as a result of the very strong current account, is healthy and seems to be set for continuing so for some time. The gold price seems to have stabilized fairly well for the moment at just above 500 dollars per fine ounce, which obviously is a very good price. I think if a year ago we had been told that the gold price might be 500 dollars per fine ounce today we would probably have felt very happy indeed about such a prospect. The budget itself is an expansionist budget. It is a budget which, while it is expansionary, is nevertheless conservatively financed. It relies on no new money being created and we hope it will have a stimulatory effect, because economic growth is certainly our top priority at the moment. So one can go on. I was abroad recently because I had been asked to open a very large international conference on monetary matters—inflation, balance of payments problems and all sorts of financial problems, particularly the unsatisfactory state in which the international monetary system has landed itself. I was asked to talk more particularly about that and about the possible role of gold in achieving a greater measure of stability in currency and monetary affairs. I put the case as positively as I could for what I called a gold-based currency, not just here but world wide. I must say that it seemed to cause a great deal of interest and we had many subsequent discussions with a number of people. It was a very representative and I think one can say a very authoritative audience invited from many countries. I was encouraged at the response to the proposition as I put it. There is no doubt that gold today has achieved a new respectability. A man like Henry Reuss, chairman of the House Banking Committee in the United States, who is not known as a gold bug, is even on record as saying recently that any proposal for using gold in a constructive manner to achieve some sort of stability in the world’s monetary order is something which no one can ignore and indeed must study very carefully. One can mention others who have tended to be critical of gold in recent years and a number of whom have now come around to thinking that it might play a constructive part. I think this is very important and very hopeful. Even if it so happens that gold is given a key-role not only as a reserve asset which it is, but indeed as a means of payment—I am not suggesting the old notion of the gold standard of course but possibly something new—it could be that the price of gold might stabilize somewhere around the price it is at the moment, or even a little lower. It might possibly mean if that happened that the price of gold might not go up as much as it otherwise might.

These are things we cannot be sure of but, even if that happened, I would still prefer to see gold being used as a base to the world’s international monetary system, than to have a much higher price without that stabilizing factor, because, first of all, a more stable gold price is more valuable to us and, secondly, what happens in the world’s monetary and currency affairs is certainly of direct importance to us.

I might just say that on the way back I spent a very interesting day in Bonn and then in Frankfurt where I saw some ministers and top banking personalities in Germany. There is no doubt that our credit rating stands particularly high and, in general, our stature is very good indeed. One is very grateful that this is so.

I also had the opportunity to visit the Airbus Industrie in Toulouse in France. They have a most interesting set-up with some six nations taking part in this huge enterprise. They have done so well that the Airbus today is without any doubt a serious contender with Boeing aircraft. I think this is going to be a very big undertaking altogether during the next few years. It is interesting to note that we in South Africa were one of the very first countries to place an order for the Airbus. I think we were among the first three. Today there are a large number of countries that are using the Airbus and still others who have placed orders for it.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, as u my dit salvergun wil ek verwys na die aangeleentheid van subskripsieaandele van bouverenigings wat ek in my begrotingsrede gemeld het. In die loop van my toespraak op die mosie het ek op 6 Mei 1980 in die Senaat aangekondig dat ek besluit het om die uitfasering van die bestaande vrystelling van rente op bouverenigingsubskripsieaandele tot ’n maksimum aandelebelegging van R150 000 per persoon, na ’n maksimum van die rente op ’n belegging van R50 000 per belastingbetaler eers vanaf die begin van die jaar na aanslag, wat op 28 Februarie 1982 eindig, ’n aanvang te laat neem. Ek het verder melding gemaak dat verdere aanpassings met betrekking tot die tydperk van uitfasering oorweeg word. Hoewel besonderhede van die nuwe voorstelle in die Inkomstebelastingwetsontwerp wat eersdaags ingedien sal word, vervat sal word, wil ek van hierdie geleentheid gebruik maak om die voorstelle waarvoor parlementêre goedkeuring gevra sal word bekend te maak sodat beleggers in subskripsieaandele duidelikheid oor die implikasies kan kry en hul besluite in die lig daarvan in oënskou kan neem.

Vir baie jare is diwidende op subskripsieaandele geheel en al van belasting vrygestel. Dit was ’n aanmoediging vir persone met gemiddelde inkomste om op ’n gereelde wyse te spaar en daardeur kapitaal op te bou. Gereelde bydraes moes gemaak word en na 36 maande was die bydraes ten volle betaal en kan die opbetaalde bedrag plus die dividende wat oor die tydperk van besparing opgeloop het en wat nie gedurende daardie tydperk uitbetaal kan word nie, in kontant geneem word of in ander beleggings herbelê word. Omdat die rente of dividende eers aan die end van die besparingstydperk uitbetaal word is dit duidelik dat dit nooit bedoel was as ’n belegging wat ’n gereelde inkomste sou oplewer nie, en omdat dit by wyse van periodieke betalings oor 36 maande bespaar moes word, is dit ook duidelik dat dit nie bedoel was as ’n belegging van ’n kapitaalsom nie.

In 1971 is die Wet op Bouverenigings gewysig om die totale bedrag wat ’n enkele persoon by wyse van bydraes oor 36 maande in subskripsie-aandele kan belê tot R150 000 te beperk. Na 36 maande is die besparing ten volle opbetaal en kan die opbrengs in ander belasbare of gedeeltelik belasbare beleggings herbelê word. Hieruit is die sneeubalskemas, soos dit genoem word, ontwikkel—die ,,snowball schemes”—waarvolgens ’n enkele kapitaalsom by ’n bougenootskap belê is wat dit dan by wyse van ’n wentelingsbelegging en herbelegging in ’n voortdurende subskripsie-aandeel belegging omskep het, wat op sy maksimum van R150 000 per persoon en teen ’n rentekoers van sê 7% aan ’n egpaar ’n belastingvrye inkomste van R21 000 per jaar kon besorg het.

Ek wil nie verder op die detail ingaan nie wat veel eerder onder die Inkomstebelastingwetsontwerp bespreek kan word, behalwe om te sê dat dit vir agb. lede duidelik sal wees dat dit ’n onhoudbare posisie geskep het dat hier ’n belastingvrye belegging van R300 000 per getroude paar ontstaan het in een enkele vorm van belegging, terwyl die somtotaal van die maksimum van alle ander belastingvrye beleggings slegs R94 714 beloop het. Die staande belastingkommissie was dus myns insiens geregverdig in sy aanbeveling dat die maksimum belastingvrye belegging verminder moet word. Daar is tans ’n belastingvrye belegging in spesiale permanente bouverenigingaandele tot ’n maksimum van R10 000 per belastingpligtige, en indien dit die bedoeling was om die dividende op ’n permanente belegging in bouverenigingaandele van meer as R10 000 te gee, is dit voor-die-handliggend dat dit eerder gedoen kan word deur eenvoudig die vrystellingsperk ten opsigte van die permanente aandele te verhoog. Aangesien dit moontlik is dat diegene wat groot bedrae in ,,sneeubal”-skemas belê het, hulle minder aantreklik sal vind wanneer die bestaande belastingvrystelling verminder word, en ook omdat die roterende skema herbeleggings vir 36 maande inhou, is dit denkbaar dat ’n onmiddellike intrekking heelwat ontwrigting kan veroorsaak. Daarbenewens moet beleggers hul posisie in die hg van die uitwerking van intrekking in oënskou neem en daarvolgens besluit hoe hulle hul beleggings wil of moet aanpas.

Soos ek reeds aangedui het, is dit nie die bedoeling om vir die 1981-belastingjaar enige verandering aan te bring nie, en word dit nou voorgestel dat die uitfaseringsprogram soos volg sal verloop: Die 1981-belastingjaar: Geen verandering nie; die volle vrystelling sal nog van toepassing wees. Die 1982-belastingjaar: Dividende tot op ’n maksimum belegging van R100 000 per persoon sal vrygestel wees. Enige dividende op die belegging bo R100 000 per persoon sal, soos ander dividende, gedeeltelik vrygestel wees en nie meer as twee-derdes van sulke dividende sal belas word nie. Die 1983-belastingjaar: Soos vir 1982, behalwe dat dividende op ’n belegging van R50 000 per persoon vrygestel sal word. Die 1984-belastingjaar: Dividende op ’n belegging van R50 000 per belastingpligtige, man en vrou gesamentlik, sal vrygestel wees. Enige dividend op die oormaatbelegging bo R50 000 sal gedeeltelik belasbaar wees soos hierbo verduidelik.

Ek kan miskien net ’n sommetjie maak, Meneer. Veronderstel dat ’n persoon ’n inkomste uit ander bronne van meer as R40 000 per jaar het, die maksimum belegging vir homself en sy vrou in ’n sneeubalskema wat aan hom tans ’n 7% belastingvrye inkomste besorg, d.w.s. 7% op R300 000 (’n R150 000-belegging vir elk van hom en sy vrou) nl. R21 000 en dat hy met die skema voortgaan—7% op R300 000 = R21 000. In die 1981-belastingjaar: Geen verandering nie; R21 000 dividende vry van belasting. 1982-belastingjaar: Vrygestel op 7% op R100 000 vir elkeen van hom en sy vrou, d.w.s. R14 000. Belasbaar op twee-derdes van dividende op balans van belegging van R50 000 elk vir homself en sy vrou, d.w.s. op ⅔ van R7 000 of R4 667. Belasting daarop teen 50% is gelykstaande aan R2 333,50. Die effektiewe belasting op die totale beleggingsinkomste van R21 000 is dus R2 333,50 of 11,1%. In die 1983-belastingjaar: Vrygestel op 7% op R100 000 wat gelyk is aan R7 000; belasbaar op ⅔ van dividend op R200 000 teen 7%, wat gelyk is aan ⅔ van R14 000, wat gelyk is aan R9 333. Die belasting teen 50% is gelyk aan R4 667 of 22,2% op die totale beleggingsinkomste. Laastens, die 1984-belastingjaar: Vrygestel op 7% op R50 000, dit is R3 500 en belasbaar op % van 7% op R250 000 wat gelyk is aan twee-derdes van R17 500 wat R11 667 is. Die belasting teen 50% is dan R5 833, of 27,7% op totale beleggingsinkomste.

So kan ’n mens ander moontlikhede skets, Meneer, waarop ek nie nou wil ingaan nie, behalwe om te sê dat ek vertrou dat hierdie verduideliking beleggers in staat sal stel om die uitwerking van die inkorting van die vrystelling in sy korrekte perspektief te oordeel en dat dit vir hulle duidelik sal wees dat dit hoegenaamd nie vir hulle nodig sal wees om hul belegging in subskripsie-aandele wat R50 000 oorskry, oorhaastig te verander nie. Selfs al behou hulle hul beleggings soos tans, lewer dit nie ’n onaantreklike nabelastingopbrengs nie.

’n Tweede saak wat ek onmiddellik wil opper, is om te verwys na die verslag van die Browne-komitee, m.a.w. die Komitee van Ondersoek na die Finansies van Plaaslike Besture. Dit is so dat hierdie verslag nie ter Tafel gelê is tot op hierdie oomblik nie, maar ek het Vrydag eers die eerste gedrukte verslag in Afrikaans ontvang terwyl die Engelse verslag nog vertaal en gedruk moet word en dus nog nie voorgelê is nie. Omdat dit ’n belangrike aangeleentheid is, meen ek egter dit sal goed wees om net die een en ander aan die Komitee voor te lê. Agb. lede sal miskien dan van die geleentheid wil gebruik maak om by ’n ander gepaste geleentheid die saak te bespreek.

The Committee of Inquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities was appointed by me on 28 January 1976 to report on—

1. (1) the adequacy of the existing sources of revenue of local authorities;
2. (2) the financial and economic adjustments required to obtain a more satisfactory relation between municipal income and expenditure; and
3. (3) the extent to which savings could be effected by the introduction of norms, financial controls and other methods of promoting efficiency.

Subsequently I requested the Committee to pay special attention in their report to the financing problems of local authorities for the non-White population groups.

The Committee has taken some four years to produce a report in three volumes. The printed Afrikaans version of Volume I, as I say, reached me on Friday last. The length of the report has caused delays in translation as well as in the printing of it. I anticipate, however, that the English version of Volume I, which is the important one, will come off the presses within a month or so while Volumes II and III in both languages will in all probability be ready within the next three months. It is my intention to table the Afrikaans version of Volume I as soon as possible and to invite comment from interested parties, and obviously, from hon. members of Parliament.

The report covers an exceptionally wide field and although the Committee has confined itself to matters falling within its terms of reference, it nevertheless points out the effects of economic and certain noneconomic factors on local authority finance. In turn the effects of local authority operations on the national economy are elucidated and the Committee thus sets the whole question of local authority finance in a wide perspective.

The text of the report is presented in Volume I, which comprises a comprehensive analysis of local authority finance as well as the recommendations of the Committee.

Volume II provides a summary of the evidence and the results of specialized investigations; for example, into the organizational structure of municipalities and the application of cost benefit analysis to local authorities.

Volume III contains the detailed statistical data of a special survey of local authorities that was carried out for the purposes of the report. It follows that the information presented in Volumes II and III may be regarded as supporting evidence for the analysis and the recommendations in Volume I.

The nature and scope of the inquiry will, I think, be better appreciated if I draw the attention of hon. members to eight specific aspects of local authority finance which are covered in the report. It so happens that each of these aspects is distinguished by three analytical features, as I shall try to point out.

The first aspect may be associated with the three volumes of the report to which I have already referred, the features of which are the text, the annexures dealing with specialized matters and then the basic statistics.

The second aspect involves the three parts of the main text, that is Volume I, which deal consecutively with background information—that is four chapters; the results of the statistical survey—four chapters; and the terms of reference together with the recommendations—five chapters.

The third part represents the crux of the report because it contains the recommendations of which there are well over one hundred. The recommendations may be distinguished as the third aspect of the whole report, and its features take the form of the three terms of reference.

The fourth aspect comprises analyses of the financing problems of local authorities for the three major population groups, that is to say, Whites, Coloureds and Asians, and Black people. A detailed examination is made of the income and expenditure of local authorities for the various population groups and the need and ability to pay of each group is estimated. The analyses are carried out for two years, i.e. 1977-’78 as base year and 1989-’90 as terminal year when all or most of the non-White local authorities will presumably be able to operate essentially as autonomous institutions. At any rate, that is the basis for the projection which the Committee made.

The fifth aspect involves a comparison between local authorities in South Africa and two types of foreign countries, namely those with more and those with less mature economies. Particular attention is paid to local government in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada. Conditions in Third World countries are also examined. The Committee points out the lessons which may be learnt from the financial problems encountered by local authorities in New York and certain other cities abroad. The report lays great stress on the different financial circumstances and requirements of various local authorities and this represents a further aspect of the inquiry. The statistical data in the report cover 511 local authorities which are allocated to 12 classes for analytical purposes and in the analyses three cross-classifications are consistently distinguished, namely, those of—

1. 1. Municipal type and non-Municipal type authorities.
2. 2. Metropolitan and non-Metropolitan, that is to say, essentially rural authorities; and
3. 3. What they call full status and subsidiary authorities.

The seventh aspect of the report relates to the interrelationships between efficiency, effectiveness and productivity in local government. These concepts are applied to the data and circumstances of local authorities in South Africa. An important finding is that the Town Clerk should assume full managerial responsibility in a local authority, and with this end in view the training of town clerks should be suitably adapted.

The final aspect of the report which is discussed in the last chapter is the relationships between the three tiers of government, namely, the central Government, the provincial administrations and the local authorities. The Committee is of the opinion that the three-tier level of government has served the country well although certain arrangements could be improved. And they have something to say about that.

There are a number of specific aspects of the report which the Committee may be interested in. I shall be very brief. The first concerns the adequacy of the existing sources of revenue of municipal type authorities which represents the first point of the terms of reference. The Committee deals with four major aspects of the question, as follows. I had some doubt as to how far I should go today because obviously the Committee is at a disadvantage. It has not seen the report. However, I do this merely to give information which I hope the Committee may find useful and we can obviously come back to our views about what we should do. We would obviously like to have the views of hon. members from both sides about that as well. As I say, the Committee deals with four major aspects of the question, as follows—

1. 1. The assistance for the provision of better and more extensive services, in particular sewerage schemes, abattoir facilities, fresh produce markets and urban transport. That is in chapter 10.
2. 2. Financial relief on specific services especially non-White housing, fire brigades, health services, roads, water provision and the question of the continuous expansion of local authority responsibilities. That appears in section 10(8) of chapter 10.
3. 3. Financial exemptions, firstly from taxation imposed by the central Government. That is to say, sales tax, customs and excise duties and fuel tax, and, secondly, the converse case, namely taxation imposed by local authorities on the central Government via property rates. That is in section 10(9) of chapter 10.
4. 4. Additional revenue sources in particular a larger share of motor licence revenue receipts from transfer and stamp duties, the levy on fuel tax, trade licences extending over a wider income basis, a local business income tax, a wage or employee tax, a tourist tax on hotels, etc., entertainment tax, a professional betting tax, local personal income tax, an electricity tax and an impost on the general sales tax. That is in section 10(10) of chapter 10.

I must mention that this does not mean to say that the Committee necessarily feels that we must introduce all these things. It is weighing them up and doing so in a very thorough way.

In a terrifying way.

Ek wil nie my agb. vriend daar afskrik nie want hierdie is ’n nuttige verslag en myns insiens word dit baie deeglik gedoen.

As u van ’n belasting hoor, dan kan u dit nie weerstaan nie!

Nee, Meneer, ek is besig om belastings te verminder soos my agb. vriend weet.

Die komitee verskaf ’n oorwoë uiteensetting van die voor- en nadele van die aanvulling van die inkomste van munisipale tipe owerhede uit elk van bogemelde bronne en kom dan tot die slotsom dat betekenisvolle toegewings in meeste gevalle nie op die huidige tydstip in die beste belang van die land sal wees nie. In hierdie verband word daar onder andere verwys na die bevinding dat daar nie rede is om te glo dat die rol van munisipale tipe owerhede in die landsekonomie te klein is nie. Die komitee skenk egter aandag aan alle denkbare gevalle waar munisipale owerhede weens omstandighede wat buite hulle beheer van in finansiële verknorsing kan beland en formuleer dan voorstelle wat finansiële verligting ten opsigte van die volgende in die vooruitsig stel. Hierdie is bereken vir die jaar 1977-’78 en is dus die 1977-’78 pryse. Ek noem net ’n paar: (a) Die aanvulling van die oordragbetalings vanaf Blanke na Kleurling- en Asiër-owerhede ten bedrae van R5 miljoen per jaar mits sodanige Nieblanke owerhede ingestel word; (b) Sekere rioleringskemas waarop die subsidies tot R20 miljoen per jaar kan beloop; (c) Openbare vervoerdienste waarop die piaaslike owerhede jaarlikse verliese van R17,l miljoen geheel of gedeeltelik behoort te kan uitwis met inagneming van die subsidies wat ingevolge die Driessen-verslag beskikbaar gestel word; (d) Die rasionalisering van die subsidies op brandweer wat die plaaslike owerhede R1 miljoen per jaar sal kan besorg; (e) Besparing op kliniek- en verwante gesondheidsdienste wat moontlik R1,7 miljoen per jaar sal bedra; (f) Besparing op ambulansdienste van minstens R3,4 miljoen per jaar; en (g) ’n Bykomstige R538 000 per jaar ten opsigte van die gedeeltelike vergoeding van plaaslike owerhede vir die nie-betaling van eiendomsbelasting deur die Staat mits die grondslag van vergoeding gewysig word soos voorgestel.

Meneer, hierdie syfers is syfers wat verband hou met sekere veronderstellings t.o.v. grootte en dies meer en hou verband met die jaar 1977-78.

Benewens bogemelde beveel die komitee aan dat die limiete op lenings deur die plaaslike leningsfonds verhoog moet word en dat die Skatkis onder sekere omstandighede bykomstige lenings aan kleiner plaaslike owerhede beskikbaar kan stel.

Agb. lede sal besef dat ek in die tyd tot my beskikking geensins ’n volledige beeld van die inhoud van die verslag kan weergee nie. Daar is egter menige aspekte wat ek nie genoem het nie en wat van landsbelang is, in besonder die voorstelle van die komitee oor Nieblanke behuising. Ek het min twyfel dat die verslag vir lange jare ’n vrugbare bron van inligting vir vele sal wees. Die Regering sal so gou doenlik die verslag in oorweging neem en binne afsienbare tyd moontlik ’n Witskrif daaroor opstel nadat die menings van belanghebbende partye ontvang is.

Dit is vir my ’n genoeë om my opregte waardering te boeketaaf vir die diepgaande en omvattende werk wat die komitee gelewer het en my innige dank kom dr. Browne en die ander komiteelede toe. Hulle is dr. J. C. du Plessis van die Reserwebank wat ’n reuse-aandeel in hierdie studie gehad het, mnr. Mickey Van der Walt van die Departement van Binnelandse Inkomste, mnr. Dirk Odendaal van Doeane en Aksyns, mnr. Schickerling, die Ouditeur-generaal—hy was juis hoof van Binnelandse Inkomste toe hy aangestel is—en die Sekretaris, mnr. Dednam van die Departement van Finansies.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, baie dankie vir hierdie geleentheid. Ek wil nie nou meer tyd opneem nie, en sien uit na die debat.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour. In the first instance, I should like to say that to some extent I envy the hon. the Minister of Finance the talent that he has available to him to assist him in his task. I say I envy him, but to some extent I also share with him, because this is talent that is available to the country. When I look at the officials some of whom he mentioned and some of whom he did not mention, I think he should regard himself as a very fortunate Minister of Finance to have the calibre of individual who is available to him to serve and assist him in this regard. I think the country also is lucky that it has a tradition of very high calibre officials in the Reserve Bank, in the Department of Finance generally, in the Treasury, in the Department of Inland Revenue, in Customs and in the Department of the Auditor-General. I think we actually do not appreciate how fortunate we are in this regard. I join with the hon. the Minister in wishing the new Director-General, Dr. De Loor, well in his task with this new construction of the department. I also join him in wishing well the new head of the Treasury as well as the other people in the respective offices they have achieved. I am particularly also pleased that Dr. Simon Brand is in this team, if I may use the word. It is a very powerful team. I thank these officials for the service they are rendering and I believe the country is greatly indebted to them. Part of the reason for the financial success of some of the policies which are being implemented is the high calibre of the officials that we have.

If I may react immediately to some of the matters which the hon. the Minister has raised, I should like to deal with the last one first, i.e. the Browne Committee. I have never before actually experienced an occasion where a Minister has so sought to wet the appetite of his audience and at the same time disclosed so very little. I must say to the hon. the Minister that I am disappointed that this report was not tabled in time so that it could be fully debated here. The hon. the Minister knows that the Third Reading debate is inevitably taken up with political matters and that there is very little opportunity during this session of Parliament to really debate this. Having listened carefully to the hon. the Minister, I have come to two conclusions. The first is that he, as I indicated by listing all the possible means of taxation, has to be very careful that the wrong impression is not created with the public that we will have a mass of new forms of taxation which will be imposed on the public. I think that would be a very unfortunate result of not publishing the report in full, but rather seeking to project extracts. The second conclusion to which I have come is, if I have understood him correctly, that the recommendations of the Committee are that there will be very little relief for local authorities. I must tell the hon. the Minister that if that is correct, I am very unhappy.

As I understood the hon. the Minister—I wrote his words down—there cannot be meaningful concessions expected at this stage. That worries me very seriously, because the truth is that there are many local authorities whose financial plight is causing grave concern. Let me go further. There are very many people who are detecting a deterioration in the ordinary services to which they have become used in the community in which we live. There are people living in the areas of big local authorities who are complaining about the cleansing service, the rubbish removal service, the state of pavements, the state of roads and, generally, about the standard of services to which they have become accustomed over the years. The burden is falling on the ratepayer. The ratepayer is paying increased sums of money and the standard of the services to him is in fact deteriorating. This is causing concern to all ordinary residents in the areas of local authorities in South Africa. That is why it is—I should like to stress this with the hon. the Minister—essential that this report be made public at the earliest opportunity. It is essential that there shall be no misunderstandings about this report. It is also essential that the public know where the Government stands on this issue. I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that before any White Paper setting out the Government’s attitude is tabled, there should be the highest degree of consultation particularly with the recognized organs of local government in South Africa, such as the United Municipal Executive and the various municipal associations. There should be full consultation with local authorities in regard to this matter and there should be full public debate on the report before the government finally commits itself to a particular course.

There is one other matter to which I should like to draw attention at this stage. If I understand Government policy correctly, it has accepted a concept of decentralization of authority, in other words, there will be more decentralized authorities in South Africa so that the degree of local government, in the broad sense of the word, will become greater as time goes on. In other words, in accordance with government policy more people will be governing themselves to the maximum extent possible in the future. If that is a correct analysis of where the Government is heading, the whole concept of alternative sources of revenue for local authorities becomes absolutely vital and becomes a matter that will determine whether this policy can succeed or not.

The other matter which is ancillary to this, is the question of the townships, particularly Black urban townships, which are essentially dormant townships. They are towns or townships or cities without industry, without major business centres, without the substantial sources of revenue which other local authorities have. It is all very well that they will now get, as we want them to get, the services, the capital outlays on electricity, on sewerage in a more effective form, on all the modern amenities of local Government. All of us have asked for this and all of us want them. I do not believe there is division between those in this Committee on this matter. However, the issue will be how those services are to be financed.

How will these dormant towns be able to bear the burden not of the initial capital cost, because that can come from central Government, but the cost of maintaining these services because with their residents and the level of income that they have in those areas these local authorities will find it very difficult to finance the level of services we wish them to have in the orthodox manner in which local authorities have financed their services up to now. I believe this is one of the major problems that have to be faced by Government and one of the major issues that we have to deal with in South Africa. As I see it, the sooner this matter is dealt with, the sooner we become aware of the report, the sooner the consultation takes place and the sooner a Government decision is made, the better it will be for local government in South Africa.

I should now like to turn to the question of the subscription shares which the hon. the Minister has dealt with. I must say that I have some grave difficulty with the reasoning the hon. the Minister advanced in his budget speech and the reasoning which he advances today. One of the major things that he said—I quote from what he initially said in his budget speech—is—

That is the concession of R150 000 per person—

The hon. the Minister has made the same point again today. However, what I find remarkable is that if these amounts which can be invested with the Post Office and in Treasury bonds are inadequate, it should be held up as a reason why subscription shares should be tackled. Is it in fact not a reason why the maximum amount that may be invested tax free with Government bodies should be increased in order to be more competitive. I say, with respect to the hon. the Minister, that if he looks at the limits of the amounts which one is entitled to invest, for example, in Post Office savings certificates, in national saving certificates and in the 7% Treasury bonds, he will see that the level of tax free investments in Post Office savings certificates has been kept at R10 000 for many years and utterly ignores the inflation which has taken place. The same can be said of National Savings Certificates. If anything, the tendency has been to make fewer tax-free investments available through the Treasury rather than more tax-free investments through the Treasury. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give consideration to his own argument in reverse, namely, that he will actually see to it that the Government issues more tax-free investments to the ordinary saver. If that is done the old argument as to whether there is competition from the subscription shares to Government investment falls away. The remedy is in his hands. It is he and the Government who decide what the tax-free investment should be and he can remedy that without any difficulty. To suggest because some people have abused the snowball scheme and have perhaps indulged in other abuses that that is a reason for killing the whole system, is something which I, with great respect, do not believe. There are a couple of matters in this regard which we should submit to the hon. the Minister.

Firstly, we believe that the concept of the individual investor in respect of tax-free matters as opposed to the taxpayer should be maintained. In other words, there should be a system in terms of which you may have exactly the same thing as you have with Post Office Savings Certificates. Post Office Savings Certificates and National Savings Certificates are not per taxpayer but per person. I believe that the same principle should be applied to all tax-free investments. This should also be the case for all subscription shares.

Secondly, there are many people, especially aged people, who have arranged their affairs in such a manner that they rely upon this income in the manner in which it has been set out. It is not fair to them—I am talking particularly about the aged—at a time when inflation is still running high, at a time when interest rates are relatively low and they have made provision for their own old age, that suddenly the Fiscus should come along and say: Your standard of living is being cut a little further now and you are going to have to pay tax on your investment which you planned you should not do in your old age. There should be some further protection in respect of existing shares and in particular in respect of those people who are, say, over the age of 60 who have made this kind of provision and who are in this category. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, particularly in respect of the aged who have had a raw deal with inflation and falling interest rates over a long period of time, to see to it that something is done to assist them.

The third matter the hon. the Minister dealt with was the broad state of the economy. I would like to come back to this and then to proceed from that point. The hon. the Minister said completely correctly in broad terms that things were going fairly well with the South African economy. I think he stated it perhaps a little more strongly than I am doing now. However, there are matters which do give us cause for concern and to which attention should be given in this context. I do not believe that we can continue a situation where we believe that everything in the garden is rosy.

Firstly, I think that the economic position of some of our major trading partners gives cause for very great concern. Particularly when it comes to our export markets and our current balance of payments, account one cannot ignore what is going on in the economy of some of our major trading partners which will undoubtedly have an influence on the current account of our balance of payments in the period that lies ahead, and particularly on exports.

Secondly, I do not believe that we can ignore world instability. I have already spoken in the House this year on this subject. I said that the unstable condition of the world had brought us to a situation where we were in very similar circumstances to the period immediately before the Second World War. One thing is clear. We may say that we make our own decisions in regard to what our future is, and that is perfectly proper, but we will not remain unscathed by world instability and by the deterioration of world situations. There is no doubt that the world has not for a very long time been in as unstable a position as it is at this moment in time. We have to take this into account.

Thirdly, we still have as a major problem in South Africa the question of employment, or relatively, unemployment. We have the problem of a shortage of skills at the same time as we have a surplus of labour. This is a problem we are going to have to deal with and to get to grips with.

Fourthly, I want to say that our whole economic position depends to a considerable extent on the political situation in South Africa. Here again I think one has to be fair and say that one detects overtones on the political scene in South Africa in regard to potential for instability which again give one grounds for concern. I want to say so that there is no misunderstanding that I believe that South Africa has to enter into a period of very fundamental change, of changes in regard to our living standards, of changes in regard to the conditions of living of other people in South Africa, in a very dramatic manner. But such periods are periods of instability and the one thing that has to be made sure of is that when you are in this period of change, this period of dramatic change, you also maintain stability in your country and that you do not allow the people who want to turn to violence to destroy your chance of peaceful change.

There are many people who do not want change in South Africa to be brought about by peaceful means. Those are the people who will seek to exploit the situation of instability which comes about in any period of change. Do not be surprised either when you do make changes that people do not sit back and say that they are satisfied with the changes. The reality of life and history shows that change is a self-consuming thing. Change requires more change and it is a never-ending process. However, it is a process in which you have to maintain stability. If we are going to have a sound economy in South Africa we will also have to get to grips—I am not making political submissions in this debate because I want to keep it on a financial and economic basis—with the reality that change is a necessity in South Africa but that stability is as important as change. The two go hand in hand. Change without stability is going to achieve nothing and stability without change will not solve the problems of South Africa either.

The other factor which I think is one we cannot ignore in the economy at the moment is the question of inflation. When the hon. the Minister made his budget speech he recognized the serious threat of inflation and announced a seven-point plan to combat it. But inflation continues at unacceptably high rates. This is causing serious hardship for the lower income groups. It is eroding the effects of the salary increases and the tax concessions. It is also hampering the general growth of the economy. The April increase and the overall CPI was 1,19%, which is equivalent to an annual rate of 14,28%, whereas the increase in the lower income group was 1,83%, equivalent to an annual rate of 21,96%. This is a tremendous rate. The food index alone rose by 2,27%, equivalent to a massive annual rate of 27,24%. The hardship for the lower income group is quite obvious from the figures I have quoted. While one naturally hopes and expects that such rates will not continue for the remainder of the year, it is obvious that many price increases are still in the pipeline. The pressure on the wage front continues, Sir, and the possibility of demand-pull inflation in the latter part of this year as consumer demand builds up and local capacity is unable to meet such demands is a very real threat. Prices of imported goods are rising at almost double the rate at which the prices of local goods are increasing so the inflation picture looks ominous and rates in the vicinity of 15% and even more are being forecast by some economists.

The questions which the hon. the Minister must answer today are firstly, is he doing enough to combat the rising living costs in South Africa. Secondly, is anything of real consequence being done to alleviate the hardships of the lower income groups. I would like to take him up on his own seven-point plan. Firstly, the indications are that Government spending is not going to be kept within the constraints stated in his own budget speech, and even now it looks as if we can anticipate additional estimates of some considerable magnitude when eventually we have to deal with these estimates.

Secondly, the country is reaping the whirlwind of years of Government failure in the field of the greater utilization of manpower and of training in the vocational field. The effect of the recent policy changes which we supported, as the hon. the Minister knows, will take years to work their way into the system. Skilled and semi-skilled labour bottlenecks will continue to hamper growth and encourage inflation, because these steps were not anticipated and not dealt with early enough.

Thirdly, while the rand has hardened against other currencies since the beginning of the year, with imported goods rising at the rate of about 29% at the present moment, it seems to us that it should be allowed to float up further. This would in fact help to fight inflation in South Africa.

Fourthly, a flow of imports to off-set the inability of local industry to meet demand would alleviate to some extent the danger of demand-pull inflation, but with the price rises in respect of imported goods of the magnitude I have just mentioned, inflation will still be accelerated by such imported goods. That is why the strength of the rand becomes so important in this context.

Fifthly, the hon. the Minister announced—and we welcomed it, having asked for it—the abolition of the import levies, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that one gains the impression that the public is not receiving the benefit of this and that little is being done by the authorities to ensure that when there are concessions of this nature, the matter is monitored in order to ensure that the public gets the benefit and that this does not merely result in higher profits for the traders and importers as reflected in the balance sheets of some.

On the sixth point, in regard to which the hon. the Minister dealt with the question of exploitation, a number of questions have been asked in Parliament relating to monopolies and relating to trade practices. Those reinforce the view that we have that the Government is in fact doing very little to avoid consumer exploitation. Much more is required in that regard.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister said—and I quote from his budget speech—

But no sooner had the hon. the Minister said this than the contrary occurred and the country was hit by increases in administered prices one after another; and not only have the price increases already been implemented, but in fact inflationary expectations have been raised by the announcement of intended increases in respect of administered prices. So the case against the Government for its failure on the hon. the Minister’s own seven-point plan is to my mind proven and established.

The second aspect is the question of the relief the hon. Minister is giving to those most adversely affected by inflation. Here there are even more glaring gaps in Government action. The continued imposition of general sales tax on the essentials of life, particularly foodstuffs, is in our view utterly wrong in a society where there are such vast income gaps. This form of indirect taxation in other societies, where there are not such vast gaps, is quite different, but in our society with these vast gaps it does not appear to be correct, and I argue, Sir, that it constitutes a major hardship.

Secondly, Sir, the Government’s attitude which has caused the prices of certain essential foodstuffs, prices which are administered by the Government, e.g. the maize price—and we can go back to the old brown bread argument—is utterly unacceptable to us because these price increases hit the lower income groups, the people who can least afford it.

Thirdly—and I have raised this with the hon. the Minister time and time again—the Government has failed utterly to provide a savings media to protect the savings of the aged against inflation. The case for an index bond for the aged to enable them to make this provision is to my mind unanswerable but the Government in its stubbornness refuses to assist the people who want to save for their own old age. They are continuously being told in the House—and I am certain that at this moment or within the next hour or so the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions will say this—that it is not the Government’s function to provide completely for aged people; people must save for themselves, they must provide for themselves. Yet, while saying that, the Government is not providing them with a savings medium which protects them against inflation.

The hon. the Minister has also said that he is exercising restraint in respect of Government expenditure. But we have seen no sign that the hon. the Minister has sought to exercise any restraint on State controlled public corporations, on State supervised bodies. There has been no degree of constraint in respect of any of those. It is all very well saying that one is controlling Government expenditure—and, as I have said, there is some doubt about that—when in fact that is the situation with the public bodies for which the Government has a responsibility.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in our view the Government has failed the people on the issue of inflation, and that we require action to be taken in order to deal with that issue.

While we are dealing with the hardships of the under-privileged people, I should like to refer to housing. There have recently been some quite frightening statements which have emanated from the Sapoa conference in respect of rent rises which are anticipated. I quote from a report which has appeared in virtually every newspaper in the country—

I do not need to mention his name. He went into great detail and said—

Can you imagine the reaction this has on the ordinary individual who is living in his-flat, paying his way, working his way in South Africa, to have this situation? One thing is clear, namely that at the present moment there is little new flat building in South Africa, except perhaps in the high income areas, and this despite the absence of rent control on new buildings for many, many years.

Somewhere a balance must be struck between a reasonable return for landlords and a rental which tenants can afford. If this is not done then I venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the State will have to bear an ever-increasing burden of providing housing for the people. That I believe is contrary to the Minister’s approach in respect of private enterprise. The problems are of such a nature that in lower income group areas flats are not built, even where sites are available for next to nothing. I believe that in some measure the answer lies in the tax structure. There was a problem in South Africa in regard to the building of hotels. Concessions were made in regard to hotels, fiscal incentives were given, and that problem was overcome to a considerable extent. I believe that if allowances are granted, in the same way as they were granted to hotels, to encourage the building of flats for the lower and middle income groups, that if we give investment allowances and depreciation allowances on buildings for these groups this will change the picture and will make investment in this type of building a far more realistic proposition. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, die rustige atmosfeer waarin ons vanmiddag verkeer, laat ’n mens amper dink aan ’n direksiekamer waar besluite geneem en oordele gevel moet word oor finansiële beleid. Dit is seker goed dat wanneer ’n mens oor so ’n belangrike saak soos finansies praat, dat jy baie rustig sal wees en nie opgewonde sal raak nie, en sover moontlik ook die politiek so ’n bietjie ter syde sal stel.

Ek wil my baie graag aansluit by die agb. Minister en ook by die agb. lid vir Yeoville en my gelukwense bring aan die personeel wie se name hier gemeld is. Dit is so dat ons baie gelukkig is en baie trots is op die sterk span wat die agb. Minister rondom homself versamel het. Ons wil ook daarby voeg die Ouditeur-generaal en sy personeel wat ook baie waardevolle dienste aan hierdie Parlement lewer. Wat die Minister se eie posisie betref, wil ek dadelik sê dat ons baie bly is oor die verklaring wat ons vanmiddag van hom gekry het. Ons hoop dat sy dienste nog lank vir ons beskikbaar sal wees want hierdie agb. Minister van ons het ’n statusfiguur van wêreld formaat geword. Dit blyk uit die uitnodiging wat hy so pas gehad het om ’n internasionale konferensie in Havanna te open. Ek dink Suid-Afrika is …

Waar was u mnr. die Minister? Hy sê u was in Havanna?

Bahamas!

Baie jammer, Meneer, ek bedoel die Bahamas. Ek dink Suid-Afrika is baie trots op hierdie Minister.

Die agb. lid vir Yeoville het ’n hele aantal sake aangeroer waaroor ek nie met hom wil twis nie. Ek dink die punte wat hy aangeroer het is wesenlike punte van belang. Wat die Browne-komitee se verslag betref, dink ek nie ons kan nou uitspraak daaroor gee nie, want ons het nog nie die verslag ter insae gehad nie. Ek het net so in die stilligheid gehoop dat die agb. Minister vir ons sou meedeel dat daar iets in die verslag staan oor die Afdelingsraadbelasting wat vir Kaapland so ’n doring in die vlees is. Ek hoop regtig dat daar êrens in die verslag staan dat daardie belasting afgeskaf behoort te word. Dit sal my baie groot plesier verskaf.

Die ander sake wat deur die agb. lid vir Yeoville geopper is, is sake van wesenlike belang, soos ek reeds gesê het, behalwe dat ek nie met hom kan saamstem dat hierdie party nie genoegsame veranderings aanbring om die nodige vrede en stabiliteit in die land te bewerkstellig nie. Hier by my het ek ’n artikel wat handel oor buitelandse beleggings in Suid-Afrika. Hier word ’n hele reeks van redes aangevoer waarom Suid-Afrika op die oomblik ’n belangrike en baie gesogte beleggingsveld in die wêreld is. Terwyl die agb. lid gepraat het, het ek ’n paar syfers gemaak. Ek het nie minder nie as 12—dit is nou nie noodwendig die 12-punt-plan van die Eerste Minister nie—punte van verandering, nie net op die politieke terrein nie, maar ook op die finansiële terrein, aangestip wat oor die afgelope tyd aangebring is en wat daartoe bydra dat Suid-Afrika vandag ’n baie belangrike beleggingsveld is. As die tyd my toelaat sal ek aanstons daarby terugkom.

Ons het ’n jaar gehad om die beleid van die Regering met betrekking tot sy valutabeheerbeleid te beoordeel en ons het ’n jaar gehad om sy wisselkoersbeleid te beoordeel. Ek wil vir u sê, Meneer, dat die rigting wat ons ’n jaar gelede ingeslaan het, groot sukses afgewerp het. Volgens die Business Environment Risk Index het SuidAfrika binne ’n jaar se tyd opgeskuiwe van 19de tot 12de plek as ’n land waar beleggingsmoontlikhede goed is. Hierdie indeks wat opgestel is met betrekking tot 45 vooraanstaande lande sluit slegs ’n stuk of vyf Afrikalande in. Dit plaas die Republiek bokant lande soos Swede, Denemarke, die Verenigde Koninkryk, Frankryk, Israel, Argentië en Italië, om die res nie almal te noem nie. Die land in Afrika wat naaste aan Suid-Afrika kom, is die olieryke Nigerië wat maar 32ste op die lys is. Wat word deur hierdie indeks in aanmerking geneem by die bepaling van ’n land as ’n aantreklike beleggingsveld? Eerstens, politieke bestendigheid. Niemand kan met ons twis nie, dat ten spyte van ons interne probleme daar ’n groot mate van politieke bestendigheid in die afgelope tyd in Suid-Afrika is. Hier is vrede. ’n Tweede belangrike maatstaf wat aangelê word, is ekonomiese groei en ontwikkeling. Niemand kan daaroor twis nie. Die derde norm wat aangelê word is ekonomiese beleid en daaronder val die beklemtoning op die vrye markstelsel—dit word baie hoog gestel—en die eweredige verspreiding van belastingdruk. As ’n mens kyk na die belastinghervormingsprogram waarmee ons in die afgelope tyd besig is, wys dit vir ons dat dit ook in die buiteland deurgewerk het en dat dit een van die redes vorm waarom Suid-Afrika vandag ’n gesogte beleggingsveld is.

Die grondslae wat vir ’n vrye valutamark gelê is, word aangegee as ’n baie belangrike norm en deur die instelling van ’n vryer finansiële rand weet ons dat dit baie bygedra het tot die geweldige indruk wat Suid-Afrika op die finansiële wêreld gemaak het. Met die moontlikheid dat Suid-Afrika in 1980 nog miskien die hoogste groeikoers ter wêreld sal hê—ek sien daar is so ’n moontlikheid—glo ek dat ons land se beleggingsstatus nog hoër kan opskuif. Ons kan nou reeds, onafhanklik van goud, vir ons invoere betaal. Die rand het reeds oor ’n periode van een jaar met ongeveer 8% verstewig en die masjinerie is geskep om die waarde daarvan te beheer deur middel van die Reserwebank. Ons het alle rede om baie optimisties te wees oor ons internasionale finansiële status, maar—en hier stem ek met die agb. lid vir Yeoville saam—dit sal in ’n baie groot mate ook afhang van die finansiële status van ons handelsvennote. Want ek dink persoonlik dat ons ons nou moet toespits op uitvoerbevordering eerder as op invoervervanging en ons sal ernstige aandag moet gee aan produktiwiteitsverhoging. Beide die openbare en die private sektor sal ernstige aandag hieraan moet gee, want hiermee saam hang die hele probleem van inflasie wat deur die agb. lid vir Yeoville geopper is en waarvoor hy ook nie vir ons ’n antwoord aangebied het nie.

Wat die openbare sektor betref, is dit so dat daar deur die Regering begin is met ’n proses van rasionalisering van die Staatsdiens. Ek sou graag hieroor ’n paar woorde wil sê as die tyd my toelaat. Uit die Witskrif wat ter tafel gelê is oor die rasionalisering van die Staatsdiens, blyk dit baie duidelik dat die verandering van die begrotingstelsel na ’n stelsel van doelwitbegroting waarmee die Tesourie reeds in 1976 begin het en wat in der waarheid ’n rasionaliseringsaksie was, eintlik die groter rasionaliseringsproses, waarmee ons nou besig is, vooruit was. Met dié aksie is só suksesvol gevorder dat daar slegs nog vyf departemente is wat nog nie oorgeskakel is nie. Ons wil die Tesourie gelukwens met die goeie vordering wat in die verband gemaak is met die ontwikkeling en die implementering van die doelwitbegrotingstelsels of, soos dit vandag genoem word, die finansiële bestuurstelsel.

Die woord ,,finansiële bestuurstelsel” dui, na my mening, aan dat dit die Staatsdiens erns is om ook die Staat se finansies op ’n sakegrondslag te bestuur. [Tyd verstreke.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, die agb. lid vir Malmesbury, as voorsitter van ons finansiële studiegroep, het ’n baie verantwoordelike toespraak vanmiddag gehou oor die Suid-Afrikaanse beleggingsmoontlikhede, asook oor die rol wat die nasionalisasie van die Staatsdiens in ons finansiële sake speel. Ons dank hom daarvoor, en ons ken hom ook so.

Ek wil vanmiddag oor twee sake gesels wat ons land se finansiële posisie raak, nl. die rol van die Krugerrand en die rol van goud. Die Krugerrand is vandag die wêreld se bekendste goue muntstuk en die beleggers het sekerlik meer vertroue in hierdie muntstuk as in enige ander land se goue munte. Die rede hiervoor lê in die konsep van die Kmgerrand as ’n wettige betaal-muntstuk. Dit het geen sigwaarde nie en dit weeg presies 1 trooions suiwergoud. Die Kmgerrand is presies tien jaar gelede vir die eerste keer op die Paasskou vertoon en aan die publiek bekend gestel. Eienaardig genoeg, by daardie eerste bekendstelling was die publiek nie eintlik entoesiasties nie en het min belangstelling getoon in die Kmgerrand.

Sedert die introduksie van die Kmgerrand word al hoe meer goud in hierdie vorm verkoop. In 1970 is 211 000 Krugerrande verkoop en danksy die bemarking, hoofsaaklik deur Intergoud, het hierdie getal in 1979 gestyg tot 4 940 000. In 1978, ’n rekordjaar, is 6 miljoen Kmgerrande verkoop wat dan ook 26% van Suid-Afrika se goudproduksie verteenwoordig. Die basiese beginsel om Krugerrande te munt was in die eerste plek om goud in die besit van soveel private persone as moontlik te plaas, om sodoende te verseker dat ’n groter persentasie mense dwarsdeur die wêreld belang het by goud en die prys daarvan. Daar is ook beoog dat dit ’n goeie belegging vir die private persoon moet wees. In die tweede plek was dit ’n wyse waarop goud in ’n gerieflike en ’n redelike goedkoop vorm aan die publiek aangebied kon word, en derdens, sou dit verseker dat goud deur individue opgegaar word en dat dit nie makhk op groot skaal verkoop sou word nie.

Die verkope van Kmgerrande het bewys dat dit die wêreld se populêrste goudbelegging vir die gemiddelde persoon is. As ’n mens kyk na die styging in die goudprys, is dit baie duidelik waarom die Krugerrand so ’n goeie belegging is. Dit gee vir ’n mens waardevermeerdering en winsgewendheid. In Maart 1970 was die prys van die Krugerrand R27,24; in Maart 1980 was dit R511,06, met ander woorde, ’n persentasiestyging van 1 776%. Ek glo nie daar is enige ander kommoditeit of besigheid wat so ’n belegging kan verseker of ooit gelewer het nie.

Mense en instansies wil vandag waarde vir hul geld hê en hul wil verseker dat hul gelde in waarde toeneem. Deur goud te koop en in Krugerrande te belê, slaag die belegger daarin om goeie wins op sy belegging te maak, maar dit is ook ’n metode om inflasie te kniehalter.

Waar daar in Suid-Afrika slegs 2 000 goue muntstukke per week beskikbaar gestel word vir die Suid-Afrikaanse mark, kan dit oorweeg word om meer goue munte in SuidAfrika beskikbaar te stel. Miskien kan die agb. Minister meer inligting hieroor verskaf, want ons is bewus dat daar alreeds onderhandelings met die departement is oor hierdie kwessie.

Die ander afdeling nl. goud, is ’n baie belangrike kommoditeit vir Suid-Afrika. Wat olie betref, het Suid-Afrika tot dusver nog nie daarin geslaag om ru-olie te ontdek nie, maar ons is darem geseënd om goue olie te hê, naamlik goud. As ons trouens na die wêreld se goudproduksie kyk, blyk dit dat Suid-Afrika besonder geseënd is. In 1977 byvoorbeeld was Suid-Afrika verantwoordelik vir 72% van die Westerse wêreld se goudproduksie en vir 58% van dié van die wêreld as geheel. Wat reserwes betref, speel Suid-Afrika ’n ewe belangrike rol. Suid-Afrika het in 1977 in die Westerse wêreld 93% van die goudreserwes gehou en 78% van dié van die wêreld as geheel.

Alhoewel die goudproduksie afgeneem het van 1 miljoen kg in 1970 na 720 000 kg in 1979, het die fisiese bedrywighede gemeet in tonne gouderts bewerk, toegeneem. Die direkte bydrae van die goudmynbedryf bestaande uit salarisse, lone en bedryfsurplus het die bruto binnelandse produk laat styg van 5,7% in 1970 tot 9,5% in 1979. Daarbenewens het ons in die begroting van die afgelope jaar gesien dat goud ’n belangrike rol in ons betalingsbalans speel. Indien die goudprys in 1979 dieselfde sou gebly het as in 1978, sou die oorskot op die lopende rekening slegs R1 000 miljoen gewees het, maar danksy die styging in die goudprys was daar ’n oorskot van R3 107 miljoen.

Goud het deur die eeue nog altyd ’n belangrike en vername rol gespeel, selfs gedurende en.voor die Bybelse tyd, en ons glo dat goud ook wat die toekoms betref nog ’n belangrike rol sal speel, nie net as betaalmiddel nie, maar ook as beleggingsmiddel. In ’n wêreld van stygende inflasie en onsekere betaalmiddele is goud die enigste onafhanklike maatstaf van blywende waarde. Die metaal het homself gevestig in die internasionale monetêre stelsel en dit is nog steeds ’n unieke kommoditeit wat in die juweliers- en ander bedrywe onvervangbaar is.

In die korttermyn mag die prys van goud skommel, maar in ’n wêreld van stygende inflasie, politieke en ekonomiese onsekerhede en wantroue in papiergeld, is daar vertroue in die langtermyn-vooruitsigte dat die prys van goud stabiel sal bly en selfs heelwat sal styg. Hoe hoër die Opec-lande die olieprys opstoot, hoe hoër styg die goudprys, en hoe hoër ons belastinginkomste uit goud, hoe gouer kan Suid-Afrika sorg dat ons onafhanklik van die olielande word deur meer Sasol’s te bou en geld beskikbaar te stel vir navorsing om vir plaasvervangers vir olie te sorg.

Aangesien nagenoeg 86% van Suid-Afrika se bruto goud en buitelandse reserwes uit goud bestaan, gee dit aan Suid-Afrika opnuut aansien binne die internasionale gemeenskap, juis in ’n tyd wanneer soveel onsekerheid heers ten opsigte van die vertroue in papierreserwes.

Die wêreld het die nuwe dekade ingegaan onder ’n donker wolk van politieke en ekonomiese onsekerhede en omwentelinge. Daarteenoor het die prys van goud gestyg en dien dit as ’n barometer van die funksie wat hy vervul. Die vraag is of die politieke en ekonomiese onsekerheid gedurende 1980 gaan voortduur. Meneer, wat ook al die antwoord gaan wees, dit is duidelik dat die tagtigerjare ’n besige tydperk vir die goudmark gaan wees.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was talking about gold. I don’t think any South African can fail to have a rush of blood to his head when people start talking about gold. It means so much to us and our country that we are proud of having it. We love to have it and we are so happy that the Lord put it here and that we have it. I have no more to say to the hon. member than that, Sir. I was interested in what he said and wholeheartedly support it.

The hon. member for Malmesbury dealt with the fact that South Africa will have and has potentially one of the highest growth rates in the world. I think that is correct, and this is probably the most exciting country in the world today. While the more developed nations are quite obviously slipping towards a recession and while they have to contend with spiralling inflation and political problems such as trade union activities—conditions that are bedevilling the whole of the Western world—we have a political problem, and that is the relationship between White and Black. But in my view we are on our way towards solving this problem, and obviously the test of the future is going to be whether we are able to solve this problem or not. But at the same time everything in the world is going for us. Not only from an investment point of view but from a political point of view and in every way, South Africa is the most exciting country in the world, and I agree with what the hon. member for Malmesbury said. He also referred to ,,die rastige en kalme atmosfeer” here, and I agree. This is a lovely Chamber and I often envy the hon. the Minister for having spent his political career here. As you know, I started here and remained in this Chamber for a couple of years and since then I have always been impressed by it. I think it is a really nice place in which to discuss matters.

Why didn’t you stay here?

Why didn’t I stay here? That is something you must ask someone else, not me.

We welcome the fact that the Browne Report has been concluded and that it will be made available. It is obviously one of the most important reports that we have had in the past couple of years. This very morning in the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development, the question was raised of the funding of Black townships and how the expenses are to be met. They are funded by fees and rents and by profits on liquour. One always feels a little guilty because of the fact that a lot of the expenditure in that regard comes from profits on liquor. I never feel entirely happy that that should be the situation, in spite of my hon. friend here from Paarl. I think if we could find a more sound basis of funding those areas it would be desirable. I think every borough in South Africa, and every town, health committee and everybody else would be very, very pleased indeed to be able to find some alternative method of funding their activities and rates. My friend from Amanzimtoti here tells me that in his borough they are looking forward to finding some kind of alternative proposals.

Then there is the question of subscription shares. I saw a report in the newspaper which I do not of course accept as being absolutely true. However, the amount mentioned there that is invested in these subscription shares was given as R800 million. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has another figure but that seemed to me to be a colossal amount of money. However, if that is so, the effect that this is going to have on the investment market in South Africa since this amount has to be reduced to the extent of two-thirds in a short period of time, will be completely unsettling. I wonder therefore whether the hon. the Minister has an accurate figure of what this amount is. I question to myself whether he is achieving anything that is desirable by requiring that these investments should be run down or directed into other avenues.

I make the point that in ordinary shares one is paying tax on two-thirds of one’s dividends. The investment in a building society may well not prove as attractive as in the share market or something similar where there is a possibility of capital growth, but I wonder whether the investment pattern in building societies at a time when the 99-year leasehold scheme and this kind of thing is going to place an increasing stress on the reserves and the capacity of building societies to meet the demand for housing, will not be disturbed. I have said, and I am sure everybody agrees with me, that until the ordinary builders of houses, the private sector, get involved in the Black housing market, in building houses for people in Black townships, I do not think we are going to cope. Everybody agrees with that. The State cannot continue to provide housing for Black people at a pace which is going to keep ahead of the population increase. One cannot do it. The Government cannot find that kind of money. We are going to have to rely more and more on the private sector and the building societies in particular. I would merely suggest to the hon. the Minister, if it is felt that there is an imbalance or an anomaly here, that the existing scheme should be allowed to continue. I will be quite open, I have one. I am very happy with it. It is a marvellous investment. When I made it, it was an entirely legal investment and one was encouraged to do it. I feel that to upset that kind of thing now for the people who are in it, is undesirable. To my mind it will have a very detrimental effect on the building society movement. I should like to think that the hon. the Minister might for the sake of the people who are in it now, say: “Let us not disturb the present position.” However, he should take some action if he feels that it is undesirable for it to continue and that some other proposals should now be made for new investors.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. the Minister dealt with the fact that Dr. De Kock was going to be or has been appointed to a committee which is going to deal with the question of the constellation of states. I think that was what the hon. the Minister said.

Yes, among other things.

I want to talk about this because it has been a particular baby of mine as far as the new constitutional development in our country is concerned. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that what we are going into, is an inter-group relationship. Given the history of South Africa as it has been, there is a certain amount of tension among the groups which is going to continue into the negotiating process. As we go into the negotiating process, we will be fortunate if we can achieve it smoothly and calmly so that everything goes well. There will probably be some cases in respect of which we will throw our hands in the air and think we are never going to make it. But I am sure in the end we will succeed. However, one of the factors which is going to determine the calmness of the negotiation, is the confidence that each group has in its own position, namely that it is protected, is strong and that it cannot be affected by attack by any other of the groups with which we are going to have to negotiate.

I put it to the hon. the Minister that where there is the situation where, for argument’s sake, the White group—let us talk about our own group because we are quite obviously the ones who will have to take a lot of initiatives in the immediate future—are confident that in the Parliament that represents them, they are strong—they have a bastion of power from which they can negotiate; it cannot be taken away from them or the power cannot be diminished without their consent—they can then handle the situation with confidence and negotiate free of any nagging thoughts at the back of their minds that they may give away to much or something like that. I put it to the hon. the Minister that a power to tax is an indispensable adjunct of one’s sovereignty. If one can accept that the White group and other groups that are going into a negotiating situation are really groups that have an element of sovereignty in their control over their own affairs, which they are intent on maintaining, then the tax situation, the ability to levy tax on their own people, is a factor which we simply cannot neglect. We cannot leave it out. I put this to the hon. the Minister because whatever may happen in the future—and the Economic Committee of the President’s Council will obviously have to deal with the situation like this—it is vitally important to realize that we are into a situation where a council is going to be appointed and we are going to be trying to attract leaders of other groups to come into the negotiation with us. That by itself will be a difficult task. It is not simply going to be a breeze. We will not just say to people: “Come and join us” and then they will all come trooping in and say: “Ha-ha, it is a great deal. We are going to join you.” We will have to negotiate very, very hard indeed with other leaders. If we have some idea as to how the wealth of South Africa is going to be divided on a practical basis and how each group is going to be secure in its own power base, then I think we are going to be able to negotiate with them and attract them a lot easier. I want to suggest the following merely as indicative of what I am trying to get across; there are no absolutes about it and I am not making a hard and fast plan or anything like that. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that supposing the White community could tax the Whites and the Indian community the Indians and the Coloureds could tax the Coloureds, etc., one would then have a situation where a group of people have a tax base where they can carry out the services which are related to the body which represents them. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek weet nie of dit is as gevolg van hierdie kalme atmosfeer of klimaat wat hier heers waarna die agb. lid vir Mooirivier verwys het nie, maar ek is nie nou van plan om ’n argument met die agb. lid vir Mooirivier aan te knoop oor hierdie laaste stellings van hom nie.

Ek wil ook graag aansluit by die agb. Minister wat hulde gebring het aan die sterk span finansiële deskundiges wat hy geslaag het om hom te versamel om hierdie uiters belangrike portefeulje van finansies te behartig. Ek wil egter daarby voeg dat ’n span baie keer net so sterk is as wat sy kaptein lei. Daarom wil ek hulde bring aan die kaptein van hierdie span, nl. die agb. Minister self. Hierdie agb. Minister van ons het in dié vyf jaar wat hy hierdie portefeulje behartig werklik ’n internasionale figuur geword veral ten opsigte van die groot probleem waarmee die Westerse wêreld vandag worstel, nl. monetêre onstabiliteit. Hy het ’n deskundige geword op hierdie gebied en die wêreld luister graag wanneer hy praat. As gevolg van sy suiwer siening van die rol wat goud speel in die internasionale monetêre stelsel en sy oortuigende propagering daarvan, het dit skielik nou weer gewild geword om die moontlike voordele van ’n nuwe goudgebaseerde stelsel van een of ander aard te onderstreep, soos die agb. Minister ook in sy inleidingsopmerkings aangetoon het. Dit word in wye kringe ontleed en bespreek. Dit gee aan goud ’n nuwe glans. Maar, mnr. die Voorsitter, wat vir my belangrik is, is iets wat die agb. Minister onlangs in sy toespraak in die Bahamas beklemtoon het, naamlik dat ’n voorvereiste vir gesonde monetêre beleid streng finansiële dissipline is—’n absolute voorvereiste vir ’n gesonde monetêre beleid en ’n monetêre stelsel. Hierdie beleid wat die agb. Minister self oor die afgelope vyf jaar streng toegepas het in ons land, het ons so ’n sterk ekonomie gegee dat talle Westerse finansiers met afguns daarna kyk en opnuut groot belangstelling toon in nuwe beleggingsmoontlikhede in ons land. Die gevolg hiervan is dat ons nie nodig het om ons rentekoerse tot 20% op te stoot om ons rand te stut, soos die Verenigde State onlangs verplig was om te doen nie. Nee, mnr. die Voorsitter, selfs met betreklik lae rentekoerse in ons land styg die waarde van ons betaalmiddel byna van dag tot dag.

Die agb. lid vir Malmesbury het hier aangedui dat die waarde van die rand oor die afgelope jaar met sowat 8% gestyg het. Dit is net wat die posisie van die dollar betref. In presies 12 maande het die rand teenoor die dollar met 8,4% gestyg; teenoor die jen egter, wat ook ’n sterk betaalmiddel in die Westerse wêreld is, het die rand met nie minder nie as 12% gestyg in hierdie twaalf maande. Teenoor die magtige Deutsche Mark het die rand net in die afgelope drie maande met 3% gestyg—voorwaar ’n skitterende vertoning waarvoor die agb. Minister volle krediet moet kry. Daarby kom nog dat sy goudbemarkingsbeleid, wat nou vir die eerste maal so ietwat afwyk van die baie, baie konserwatiewe beleid wat die Reserwebank nog altyd toegepas het, besig is om daartoe by te dra om die goudprys tot ’n hoë mate te stabiliseer tot voordeel van ons almal.

Terwyl ek nou van die stabilisering van die goudprys praat, kom ek dadelik by die volgende program in die Begroting van Uitgawes wat uit Staatsinkomsterekening bestry moet word, waarby ek ’n paar oombhkke wil stilstaan, naamlik program 5 waaronder finansiële instellings ressorteer en op sy beurt weer die Effektebeurs. Mnr. die Voorsitter, na die debakel op die beurs in Mei 1969 het ons ’n Effektebeurskommissie gehad wat ondersoek ingestel het na die omstandighede wat aanleiding gegee het tot die Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Effektebeurs, waar ons baie diep onder die indruk gekom het van die redes vir hierdie debakel. Daar was twee redes, naamlik dat (1) finansiële instellings, te wete banke, glad te makhk krediet gegee het vir aankope op die beurs, en (2) die tydperk wat verloop het gedurende daardie mal periode op die beurs, vandat die koper gekoop het totdat hy moes betaal glad te lank was. Die gevolg was dat mense sonder geld aandele begin koop het en teen die tyd dat hulle moes betaal, wat dikwels tot so lank as drie maande was, opdrag gegee het dat die aandele weer verkoop moes word en die wins in hulle sak gesteek het. Niemand het ooit daaraan gedink dat die teenoorgestelde ook kon gebeur nie, naamlik dat die beurs kon val en dat mense baie geld kon verloor en dat mense met min geld uitgeskud sou word nie. Selfs banke kon in daardie proses skade ly. Daarom is dit toe in die nuwe Wet bepaal dat ’n man binne sewe dae moes betaal vir die aandele en as hy nie binne sewe besigheidsdae na die aankoop daarvan betaal nie, hy ’n verdere sewe besigheidsdae kry om te betaal. Ek meen hierdie sewe plus sewe dae het sy doel baie goed gedien maar dit plaas tog ’n mate van ’n las op die makelaars. Hoewel daar geen verpligting op hulle is om aan ’n persoon na sewe dae kennis te gee dat hy moet betaal nie, bestaan daar tog ’n soort ,,gentleman’s agreement” dat so ’n persoon nog sewe dae kry waarna hy moet betaal of anders word sy aandele vir sy rekening verkoop. Ek wil voorstel dat daar deeglik ondersoek ingestel word of hierdie stelsel van sewe plus sewe dae nie afgeskaf kan word en ’n eenmalige termyn van elf dae ingestel kan word nie. Ek het elf dae gekies omdat dit twee naweke insluit. Dit sal dan daardie las van die makelaar wegneem.

’n Ander aspek in verband met die beurs wat ek graag onder die aandag van die agb. Minister wil bring, is iets wat ons almal se aandag nog altyd ontglip het—my eie aandag ook, alhoewel ek destyds die voorreg gehad het om voorsitter van daardie kommissie te wees. Dit is naamlik dat wanneer ’n koper vir ’n groot som geld koop en hy sterf voordat hy betaal, sê binne ’n paar dae nadat hy gekoop het, die arme makelaar ’n probleem het want hy het dan slegs ’n aksie teen die boedel van die afgestorwene. Dit neem egter maklik ses maande of meer voordat so ’n boedel afgehandel is en daarom wil ek voorstel dat dit in die Wet ingeskryf moet word dat die makelaar die reg het, wanneer ’n persoon te sterwe kom voordat hy kon betaal, om dadelik daardie aandele te verkoop. Verkoop hy dit teen ’n wins, gaan die wins in die boedel en verkoop hy teen ’n verlies vorm dit ’n eis teen die boedel. Daarom wil ek voorstel dat dit in die Wet ingeskryf word dat die makelaar daardie reg sal hê om by die dood van ’n koper, voordat so ’n persoon die kans gehad het om te betaal, dadelik daardie aandele te verkoop.

Mnr. die President, dit is vir my ’n besondere voorreg om die agb. lid vir Paarl op te volg in ’n debat soos hierdie.

Ek wil graag ’n paar aangeleenthede opper, maar eers wil ek iets van die hart afkry. Meneer, omdat daar op hierdie aarde niemand is, behalwe my ouers en my kerk, wat meer daartoe bygedra het om my vir die lewe voor te berei as die onderwysers nie, wil ek graag vir die edele Minister om verskoning vra vir berigte wat verskyn het oor die beweerde optrede van skoolhoofde in die omgewing van Rustenburg waarby die edele Minister betrek is.

Hoor, hoor!

Meneer, dit ly geen twyfel nie dat daar probleme in die onderwysberoep bestaan wat dringende aandag nodig het en wat trouens reeds dringende aandag geniet. Maar as kinders misbruik word om doelstellings te bereik waarvoor die nodige kanale tog bestaan, wil ek my sterkste afkeur uitspreek en is ek oortuig dat ek hierdie afkeur namens die onderwysberoep in sy geheel doen.

Hoor, hoor!

Die agb. lid vir Yeoville het na die inflasiekoers verwys en gesê dat daar eintlik min is wat die agb. Minister en die Regering in hierdie verband gedoen het. Ek glo natuurlik dat dit nie slegs tot die Regering beperk is om die inflasiekoers te beheer nie, maar dat daar ook baie deur die publiek self in hierdie verband gedoen kan word. Daar is egter een baie belangrike aspek in hierdie begroting waarop ek graag wil wys en dit is dat die edele Minister die belastingkoers verminder het om daardeur meer geld aan mense te gee om in hulle sakke te steek. Meneer, dit het ’n besliste uitwerking op die inflasiekoers. Sielkundig sou dit eintlik baie beter gewees het as die edele Minister die salarisse verhoog het met die bedrag wat hy sou kon invorder as hy nie die belastingtarief verminder het nie.

Dit sou veral aan die Staatsamptenare ’n onmiddellike voordeel gegee het en die geld sou dadelik in hulle sakke gewees het. Dit sou ook die verdere sielkundige uitwerking gehad het dat hierdie persone nou op ’n hoër salariskerf sou wees. Dit sou egter die inflasiekoers skerp laat styg het en daarom dink ek dat hierdie ’n weldeurdagte besluit was. Daar is een probleem met betrekking tot hierdie saak en dit is dat die salaristrekker sy voordele nou stuksgewys ontvang. Die V.B.A.-stelsel het besliste voordele vir die belastingbetaler en werk ook ten gunste van die Ontvanger van Inkomste. In die geval van verhoogde belasting word dit nie so erg gevoel nie, en let ’n mens eintlik net op die bedrag wat jy huistoe neem. Dit het verder nog die bykomende voordeel dat daar baie mense is wat in Desember ’n klein tjekkie ontvang van die Ontvanger van Inkomste. Dit is hierdie tipe ding wat mense baie waardeer.

Hierdie stelsel se voordele sou ten volle waardeer kon word indien die tyd wat verloop tussen die aankondiging van die vermindering en die toepassing daarvan, nie so lank was nie. In hierdie paar maande, tussen die aankondiging en wanneer die belasting in Junie werklik verminder word, gaan hierdie mense besonder swaarkry. Ek dink as daar ’n metode gevind kan word—ek weet daar is probleme in hierdie verband—waarvolgens dit onmiddellik toegepas kan word dit ’n dempende effek sal hê op die looneise in die private sektor.

’n Ander saak waaroor ek ook wil praat, is die landbou. In 1975 het ek in hierdie debat gevra dat die agb. Minister dit moet oorweeg om die aankoopprys van landbouimplemente geheel en al aftrekbaar te maak vir die uitgawe van daardie jaar. Omdat die landbouer nie beheer het oor sy inkomste nie, en met die wisselvallige weertoestande wat ons het, het hy een goeie jaar en dan weer ’n swak jaar. Die Minister het destyds beloof om sy aandag aan hierdie saak te gee en hierdie is die eerste geleentheid wat ek het om die Minister te bedank dat dit nou wel in die praktyk toegepas word. Dit het bepaald ’n heilsame effek op die landbou in geheel gehad, maar soos dit maar met al hierdie goeie dinge gaan, is daar gewoonlik ’n manier waarop mense dit misbruik. Uit die oogpunt van die produsent het hier misbruike ontstaan omdat boere in ’n goeie jaar soveel as moontlik van hul kontant gespandeer het op die aankoop van hierdie werktuie en implemente. Wanneer hulle moeilikheid ondervind, verkoop hulle dit weer. In sulke gevalle is daar natuurlik verliese wat gely word en hoewel dit ’n voordelige manier is van kapitaalvorming, is dit nie ’n nuwe idee nie. Ons het in die verlede boere gehad wat aan die einde van die belastingjaar hul vee aangekoop het en dit dan onmiddellik in die volgende jaar verkoop het. Hierdie manier van finansiering word gebruik sodat al die geld nie aan belasting betaal word nie. Hierdie manier van kapitaalvorming kan ons op die volgende metode voorkom, wat dikwels in gesprekke genoem word. In plaas daarvan dat die boer toegelaat word om vee of implemente aan te koop, dit van sy belasting af te trek en dit dan weer by sy inkomste te tel wanneer hy dit verkoop, moet goedkeuring aan boere verleen word om gedurende goeie jare oorskotte by die Landbank te belê. Dit sal die tweeledige doel dien dat die Landbank van aansienlik meer fondse voorsien sal word en dat die Landbank in staat gestel sal word om ten opsigte van daardie dele van die land wat ’n swak jaar gehad het, korttermynfinansiering te voorsien. Aan die ander kant, sal dit die boer in staat stel om in ’n jaar onmiddellik na ’n swak jaar kontant tot sy beskikking te hê om voort te gaan met sy boerdery. Wanneer hierdie belegging van die bank onttrek word moet dit weer by die inkomste getel word en sal dit dus geen noemenswaardige effek op die skatkis hê nie. Aan die ander kant sal dit boere wat andersins om subsidies aansoek moet doen, in staat stel om hul eie kapitaai vir dié doel aan te wend. Hierdie beginsel is alreeds aanvaar ten opsigte van boedelbelasting, want in die jongste begroting het die agb. Minister die bedrag wat ten opsigte van beleggings by die Landbank vir boedeldoeleindes afgetrek mag word, verhoog van R80 000 tot R100 000. Ek wil dus baie sterk aanbeveel dat daar aan hierdie gedagte ernstige oorweging geskenk word omdat dit sal lei tot stabiliteit in die landbou.

Laastens wil ek graag verwys na ’n saak wat die agb. lid vir Malmesbury asook die agb. lid vir Mooirivier geopper het, naamlik ons gesonde groeikoers. ’n Gesonde groeikoers hou direk verband met die bevolkingsaanwas en dit is eintlik oor die bevolkingsaanwas wat ek graag iets wil sê. Volgens die jongste statistieke is die geboortesyfers vir Blankes per duisend 16,6 vir Kleurlinge 25,7, vir Asiërs 22,7 en vir Swartes 40. Die natuurlike groeikoers is in dieselfde volgorde 0,88, 1,58, 1,77 en 2,80. Daar het veral as gevolg van die geweldige tegnologiese ontwikkeling wat ons in die afgelope dekades ondervind het, waar die arbeiders vervang word deur meganisasie, … [Tyd verstreke.]

I do not want to enter into debate on the point raised by the hon. member for Losberg with regard to the teachers and the use of children. I sympathize with the teachers and share the same feelings, but I think that is a debate that should rather take place on Wednesday. I do not think that this is the proper place. As far as the hon. member’s arguments with regard to inflation on salaries and payments made by farmers to the Land Bank are concerned, I think it is the hon. Minister’s job to deal with them. There are some matters that I would like to deal with on this occasion and the first is the very important announcement made by the hon. Minister in so far as the Browne Commission and the White Paper is concerned. As one who has had to prepare and present the budget of a local authority, and one who knows and understands the problems facing local authorities during many years of experience, I can speak with a certain amount of authority in voicing the concern of local authorities with regard to the relief they are looking for from the Browne Commission. If one looks back over 14 years to the Borckenhagen Commission of Inquiry, the Driessen Commission and now the Browne Commission, I do not think there is very much joy to be obtained, if I understand the hon. the Minister’s attitude correctly with regard to relief to local authorities. Nevertheless, I do hope that I am not correct and I do hope that a White Paper will be published by the Government, and that there will be an opportunity to debate it in the House, as this is one of the most important aspects concerning local authorities.

I do, however, wish to raise one point in this regard, namely, to question the timing of the release of this report. We are on the brink of constitutional changes. The hon. the Minister mentioned the question of two-tier and three-tier Government and the role of Coloured and Black local authorities. There is also talk about the future of provincial councils and the establishment of regional councils. When these matters are settled by the Government and we know exactly what role local authorities will play and how they will play that role, I wonder whether the Browne Committee’s report and other recommendation to make local authorities, wherever they may be, viable and meaningful in South Africa, could not be dovetailed to coincide with the changes to be announced. I leave that thought with the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister also raised the question of subscription shares and my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, reacted to it. I share the hon. member for Yeoville’s concern regarding subscription shares. In this regard I wish to add one or two more arguments for consideration by the hon. the Minister. I wish to make an appeal to him that existing subscription shareholders who have spent 36 consecutive months to evolve their subscription share plans, should be allowed to continue with them. For three years these people have made their contributions to their subscription share plans every month and should be permitted to retain that shareholding. The reduction has been drastic, namely from R300 000 per person to R50 000 per taxpayer. The phasing-out of these plans will have a serious affect on a number of people. We are dealing here with large amounts and they may well represent the life savings of many individuals. They may well represent the complete financial plans people have devised in order to obtain tax-free benefits over a period of three years. They may have done this in a planned manner so that they would have financial security. There are not many young people who can afford to invest such large amounts. All the individual investments do not amount to R300 000; some people have obviously invested less; but to them it is very important that they have now reached a more mature stage and are able to make their money. What is now going to happen is that the elderly people are going to suffer.

The other argument is that whilst we are living in buoyant times at the moment as far as financing is concerned, this has not always been the case. I remember that not long ago people were queuing up and that there was a three months delay to obtain mortgage bonds from building societies. Building societies were then only too pleased to get money in order to lend it out again. This position may well come about again and if it does, we will have lost the benefit, the attraction the subscription scheme has to the saver in providing these finances to building societies. Building societies will suffer when there is a shortage of money and, in turn, the man in the street and the young person who gets married and wants to buy a house will suffer. In all these circumstances I want to urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard and at the very least to allow existing subscription share schemes to remain in force. People were given this opportunity, they took the Government at its word and I think these schemes should be allowed to be continued.

There are a few other points I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to section 21quat of the Income Tax Act. This section deals with deductions in respect of expenditure incurred by physically disabled persons. The section provides, inter alia, that—

My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that there are sometimes physically handicapped children in a family. The expense parents have to go to in order to pay the medical expenses of physically handicapped children should, with great respect, apply equally to the children as it does to the husband or wife which is provided for in section 21quat. I urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider this provision to see whether he cannot extend it so that children will be included.

Another matter I wish to raise is the question of gold. It was very interesting to hear the hon. the Minister talk about the gold price and say that it was around $500 per ounce. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, who fixes the prices at the Mint for gold coins? The proof Kruger rand, which was sold for R300 last year, is now sold by the Mint for R700. The ten-coin gold proof set now costs R260 as against R125 last year. The eight-coin set has gone up from R15 to R25, while the two gold-coin set has gone up from R110 to R235. This means that as far as the proof Kruger rand is concerned, if you pay R45 for the valuation and the commission of 10%, you will have to get R830 for it before you start making a profit. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why the price of gold coins by the Mint has been fixed at such a high level this year when there is only a price of about $500 per ounce at present and he has also indicated that he does not have much hope of it rising very much. Unless Kruger rands are going to be valued at least R600 by the Mint, I hardly think it is going to be worthwhile buying them. I would hate to see a drop in sales by the Mint, because I believe this is a good thing. In fact, I think we should try to establish a world market for the buying and selling of proof Kruger rands.

The last point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister concerns something I raised with him on a previous occasion, namely, that consideration should be given to granting tax remission to donors of works of art and artifacts to museums, art galleries and libraries. From the hon. the Minister’s reply it was clear that he misunderstood my question. I know that there is no donations tax on such a gift but what I am asking him for is that the value of that gift should be deducted from the taxable income of the donor just as is the case in regard to donations to performing arts boards and universities. I ask that the same provision should be applied to persons and companies when they make donations in cash or by way of artifacts and works of art to museums, art galleries and libraries in South Africa. Local authorities cannot afford to provide large amounts of money for this purpose, but this is a way of preserving the culture of South Africa for posterity. There are many examples of this being done overseas. In Australia, for example, 44 institutions are listed as opposed to only three types of institutions in South Africa. In the United States of America there are institutions like museums and art galleries and donations of this kind to them are deductible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Hillbrow, I have also had the privilege of being associated with municipal Government over a fairly long period of years, and I fully agree with him as regards the urgent need of local authorities for financial relief. Although I have not had the privilege of being the mayor of a big city like Johannesburg, I can assure the hon. member that the problems experienced by small local authorities are basically exactly the same as those experienced by the municipalities of big cities—the only difference being one of scale. However, I cannot understand the hon. member for Hillbrow now querying the timing of the release of the Browne Committee report. I assume that the hon. member is as eager as I am to study the recommendations of the Browne Committee. He referred to possible constitutional changes, but I think we must be realistic about this. Whatever constitutional changes may eventually be implemented, this will necessarily take a considerable period of time and the need of local authorities for financial relief is indeed very urgent. I cannot, therefore, imagine the publication of the Browne Committee’s report being delayed because of possible constitutional changes. After all, one cannot have one’s cake and eat it.

Wat die ander aangeleenthede betref wat die agb. lid vir Hillbrow aangeroer het, is ek seker dat die agb. Minister hom van gepaste kommentaar daarop sal voorsien.

Die sakewêreld weerklink nog van die toejuiging waarmee gegewens oor die Republiek se invoer- en uitvoervertoning in 1979 begroet is; ’n rekord onverwerkte handelsoorskot van R2 316 miljoen, d.w.s. nie minder nie as 114% beter as die rekord van 1978. Sommige ekonome is selfs oortuig daarvan dat wanneer alles in berekening gebring is, die reële handelsoorskot vir 1979 so groot as R5 000 miljoen kan blyk te wees. Maar, Meneer, dít is nie waaroor ek vandag wil praat nie, en ook nie oor die verwagte groeikoers van 5% vir die huidige boekjaar nie.

Die voordele van die heersende hoë goudprys is met die jongste begroting in die vorm van belastingtoegewings ten bedrae van R1 510 miljoen deur die agb. Minister van Finansies aan private ondernemers oorgedra. Maar, Meneer, dít is ook nie waaroor ek vandag wil praat nie. Ook nie oor die verhoging van maatskaplike pensioene, voedselsubsidies en kapitaalbewilliging vir goedkoper huise, waarvoor die jongste begroting voorsiening maak nie.

Met verhoogde salarisskale aan staatsamptenare, die modernisering van die belastingstruktuur, en verbeterde maatskaplike beveiligingsvoordele, is daarin geslaag om die omstandighede van ’n groot groep salaristrekkers te verbeter. Maar, Meneer, ook dít is nie waaroor ek vandag wil praat nie.

Meneer, ofskoon die primêre produsent, en by name die boer, voortdurend gewikkel is in ’n stryd om sy produksiekoste ten spyte van die steeds stygende pryse van produksiemiddele binne die perke van produktepryse te hou, en nie altyd daarin slaag nie, het hy darem die vooruitsig dat produktepryse van tyd tot tyd opwaarts aangepas word om, al is dit dan ook maar gedeeltelik, met sy stygende produksiekoste tred te hou. Maar, Meneer, ook dít is nie waaroor ek vandag wil praat nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ook nie, Meneer, oor die posisie van professionele mense, soos geneeshere, prokureurs en advokate, wie se gelde van tyd tot tyd hersien word om hulle van ’n behoorlike bestaan te verseker nie.

Meneer, ek sal nou maar die aap uit die mou laat, want ek glo agb. lede kan die spanning nie meer verduur nie. Ek pleit vandag om simpatieke aandag vir dié groep mense wat nòg deur die gunstige handelsbalans, nòg deur die hoë goudprys wesenlik bevoordeel word. Dit is diegene wat nie salarisse of professionele gelde ontvang wat verhoog kan word nie; wat nie primêre produsente is wie se produkte se pryse aangepas kan word nie en wat ook nie maatskaphke pensioentrekkers is, wie se lewensomstandighede deur ’n verhoging van hul pensioen verbeter kan word nie.

Meneer, ek praat van diegene wat vir hul lewensbestaan afhankhk is van die rente wat hulle op hul beleggings ontvang.

Hoor, hoor!

Meneer, ek glo nie die toegewing ten opsigte van belastingvrye aandele los die probleem op nie. Met die formulering van die antiinflasieveldtog is besparing—wat vir die gewone burger sinoniem is met belegging by die een of ander bank, versekeringsinstansie of bougenootskap)—as een van die belangrike maatreëls ter bekamping van inflasie beskou en bestempel. Maar, Meneer, die huidige betrekhk hoë inflasiekoers en gevolghke depresiasie in die reële waarde van beleggings, gepaard met die heersende lae rentekoers, is nouliks bevorderhk vir besparing en bestryding van inflasie. Die gewone man is naamlik meer geneë om verbruiksartikels aan te koop, wat wel groei mag stimuleer, as om te spaar en sy spaargeld te belê.

As ons na die begroting van uitgawes uit staatsinkomste kyk, en ons verwys eerstens na die algemene doelwit van hierdie pos, dan vind ons dat dit soos volg lui—

Maar as ons na program 5 en die doelwit daarvan kyk, dan sien ons dat dié doel is—

Dit blyk verder dat die administrasie van wetgewing met betrekking tot die banksektor, die versekeringsektor, en die bouverenigingsektor onder hierdie program ressorteer. Ek glo dat daar met vrug ingevolge hierdie wetgewing—en as dié wetgewing nie toereikend is nie, ingevolge gewysigde wetgewing—gepoog kan word om ’n meer reahstiese renteverdienste vir hierdie beleggings te verseker.

Ek is bewus daarvan dat dit ’n delikate terrein is. Die agb. Minister wil hom sekerlik nie die verwyt op die hals haal van ’n ,,assault on private enterprise” nie. Ek is bewus daarvan dat dit ’n terrein is waar versigtig gehandel sal moet word. [Tyd verstreke.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek het met groot aandag geluister na al die moeilike finansiële en ander probleme wat vanmiddag hier geopper is waarmee die agb. Minister te doen kry. Die agb. lid wat nou net gaan sit het het my nie net nuuskierig gemaak nie; hy het nog verder bygedra tot daardie probleme.

Ek is deeglik onder die indruk van die prestasies wat Suid-Afrika op finansiële gebied verrig en het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat ons land se finansies in goeie en bekwame hande is solank dit in die hande is van ons agb. Minister. Ek is egter bly om te kan sê dat vir die probleem waarmee ek vandag na hierdie Komitee kom daar wel ’n oplossing is. Wat my aanbetref is dit eintlik ’n maklike oplossing en ek hoop dat die agb. Minister hierdie probleem van my sal oplos want dit is vir my van groot belang, hoewel dit plaaslik van aard is.

Ek wil vandag baie ernstig pleit by die agb. Minister vir ’n inkomstebelastingkantoor te Kempton Park. ’n Inkomstebelastingkantoor het vir ons ’n dringende noodsaaklikheid geword. Vanuit verskillende oorde kom daar gedurig ’n aandrang vir hierdie noodsaaklike gerief. Ek het vertoë van die plaaslike prokureursvereniging ontvang; ek het vertoë ontvang van die plaaslike sakekamer; ek het vertoë ontvang van die eiendomsagente en etlike ander instansies en privaatpersone. Ek vra hierdie gerief dus vir my kiesafdeling en vir sy mense. Ek wil hierdie versoek wat ek aan die agb. Minister rig ook motiveer. Ek wil die agb. Minister pertinent daarop wys dat Kempton Park een van dié gebiede in Suid-Afrika is wat die snelste uitbrei en ontwikkel. Ter stawing hiervan lees ek ’n enkele uittreksel uit Die Vaderland van 21 April waar die skrywer dit as volg stel—

So gaan die berig aan. Die skrywer meld verder ’n bedrag van R38 miljoen ten opsigte van privaatbouplanne en daarby kan ons nog R40 miljoen met betrekking tot die openbare sektor voeg, net om die tempo waarteen ontwikkeling geskied, aan te toon.

Hierdie prestasie spruit voort uit die besondere geografiese ligging van Kempton Park, wat hom in ’n baie gunstige posisie plaas om by ander munisipaliteite verby te steek. Kempton Park word uitmuntend bedien deur ’n netwerk van goeie paaie en hoofweë, spoorweë wat goeie treindienste verskaf na Johannesburg, na die Wesrand, na Germiston, die Oosrand, na die suide, na Pretoria, na die noorde, na die oostelike dele van die Transvaal, en so meer. Daarby huisves hy ook die grootste binnelandse en internasionale lughawe. Dit maak Kempton Park nie net ’n populêre woonbuurt nie, maar as ’n nywerheidsdorp is sy nywerheidsgebiede, Isando en Spartan van die grootste industriële sentrums in die land.

Ek weet dat die agb. Minister hieroor met my sal saamstem want hy is baie goed bekend met die nywerhede van Kempton Park waar hy alreeds by verskeie geleenthede opgetree het. Voeg nou by die strategiese belangrikheid van Kempton Park, plekke soos die Modderfonteinse fabriek, die KOP, Atlas, ensovoorts. Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek meld hierdie sake enkel en alleen om te illustreer en te verduidelik waarom die inwonertal van Kempton Park reeds die 80 000 kerf verbygesteek het om hom naas Johannesburg, Pretoria, Germiston en Roodepoort, die vyfde grootste dorp of stad in die Transvaal te maak. Om dit nog verder te illustreer, Meneer, kan ek net die Komitee se aandag daarop vestig dat Kempton Park ook die dorp is waar daar heel onlangs, ook op die gebied van die bou van die bevolking, die eerste vyfling in die Transvaal gebore is. Dit is net om te wys op die uitbreiding wat daar aan die gang is.

Benewens hierdie fenomenale uitbreiding is die Suid-Afrikaanse Spoorweë besig met die oprigting van die sentrale opstelterrein by Babsfontein. Dit word my vertel dat ’n verdere 900 huisgesinne hulle binnekort hier sal kom vestig. Kempton Park het sy eie landdrosdistrik. Hy het ’n baie moderne landdroskantoor. Hy huisves ’n streekhof; hy huisves ook hooggeregshofgeriewe; ons huisves ook die distrikshoofkantoor van die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie in ’n pragtige nuwe gebou; daar is een van die mees moderne poskantore in die land. As ’n mens nou al hierdie openbare geriewe het, dan is daar een ding wat ons nie het nie en dit is ’n plaaslike inkomstebelastingkantoor, terwyl kleiner dorpe—ek sê dit nou nie neerhalend nie—soos Boksburg en Benoni hulle eie kantore het wat net hul eie munisipale gebiede bedien. As die Swart woongebied van Tembeza nog verder ontwikkel en daardie huur-pag-eiendomme moet geregistreer word, sal die druk nog baie erger word. My versoek berus dus op praktiese en nugtere beginsels. Dit gaan hier oor ’n ongerief; dit gaan oor ’n diens aan die inwoners, aan die nywerhede en aan die besighede van Kempton Park. Vir ons inwoners, veral vir die besigheidsmense, prokureurs en eiendomsagente, het die inkomstebelastingkantoor nou ’n dringende noodsaaklikheid geword, afgesien van die besparing van tyd en brandstof wat die gebrek aan so ’n kantoor meebring.

Ek weet dat daar baie besware mag wees. Ek weet die Minister sal moet besluit of hy moet sentraliseer of desentraliseer wanneer dit kom by kantore van hierdie aard. Ek weet daar sal miskien besware wees van personeeltekort; ek weet dat met die huidige stelsel van LBS baie min mense persoonlik nodig het om fisies na so ’n kantoor te gaan. Die meeste van die dinge word vir hulle gedoen word of kan per pos gedoen word. Ons weet dat dit by wyse van ’n rekenaar gedoen kan word ensomeer, maar ek wil nie net aan hierdie negatiewe aspekte dink nie.

Ek moet u vandag ook op die positiewe sy daarvan wys. Ek wil aan die hand doen dat die agb. Minister die moontlikheid moet ondersoek om hierdie noodsaaklike dienste te voorsien en as dit dan moontlik is, met ’n tussentydse maatreël te begin totdat ’n voltydse kantoor ingestel kan word. Ek doen aan die hand dat die dienste gelewer word in oorleg en in samewerking met die plaaslike landdroskantoor om byvoorbeeld hereregtekwitansies uit te reik, inkomsteseëls aan te bied, die rojering van seëls te kan doen, die bepaling van seëlregte op sekere dokumente te doen en om noodsaaklike inligting aan die publiek te verskaf. Meneer, hierdie en ander dienste kan met min koste en met ’n baie klein personeel gelewer word as ’n tussentydse maatreël totdat ’n volwaardige inkomstebelastingkantoor ingestel kan word. Met hierdie paar gedagtes gaan ek sit want my tyd is beperk.

Ter afsluiting wil ek aan die agb. Minister sê dat hierdie ’n saak is wat ek hoop hy met Argusoë sal nagaan, want dit het vir ons in Kempton Park ’n dringende noodsaaklikheid geword.

Mr. Chairman, up to now this has been a very interesting debate and a large number of relevant issues have been raised. I should like to reply to some even if it is for no other reason than to try to clear my desk somewhat.

Ek handel eerstens met die vorige spreker se pleidooi. Ek ken daardie deel van die wêreld redelik goed, soos die agb. lid vir Kempton Park gesê het. Die Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste sit hier in die hoek. Ek is baie seker hy het ook aandagtig na die agb. lid geluister. Ons sal baie beslis op daardie saak ingaan en ons sal kyk wat moontlik is. Ek besef die belangrikheid van daardie deel van die wêreld, veral as ’n nywerheidstreek en ek dink nie die agb. lid hoef daardie saak veel verder te neem nie. Ons sal werklik ons bes doen.

Die agb. lid vir Mosselbaai het vir simpatieke aandag gevra ten opsigte van die probleem wat veral oues van dae het, mense wat vir hul inkomste afhanklik is van rente op beleggings. Dit is ’n punt wat die agb. lid vir Yeoville en andere, ook geopper het, ook in ander debatte. Dit is ’n baie moeilike aangeleentheid en ek het baie simpatie met hierdie goeie mense. Wat gebeur het, is dat rentekoerse onlangs baie hoog gestyg het. Mense koester dan die verwagting dat die rentekoerse òf hoër sal gaan òf ten minste op daardie hoë peil sal bly. As omstandighede verander en die rentekoerse daal, soos dit gedurig in ons ekonomie gebeur, dan is daar probleme, want mense voel natuurlik dan dat hulle slegter daaraan toe is. Die las ontstaan vernaamlik onder omstandighede van inflasie, en dit is weer eens ’n geval waar inflasie eintlik die grondliggende probleem is. Ons het heelwat aandag aan hierdie aangeleentheid gegee en ons het nog nie ons weg oopgesien om, byvoorbeeld, ’n fonds daar te stel wat ’n sekere minimum inkomste sou waarborg aan hierdie goeie mense nie of om ’n sogenaamde ,,index bond” in die lewe te roep nie. As die inflasie voortduur en indien dit sou gebeur dat die rentekoerse nog laag bly—hulle was oor die afgelope maande baie laag in Suid-Afrika in teenstelling met oorsee—dan sal ons weer eens indringend hierna moet kyk. Ek wil my nie verbind nie maar ek het persoonlik baie simpatie met hierdie mense. My eie siening, vir wat dit werd is, is dat ons miskien nou die laagtepunt van hierdie lae rentekoerse bereik het en dat rentekoerse moontlik vorentoe geleidelik sal styg. ’n Mens kan nooit heelternal seker wees nie. As dit gebeur kan hierdie saak miskien homself redelik goed oplos oor die volgende aantal maande. As dit nie gebeur nie, wil ek die versekering gee dat ons weer indringend daarna sal kyk. Dit is ook my antwoord op my vriend, die agb. lid vir Yeoville, in verband met daardie punt.

Die agb. lid vir Alberton het gepraat oor die Krugerrand en ek meen hy het aan die hand gedoen dat ons miskien meer Krugerrande of goudmunte plaaslik moet verkoop. Dit is natuurlik so dat iemand ’n arbitrêre beslissing moet neem oor hoeveel goue munte binnelands en in die buiteland verkoop gaan word. Ook is dit in die algemeen waar dat hoe meer goue munte in die binneland verkoop word hoe minder in die buiteland verkoop word en hoe minder is die buitelandse valutaverdienste uit daardie verkope, en dit is inderdaad ’n belangrike oorweging wat ons altyd in gedagte hou. Miskien kan ek net vir die agb. lid ’n paar syfers noem.

Die gegewens is in Engels aan my beskikbaar gestel deur die Direkteur van die SuidAfrikaanse Munt, en dit is vandag aangenaam vir my om hulde te bring aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Munt. Myns insiens is dit ’n uitstekende instelling en mnr. Groenewald, die direkteur, is ’n besonder bekwame persoon op sy gespesialiseerde terrein, en weer eens het ek voor my ’n baie indrukwekkende verslag wat hy voorgelê het. Hy praat hier van, wat hy noem, die verskillende ,,coins for currency purposes”, d.w.s. muntstukke wat ons elke dag gebruik, en hy sê—

Dit is die getal wat die Munt vanjaar gaan produseer: 50c nickel coins—2 million; 20c nickel coins—3 million; 10c nickel coins—5 million; 5c nickel coins—4 million; 2c bronze coins—16 million; and 1c bronze coins—24 million. Altogether 55 million. He then refers to coins that will be produced for foreign Governments and gives the figure as 145 million. A total of 200 million coins. The report reads further—

Hy sê dus dat prysvasstelling ook in hersiening geneem sal word, maar eintlik is dit die Direkteur wat die pryse vasstel. Hy sê voorts in sy verslag—

Why is it so expensive?

Perhaps I can answer that question right away, Mr. Chairman. The Mint has to buy gold from time to time and, of course, they cannot exactly foresee what the price trend will be. Of necessity they had to buy some gold when the price was high and this was when the average price, over a period of so many months, was higher than usual; for instance, it was higher than last year. Had they known that the price of gold was going to come down to, say, R500 from R600 or from R700 or R800, I dare say they would have tried to wait before purchasing at least a part of their gold needs. But, of course, they have to have supplies, and this is the main reason why at this point the prices are rather high. But, as the Director says, they are revising these prices I think this is probably because he has been able to buy gold at R500, so presumably he will adjust the prices.

It is higher than the dollar.

But I cannot be sure of that and neither can I be sure when he intends to revise the price because we leave it to him to work these things out as an expert. I will, however, give the complete set. He refers further to—

That is the main point. I imagine that he probably bought these at nearer a R600 average, or something of that order, and he now has his costs to cover as well.

But that is in rands, not dollars.

The director’s report continues—

Then he says—

I am quite prepared to have a chat with the Director but I know him well and he is certainly not the sort of man who will try to make an undue profit out of the public. I have not the slightest doubt that this reflects the average costs he has had to incur.

It is a higher dollar price than gold has ever reached—$875 … It is tremendous.

I did not catch that?

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? If one sells for R700 and we convert that to dollars, it works out at about $875 for a gold coin. Now the gold price has never reached R875. In fact, it got to the R800 mark only for a short time. So it does seem to be rather exorbitant.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, there are of course costs involved in minting this very specialized coin and there is a premium that the Director does charge, which is very reasonable. But it is a question of what he had to pay for the gold. I will take that matter up, Sir, but obviously I cannot give any firm assurances of precisely what the director can possibly do.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised quite a few points in regard to subscription shares. The hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to his, and I think it is fair to say that subscription shares were not really intended as a concession to a person who wished to make a once and for all investment, or had already saved his capital. It was really an inducement to people to save; to enable people to make savings, particularly over a period of three years, after which they would presumably be taxable in the sense that they would realize their investments and then they would be taxable on a non tax-free investment. The question then arises as to whether this is fair and reasonable. May I just mention, before I forget, in regard to the R800 million mentioned as the total amount invested here that I have no reason for thinking that that figure is far out. I would be prepared to accept it as an approximate figure. But what must be remembered, of course, is that this is the total, but only a small share will in fact be involved here where people are investing up to the hilt. There are many, many people who are not investing near R50 000. In fact, the average is very much lower, according to what the building societies tell us. The building societies have in fact co-operated extremely well. We have consulted them all along, they have gone along with us, and my information is that the building societies will be much happier with this revised method of phasing this investment out.

They are not happy.

Well, we have consulted them all along. I have a note here from the Registrar who says they have consulted them all along. We must also decide how far we intend going. This is really a subsidized investment in the sense that the interest is tax free; we are actually putting the burden on the taxpayer, and if we were to do this in the case of all investments we would soon see what this amounts to—how much more we would have to draw from the taxpayer because of these concessions we are making to certain classes of investors. This is the point one must bear in mind. Again, someone has to make a decision.

It is not a new concession.

No, it is not a new concession but our view is that this has got a little out of alignment. We believe it would be far more consistent to bring this particular amount down more in line with amounts that apply to tax-free investments. If one takes 7%, (which it is at the moment) Treasury Bonds, the maximum is R40 000. R150 000 is nearly four times as much and for every member of the public who might say: “Keep the R150 000 or something near to it,” one will be surprised how many people make representations to us and say: “Why should this particular class of investor be given a chance to put R150 000 in? I can only put in R40 000,” or whatever the case may be.

Yes, but he has put it in. If one does not have it, …

Yes. I really think if one looks at the matter objectively, this is something which one can reasonably do. We are trying to obtain a greater measure of consistency. I should also like to say—I think the hon. member for Yeoville talked about these subscription shares and said this type of investment should not be killed or should not be entirely discouraged in this way; I do not have his exact words—that if hon. members look at the example which I gave them, they will find that there is still a reasonable return. I can use other examples and, in fact, I can give the hon. member an even better example in a moment. This example shows that the return even after all these things have been done, is still a very fair one. I could read it out but if the Committee will accept that, I will make it available to the hon. member for Yeoville, and perhaps the hon. member for Mooi River might also be interested.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister respond to the issue that in fact the R40 000 for Treasury Bonds, R15 000 for National Savings Certificates and R10 000 for Post Office Certificates have remained at these amounts for years, even though inflation has changed the value of those amounts? I should also like to ask whether the hon. the Minister will consider increasing those amounts.

I was coming to that point. I am quite prepared to look at the matter. That point has been raised and I will certainly go into that at an early opportunity and see whether we can do something about it. We are trying to get a better balance between the several classes of investments.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of the economy. He referred to the precarious state of what I should like to call the world economy. It is so; it is a great worry. I noticed it again the other day at the World Conference I attended. There was a great deal of worry about the British economy; there is a big deficit in the German economy’s current balance of payments; and there was concern about the American economy, and so on. He talked about the need for change and said that if there is change taking place it does tend to engender instability. He therefore called for caution in, I presume, applying these things and particularly bearing in mind their implications.

He then talked of inflation and he referred to the seven-point anti-inflation plan that I mentioned in my budget speech. He was rather critical in that respect. He said government spending is bound to rise. I can assure the hon. member that we are doing our very, very best to hold it. I do think that the hon. member will agree that in the past four or five years the increase in real terms in Government spending has in fact been very small. This is something which certainly does not go unnoticed abroad, I can assure the hon. member, in government and banking circles particularly. We will do our very best to hold that figure as close as we can to the estimate we have put before the House.

Then he talked about the skilled labour bottleneck. We obviously have to spend more and more on training, on technical education of all kinds. It is spending that is being done now and which may have an inflationary effect because one does not get the immediate benefit. However, I have no doubt that it will certainly be anti-inflationary in the longer run. But those skilled labour bottlenecks are there.

I have a report in front of me now, which I saw yesterday, saying that what firms are doing increasingly now that the economy is increasing its activities, is to bid staff away one from the other at very high salaries. This is really a worrying thing from the point of view of inflation. It is a very serious matter which, of course, puts the emphasis again on training more people. This is something that we are going to have to face up to increasingly, not in the next five years but in the next matter of months.

He said the rand should be allowed to float up further. The rand is now at 127 American cents, which to my mind is not a bad situation. However, within the surveillance of the Reserve Bank the rand is moving up. We just have to be careful. One cannot let it go so fast that it will tend to discourage exports, which will be a great pity. We are certainly facing up to a further appreciation of the rand as I see it but it is a question of supply and demand very largely under the system that we now have.

As the economy picks up we will be importing more, and imported goods are costly. In fact, it has been said that in certain ranges the average prices of imports are double the domestic prices. There we have a dilemma. We want to keep the higher growth rate going and to do that we have to allow imports to increase. These imports are undoubtedly bringing in what we call an element of imported inflation. It is one of those problems that is very hard to do too much about except to prevent imports becoming unduly large. Again, someone has to make a value judgment.

In regard to the lifting of the import surcharge not being passed through to the public, we are certainly trying in different ways to monitor that position. I would appreciate it if hon. members have any examples to give us where this has not been done. I can assure them that such cases will be pursued immediately from the side of Government. It is very important that the effects, the anti-inflationary effects of the removal of the surcharge, should be passed on.

In regard to monopolies and restrictive trade practices there is the Board of Trade, of course, and the committee which was set up under the new legislation will be looking very carefully at these matters, as the hon. member knows. This is a matter which falls, of course, under the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. But if there are restrictive practices which are exploiting the public, again I think we ought to be told immediately. We are trying our best to keep a very close watch in that regard and these matters will be investigated.

Start with the Breweries.

Well, if the hon. member can give me information in that respect I assure him I will take it up personally with my colleague.

In regard to administered prices I did not say there would never be increases here, unfortunately. But we are certainly in a position now where we should not, at least in the period ahead, face the same order of general administered price increases that we had over the past year or two. It is a question of inflation. If we can curb inflation we will curb that problem. If we cannot curb inflation it is very hard to stop that. The hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me that if one starts subsidizing these prices too far one will get an absolutely unrealistic price emerging, and time catches one out. When one makes an adjustment finally it is many times worse than it might have been. This is the great dilemma in these matters.

I will also say that we have a Priorities Committee under the Director-General of Finance which is a fairly new committee and is already showing its teeth. I think it is becoming a very valuable committee. It is investigating the whole question of capital expenditure in the economy, the capital required for all sorts of projects. It is not only placing these in order of importance as it sees the position but it is also considering the amounts to see whether specific amounts of capital are strictly needed for the several purposes. It is monitoring these capital expenditures very carefully in the public sector and that also applies to the Railways, Escom, Iscor and others. I think the Government is making a very serious effort in this regard and I hope very much we may have success.

There is a further point I want to mention and that is, of course, once again, that there is serious inflation in the economy and people say: “But we are entitled to increased returns. We are entitled to increased payment if we are people who are working for a salary or wage and we are entitled to a fair and reasonable amount because the inflation rate is such and such and we should therefore be remunerated at a higher rate.” It is very hard to withstand those claims; one has to do one’s best but obviously if big amounts are going to be paid—and this is happening in some quarters, particularly in the private sector where skilled manpower is in such short supply—it becomes a further inflationary factor. And we have unfortunately not seen the end of this. I can only appeal to everybody in the economy to try to keep a very judicious view of this and a very critical view and not allow pay increases to become excessive. Again, this involves a value judgment—what is excessive in certain trades and industries? In the Public Service we have for years been holding the line against anything amounting to substantial increases in salaries and wages. This year we have done a little better in this respect than in the recent past but again if we are paying increases of 8%, 10%, 12% or 15%—it varies a great deal and for some classes it may even be 18% or 20%—the private sector argues that it is entitled to do something similar. I merely point out that everybody will have to watch this because if these things get out of hand, undoubtedly we will have an inflationary pressure emanating from that source.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek sal so kort moontlik praat. Die agb. lid vir Malmesbury het vriendelike woorde aan my gerig waarvoor ek hom bedank.

Die agb. lid vir Alberton het gepraat oor die Kmgerrand en goudmunte en ook baie interessant gepraat oor die rol van goud. Ek het met groot belangstelling na hom geluister.

Die agb. lid vir Mooirivier het een of twee aspekte aangehaal, onder andere subskripsie-aandele. Hy het ook ’n baie interessante punt geopper wat verband hou met belastings. Hy het gepraat van ,,inter-group relationships”.

He said there were likely to be tensions among groups, as I understood him; that groups should feel that their rights were protected, and from there he went on to mention the importance of the power to tax on the part of each group. Unfortunately his time expired but I think what it boils down to is that he was implying a tax base of some sort for the various population groups and he was doing this within the context of a constellation of states. The hon. member did not have time to develop his theme but I would merely draw his attention to the importance of the fact that we should proceed carefully and circumspectly because he will appreciate that if one has a multiplicity of tax authorities in any one geographical unit one can of course have problems in the administration of fiscal policy. There are also certain expenditures common to the whole. There are Defence, certain infrastructures, Foreign Affairs and associated matters, which it might be difficult to subdivide in our type of society.

We can deal with this at the next opportunity.

Yes, but it was an interesting point. I am sorry that the hon. member was cut short. Perhaps at some point or other or on some occasion he will be able to develop this interesting theme in relation to what we consider important and that is the constellation of states.

Ek wil ook graag die agb. lid vir Paarl bedank vir sy vriendelike woorde. Hy het verwys na die feit dat die rand sterk staan. Dit is so wanneer ’n mens kyk na die dollar en ander geldeenhede en ’n mens kan slegs dankbaar wees dat dit wel die geval is. Die agb. lid het ook twee belangrike punte geopper rakende die Effektebeurs, naamlik die kwessie van die tydperk waarbinne betaling moet geskied deur die koper van aandele. Hy het gevoel dat dit miskien gedoen kan word binne ’n eenmalige tydperk van elf dae in plaas van sewe dae plus nog sewe dae grasie. In die geval waar die koper te sterwe sou kom, het hy gevra dat die makelaar dan die reg behoort te hê om daardie aandele onmiddellik te verkoop. Hierdie is twee aangeleenthede waarop ons baie beslis sal ingaan en onmiddellik onder die aandag van die Beurskomitee bring. Dan kan ons miskien ’n bietjie meer daaroor gesels. Op die oog af lyk dit vir my verstandig.

Die agb. lid vir Losberg het verwys na die aksie van sekere skoolhoofde in ’n sekere mooi dorp in hierdie land. Ek meen die hele saak het egter in duie gestort. Ek sien in ’n persberig dat die sogenaamde boikot in daardie dorp heeltemal plat geval het en ek meen ons moet die saak maar daar laat. Die agb. lid het ook verwys na salarisverhogings en natuurlik ook na belastingverminderings. Ek meen dat dit in die huidige omstandighede goed is om die twee aan mekaar te koppel, anders kan die salarisverhogings miskien heelwat hoër wees en dit is beslis inflasionisties. Dit is ook die rede waarom ons dit so probeer doen het. Ek stem met die agb. lid saam dat dit natuuriik jammer is dat vir tegniese redes hier ’n drie maande vertraging is. Dit is tussen die aankondiging, sal ons maar sê, van die toegewings in die begrotingsrede en die verskyning ven die nuwe belastingtabelle wat vanaf die begin van Julie toegepas sal word. Meneer, ek verseker u dat dit ’n wesenlike tegniese probleem is. Dit is ’n baie groot stuk werk om daardie tabelle op te trek. As die tydperk enigsins verkort kan word met nuwe metodes soos kompers sal ons dit beslis doen, want dit is ’n bietjie jammer dat die volle voordeel wat daaruit vloei nie onmiddellik besef kan word deur Jan Publiek nie. Dit is sonder twyfel so. Ek het aan ’n paar persone getoon wat hulle voordele sal wees in hierdie verband en hulle het verbaas gestaan oor die belastingvermindering wat aangebring gaan word. Dit is wesenlike verminderings. Ons hou egter hierdie aangeleentheid gedurig in gedagte.

The hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out that he had to speak in the House and that he could not be present at this time in the Committee. He spoke about the possibility of giving allowances to people who make donations or gifts of works of art, etc. I would not like to say that the hon. member has not got a point but I think until we have been able to go right through the whole gamut of these things—I think there are still some other types of concessions which could be considered and which might be more important—I think until we have done this thoroughly—and this is a matter which the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy can look at carefully again—we should perhaps not be in too much of a hurry here. But it is a point which we will take note of and it will certainly be borne in mind.

I overlooked one point which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke of the possibility of allowances in the case of the construction of flats—building allowances in this instance; something on the lines of those allowances given to hotels where I agree that we have had a fair measure of success. I am told that in practice this is not as simple a matter as it might be, the reason being that the net return on an investment in flats as calculated before tax is deducted—the average sort of return—is low. In fact it is so low that even if a form of write-off allowance were granted, the return on such investment would still be relatively unattractive even if the allowance were sufficient to wipe out all liability for income tax in some cases. He pointed out further that persons putting up blocks of flats find it far more profitable to sell the flats under sectional title than to let them. This is true even if the profit on rentals were to be entirely exempt from tax. Furthermore the possibility of introducing allowances has been considered but so far a satisfactory answer in practice has not been found. It should be borne in mind that write-off allowances for buildings have thus far not been granted in the commercial sector except to hotels. Any further relaxation of the rule would of course lead to requests for other kinds of concessions, possibly shops, etc., which will have to be borne in mind.

Where then are people going to live if the State does not help?

I do not know that the State can provide flats. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, believe that the private sector, i.e. private businesses, will simply have to realize that they are going to have to become much more involved in this whole question of the provision of accommodation—houses, flats and all sorts of accommodation.

At these rentals?

Yes, but now that we are moving away from controlled rents, I imagine that we will now be moving much closer, right through, to economic rentals, which presumably will have some effect on the inducement to provide accommodation. It is a problem. It is no consolation to us to say this, seeing that there is a shortage of accommodation here, but it is a very big problem abroad also. It is a matter that is frequently discussed and something that is worrying many people in many countries. Maybe we will have to get together around the table on just this issue some time and really thrash it out, because it looks as if enough accommodation is not being provided and it is a question again of how far the State can go to make up the leeway. The State is going a long way, through the National Housing Commission, and in other forms. There is a very big amount of money being set aside, but again it is a question of judgment and what is regarded as judicious and right. I think we will have to make a very close and a very urgent study of this whole issue. This is my own feeling in the matter.

Ek vertrou ek het op die meeste van die interessante argumente geantwoord. As ek dit nie gedoen het nie, hoop ek om aan die einde weer ’n kort beurt te kry en dan sal ek probeer om daardie gedeeltes aan te vul.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the comment of the hon. the Minister on points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville and for Mossel Bay concerning some form of subsidy to help those who rely on investment income. This affects a particular group, which is the aged. I think there is a good reason for some sort of support for them. I would just like to suggest that if one is looking at particular investment types, one should have a look at an investment that was available in the private sector some years ago, which was property leasebacks, these, in fact, provided one with some sort of floor income and an income that increased each year at a specified rate. While I have considerable sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, I do not want to do what he did and spend seven minutes telling you what I am not going to talk on.

I would like to comment specifically on some matters relating to the insurance industry and the pension fund industry. I think for most people insurance and pension contributions are their main form of regular saving. Unfortunately for many people it is the only form of regular saving that they have. Both the life insurance and the pension industries are already relatively important industries in South Africa and in fact are likely to become even more important. If you have a look at a study which was done in the United States on the role of financial intermediaries in the American economy in the 20th century, it pointed out that there was a tremendous swing towards life insurance and pension funds and that they played a more and more prominent part in the American economy. I think there is a number of reasons in South Africa why this trend will be apparent here. In fact it is apparent already. Firstly, we are likely to see further expansion, I am sure, in the White life insurance market. There is one thing that amazes me about life insurance salesmen and that is that if you have no assets, the answer is life insurance and if you have more assets than you can cope with, the answer is still life insurance—to help you pay for the estate duty. I think there are few products that can satisfy so many needs. Secondly, I think we are going to see a rapid expansion in the purchase of life insurance by the non-White market. Thirdly, there is a growing tendency for people to become more conscious of the need for pension funds. At present in South Africa we have approximately 3,3 million people who are members of a pension fund. If you have a look at the economically active population of South Africa this would suggest that about one-third of the economically active population belong to a pension fund. I am sure that this situation is going to change. What is important, and these are important sectors of the economy, is that the general public should have confidence in the life insurance and the pension fund industries. Recently we had this problem of people who belong to voluntary life cover schemes who in fact found that the eventual cover they got, was considerably less than they thought they were entitled to. I do not want to comment on that particular point, but what I do want to say is that if people are going to have confidence in life insurance and in pension funds, then I think there is certain relevant information which they need. This is particularly valid because if you have a look at life insurance or a pension contribution, it is different from virtually any other product or service in that you only get the benefits 30 or 40 years later. It is unlike a motor-car where you are using it immediately and you can see whether you are satisfied with it or not. This, of course, arises because of its long-term nature. I think there are two areas where the question of disclosure is particularly important. One is how the premium that a person pays to an insurance company, is divided. I know that some companies already do this, but there are an awful lot of companies that do not. People are quite shocked when they pay into the scheme and after three years find that although they have contributed a fair sum of money, the actual amount that they are being paid out is considerably less than they had anticipated. This arises quite naturally, because the placing of an insurance policy on the books, costs the company a fair amount of money. The point I am making, is that I think there is a lot of people who buy insurance policies who are in fact unaware of how the premium is being allocated. This also raises the question of the performance of the insurance portfolios. We have cases where we are told that the performance of a particular portfolio has increased by 15, 16 or 17%. The policy holders are inclined to believe that their share of the portfolio has increased by 16 or 17% and this, of course, is not the case, because there are various charges such as management fees. Often 10% of the growth and income goes to the portfolio managers. There is also expenses such as company tax, etc. The point here is that I believe that we have to give an individual who is buying an insurance policy and already has an insurance policy, the necessary information to allow him to judge which policies are best in the market place.

You often get a situation where a company will give you one quote which looks considerably better than the quote given by another company, but the assumptions are completely different. I believe that if we made it compulsory for insurance companies to give greater details to potential purchasers of insurance policies, we would in fact create a more educated consumer, a better consumer. He would then be able to judge more accurately what is the best policy in the market for his particular case. With the question of pension funds, the situation is somewhat different. I think it is important to encourage people to save via pension funds, but when pension funds are sold many of the assumptions on which they are sold, are not spelt out. This is particularly important because we enter into the domain of the actuary and actuaries are very technical people who often have considerable difficulty in talking to ordinary human beings. An American expert, Prof. Howard E. Winkelvoss, who is attached to the Wharton School, pointed out that an increase of 1% on the investment return assumption, can reduce premium expenses on the pension fund by 25% and a reduction of 1% in the wage assumption can cut expenses and liabilities by 13%. I do not want to go into the argument of what are the correct assumptions, but what I am saying is that I think these assumptions should be spelt out. I am not suggesting that the actuarial valuations used are not legitimate, but they can create widely divergent results. No matter what actuarial method is used minor variations in assumptions about salary growth, return on investments and resignations can affect costs and estimated benefits.

The second point I would like to make is that I think there is a good argument for companies having to put in their annual accounts what their pension fund liabilities and obligations are. We have had a situation in the United States where there have been some shocks in the pension fund industry. For example, wheeling—Pittsburg Steel, which is in the middle of the top U.S. five hundred companies, has unfunded vested pension liabilities of seven times the value of the companies shares which are quoted on Wall Street. I think companies have obligations both to their shareholders and to their employees. I would like to see a situation where in their annual accounts they have to spell out in some detail the value of the pension fund, the funded and unfunded obligations under that pension fund and also the basis of arriving at these figures. I think this is particularly relevant at the present time as it seems that we may have compulsory transferability of pensions and perhaps also vesting of pensions. Therefore the consumer is going to need to know exactly how safe the pension fund is he is contributing to or leaving his money with. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, vergun my in die eerste plek om my ook te skaar by die agb. Minister en ander agb. lede se gelukwensing van dr. De Loor met sy aanstelling as Direkteur-generaal van Finansies, asook by die lof wat daar gebring is aan die amptenare in die hoër posisies in die Departement van Finansies en in die Finansies-familie. Ek kan nie anders nie as om my heelhartig daarmee te vereenselwig en om hulde te bring aan die goeie werk wat hierdie amptenare vir ons, baie dikwels onder baie groot druk, doen. Dit word nie allerweë besef nie, maar ons brei op finansieel-ekonomiese gebied geweldig vinnig uit. Sofistikasie tree op die gebied van finansiële bestuur in, terwyl die aktiwiteite van die Finansies-familie besig is om geweldig vinnig uit te brei. Interessantheidshalwe kan ek meld dat gedurende 1940-’41 die totale begroting van Suid-Afrika R162½ miljoen was. As ’n mens onthou dat die begroting vandag meer as R13 biljoen is, besef ’n mens watter geweldige groei plaasgevind het. In 1941 was die Staat se inkomste R114½ miljoen, teenoor die huidige R1,2 biljoen. Dit gee ’n mens ’n idee van die geweldige toename in die werk van veral ons twee inkomstedepartemente, t.w. die Departement van Binnelandse Inkomste en die Departement van Doeane en Aksyns. Ek wil vandag in die besonder hulde bring aan hierdie twee direktorate waarmee ek baie te doen het vir die besondere hoë gehalte werk wat hulle doen. Hier dink ek byvoorbeeld aan die stelsel van algemene verkoopbelasting wat met groot sukses ingestel is. As ’n mens dink aan die omvang van daardie belasting kan ’n mens nie anders nie as om die betrokke direktoraat en die Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste geluk te wens met die wyse waarop hulle die heffing van die belasting geïmplementeer het.

Terwyl ek van algemene verkoopbelasting praat, wil ek verwys na wat die agb. lid vir Yeoville gesê het, t.w. dat dit nie billik is dat ons algemene verkoopbelasting het op, soos hy dit genoem het, die ,,essentials of life” nie. Hy het veral voedsel uitgesonder. Ek dink ons moet hierdie kwessie van algemene verkoopbelasting op sogenaamde basiese voedselsoorte en noodsaaklike lewensmiddele in perspektief stel. Ons algemene verkoopbelasting is 4%, wat ’n besondere lae belastingkoers is. Ek dink ons moet alles in ons vermoë doen om hierdie koers so laag as 4% te hou. Ons kry nou allerhande pleidooie vir uitsonderings. Daar word gesê dat voedsel, basiese kledingstukke en die ,,essentials of life” vrygestel moet word van die belasting. In Brittanje is daar begin om basiese voedselsoorte vry te stel, maar op die ou ent moes hulle alle voedsel vrystel. ’n Mens begin byvoorbeeld met ’n basiese voedselsoort soos eiers, maar dan eindig jy later by oesters en kaviaar want jy weet nie waar om die streep te trek nie. Daar is begin met die vrystelling van belasting van kinderklere, maar daar is later gestry oor tot watter grootte kledingstukke vrygestel moet word. Die Value Added Tax in Brittanje is verhoog van 7½% tot 15% onder meer as gevolg van die feit dat vrystellings toegestaan is.

Die agb. lid vir Yeoville het die punt gemaak dat met die groot verskille in inkome wat daar in Suid-Afrika is ons versigtig met so ’n belasting moet wees. Dit is juis wat ons doen. Ons poog om algemene verkoopbelasting in Suid-Afrika so laag as moontlik te hou juis omdat ons besef dat ’n groot deel van die bevolking ’n lae inkomste het. Die indruk word deur verskillende mense geskep—ek wil nou nie sê dat die agb. lid vir Yeoville doelbewus so ’n indruk probeer skep nie—en veral onder die armes dat hulle hulle dood betaal aan algemene verkoopbelasting op basiese voedselsoorte en ander benodigdhede. Die Marknavorsingsburo van die Universiteit van Suid-Afrika het ’n studie gemaak en bevind dat die gemiddelde Swart gesin 10% van sy inkomste aan basiese voedselsoorte betaal. As sy inkomste R2 500 per jaar is, betaal hy op R250 A.V.B. 4% daarvan is R10 per jaar of 83c per maand. Wat is 83c per maand vandag? Dit is mos nie baie belasting nie. Ek aanvaar dat agb. lede wat ’n pleidooi lewer vir die afskaffing van algemene verkoopbelasting op basiese voedselsoorte bedoel dat ons voedsel daardeur geweldig goedkoper sal maak en dat ons dan nie voedsel sal hoef te subsidieer nie. Op ’n brood van 25 sent word 1 sent belasting betaal. Die subsidie op brood is 14,8 sent per bruin brood en 8,5 sent per wit brood. Wat is nou die beste vir veral behoeftige mense? Moet brood nou gesubsidieer word met amper 15 sent en 8 sent of moet een sent algemene verkoopbelasting daarop prysgegee word? Algemene verkoopbelasting is juis een van die belastingbronne wat ons in staat stel om voedsel te kan subsidieer. Dit is ’n viriele en groeiende bron van inkomste vir die Staat. Dit groei saam met die koopkrag van die bevolking en—ek wil dit amper nie hard sê nie—saam met inflasie. Verder is dit ook ’n gewilde belasting, want almal betaal dit. Niemand is kwaad omdat iemand anders dit nie betaal nie. Ons sal daarin slaag om A.V.B. teen ’n lae koers in Suid-Afrika te hou as ons nie vrystellings daarvan gee nie. Kan agb. lede hulle voorstel hoeveel wanpraktyke daar sal wees wanneer ’n mens dit nie meer ’n monetêre belasting maak nie maar ’n kommoditeitsbelasting? Elke man met ’n winkel op die hoek sal op sekere goedere belasting moet bereken en op ander nie. Gevolglik word daar ’n opening vir misbruike geskep wat so groot is dat ’n wa daarin kan draai. Wat sal dan gebeur? Die inkomste uit daardie bron sal daal en ons sal die koers van A.V.B. aansienlik moet verhoog. Ons maak dit dan ook onmoontlik vir die sakewêreld om daardie belasting te administreer. In Amerika is daar tot vier verskillende skale van A.V.B. Hoe eenvoudiger ons die stelsel hou, hoe makliker is dit om dit te beheer en te kontroleer. Ons moet ook onthou dat die privaatsektor samel hierdie belasting gratis in vir die Staat en ons moet dit vir hulle so maklik as moontlik maak. In Amerika is daar sekere state waar die staat 3% kommissie moet betaal aan die betrokke besighede om daardie belasting te administreer, want dit word ’n onmoontlike saak.

Ek dink dit is in almal se belang dat ons nou besluit dat siende dat ons A.V.B. teen ’n lae koers betaal dat ons nie uitsonderings op vrystellings gee nie. En dit is die standpunt van die Regering dat ons nie behoeftige mense gaan help as ons kom met niksseggende vrystellings nie. As jy vandag praat van ’n afslag van 83 sent per maand, en ek wil nie met minagting van 83 sent praat nie, is jy net besig om jouself te bluf; dit help niemand nie. Ons moet liewers die algemene verkoopbelasting hou op alle kommoditeite sodat ons ’n groeiende bron van inkomste het. Laat ’n mens dan liewerste dink in terme van voedselsubsidies.

Terwyl ek daarvan praat wil ek daarop wys dat die agb. lid vir Yeoville die bewering gemaak het dat as gevolg van die Regering se houding die broodpryse geweldig gestyg het. Maar dit is nie korrek om dit te beweer nie. Ons het die voedselsubsidie vanjaar juis verhoog tot R221 miljoen. Terwyl ons van die ,,essentials of life” praat waarna die agb. lid verwys het, wat is ’n pelsjas? Is dit dan ook nie ’n ,,essential of life” nie? Moet ’n mens daarop A.V.B. vrystel? ’n Ander man sal argumenteer dat ’n motor ’n ,,essential of life” is, want hy het die motor nodig om by sy werk te kom. Nou kry jy die man wat ’n R28 000 se sportmotor koop en hy gebruik hom ook om by sy werk te kom en dan is dit ook mos ’n ,,essential of life”. [Tyd verstreke.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek staan net op om die agb. Adjunkminister ’n kans te gee om sy toespraak te voltooi.

Ek sê baie dankie vir die agb. lid se hoflikheid.

Ek wil graag kom by die agb. lid vir Losberg wat die punt gemaak het i.v.m. die aankoopkoste van implemente wat in die geheel aftrekbaar gemaak is in die jaar van aankoop vir inkomstebelastingsdoeleindes. Hy sê dit is ’n manier wat deur boere gebruik word vir kapitaalvorming. Die agb. lid het die versoek gerig dat boere oorskotfondse by die Landbank moet kan belê om ’n soort van belastingvrye reserwe op te bou, om kapitaal te hê wat aangewend kan word in moeilike jare. Ek wil die agb. lid daarop wys dat die Jacobs-komitee ’n soortgelyke aanbeveling in daardie verband gemaak het. Ons is die hele gedagte nie onsimpatiek gesind nie en daarom is hierdie aanbeveling na die staande komitee vir advies insake belasting verwys en hierdie komitee sal daarna kyk.

Die Jacobs-komitee het ook aanbeveel dat—

Ek wil darem net graag hier die kwessie van nivellering noem en veral wys op die wysiging wat verlede jaar ingestel is, waarvolgens daar werklikwaar verligting vir boere is ten opsigte van moeilike jare wat ondervind word. Ek wil vir die agb. lid sê daar is natuurlik baie argumente wat gebruik kan word waarom dit moeilik sal wees om die vergunning om net by die Landbank te belê aan boere toe te staan. Een van die probleme is dat ander finansiële instellings ook aanspraak daarop sal kan maak dat hulle ook sulke beleggings moet kan bekom. Dit kan ook gebeur dat waar groot beleggings in daardie verband by die Landbank gemaak is, die bank in moeilike jare dalk ’n likwiditeitsprobleem kan ondervind, deurdat groot onttrekkings in sodanige jare sal plaasvind. Maar, mnr. die Voorsitter, ek verwerp nie daardie voorstel summier nie. Ons verwys dit na die staande kommissie en ons wag laasgenoemde se aanbevelings af in daardie verband.

Wat betref die tydperk tussen die aankondiging van verminderde belastings en die werklike aftrekking waarna die agb. lid vir Losberg verwys het, het die agb. Minister reeds mee gehandel, en ek vereenselwig my met wat die agb. Minister hier geantwoord het.

Ek wil net verwys na die agb. lid vir Yeoville wat hier baie gewag gemaak het van inflasie. Ons erken die belangrikheid daarvan. Ons argumenteer nie oor daardie saak nie. Dit is openbare vyand nommer een in SuidAfrika. Die agb. lid het ook verwys na die inflasiekoers van 14%, ens., maar, mnr. die Voorsitter, ons moet ’n paar feite in gedagte hou en ek sou sê die agb. lid is verkeerd as hy ’n inflasiekoers van 15% vir die volgende jaar voorspel. As ons na die inflasiesyfer vir April ’80 tot April ’81 kyk, sien ’n mens dat meer as 3,2% persentasie punte van daardie 14% suiwer te wyte is aan die verhoging van die brandstofpryse. ’n Mens moet ook in gedagte hou dat van jou groothandelsprysindeks, ’n derde van die 18% aan ingevoerde goedere se prysstygings te wyte was. Verder is daar ook in die koers van 14% inbegrepe 3,4% persentasiepunte wat toe te sktyf is aan die styging in die koste van voedsel.

’n Mens moet egter onthou dat brandstof en kunsmis twee van die belangrikste komponente is in voedselproduksie en as ons die produsente nie vir hierdie verhoogde insette kompenseer nie sal ons mos noodwendig op voedseltekorte afstuur, wat stygings in voedselpryse van ’n baie groter omvang as gevolg sal hê as wat ons tans ondervind. Ek dink nadat hierdie brandstofverhogings iets van die verlede is, en die kunsmisverhogings so hoop ons ook aan bande gelê is, sal daar miskien meer realisme kom in voedselpryse. Maar ons moet ook onthou dat die Jacobskomitee bevind het dat die landbou inderdaad agter gebly het. Daar is ’n agterstand opgebou ten opsigte van landboupryse wat reggestel moes word. Ek sal nie sê dis volkome reggestel nie, maar daar moes iets aan gedoen word, en iets is wel gedoen i.v.m. byvoorbeeld die laaste twee mieliepryse en die laaste vasstelling van die koringprys. Ons moet toegee dat as een sektor ’n agterstand opgebou het, ons hom darem ’n geleentheid moet gee om net weer by te kom om te kan bly voortbestaan.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek wil graag oor ’n aangeleentheid praat waaroor in die laaste tyd baie gepraat en geskrywe is en waaroor daar miskien in die toekoms nog baie gepraat en geskrywe gaan word. Dit is naamlik die landboudistilleerder m.a.w. die stoker van mampoer. [Tussenwerpsels.] Mnr. die Voorsitter, dis ’n veelbesproke aangeleentheid, soos wat u nou hier gehoor het. Dit is in die provinsiale raad bespreek; dit is hier in die Volksraad bespreek; ons koerante het daaroor geskrywe; daar is talle briewe daaroor geskrywe en vertoë daaroor gerig. Ek dink as ek die prentjie opsom is dit baie duidelik dat daar eensgesindheid onder die volk is dat daar ’n hersiening van Wet No. 91 van 1964, Die Doeane en Aksynswet, moet kom. Hierdie Wet reël die stook van mampoer.

Daar moet ’n verandering in die Wet kom om te sorg dat hierdie pragtige gebruik nie heeltemal uitfaseer nie.

Hoor, hoor!

Ek wil dadelik sê dat my vertoë nie suiwer alleen om kultuurhistoriese gronde gaan nie. Dit ook; dit is baie belangrik, maar dit gaan nie net daaroor nie. Soos u self weet, mnr. die Voorsitter—u kom self van die verre noorde af—is hierdie ou gebruik oor die 300 jaar hier in Suid-Afrika aan die gang, en niemand is ooit daardeur benadeel nie, minste van almal die stokers van brandewyn en ons sterkere drank. Nie een is daardeur benadeel nie omrede die hoeveelheid mampoer wat gestook word so minimaal is dat dit nie hierdie kant toe of daardie kant toe gaan nie. Daar was duisende lisensieshouers en die departement se argument was nog altyd dat dit moeilik is om hierdie lisensies en die distilleerders te kontroleer. Maar, mnr. die Voorsitter, as ons nugter oor die saak dink, is dit nie net moeilik om hieroor kontrole te hou nie; daar is baie ander sektore in ons samelewing waar dit ewe moeilik is om kontrole te hou. Ek dink byvoorbeeld aan jaglisensies—die mense wat onwettig jag. Ek dink aan die diamantkoper wat baie onwettige diamante koop.

En daggá.

Daar is darem nie soiets soos ’n lisensie om dagga te koop nie. Hoekom moet die stook van mampoer alleen aan bande gelê word? Geen voorsiening word in die wet gemaak vir die uitreik van lisensies in Natal nie. Hoekom nie? Omdat daar nog nooit ’n lisensie in Natal was nie. Daar bestaan nie lisensies nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Hulle maak hul rietspiritus op ’n ander manier. In die Kaapprovinsie en in Suidwes-Afrika word lisensies alleen toegestaan indien minstens 2 800 liter wyn met ’n alkoholpersentasie van 11½% in die voorafgaande jaar geproduseer is.

Maar dit geld nie vir die stook van mampoer in die Transvaal en in die OranjeVrystaat nie. Dit is veral vir hierdie twee provinsies waarvoor ek pleit. In 1935 was daar in die Kaapprovinsie alleen 2 866 stookketels. In 1964, 29 jaar later, was daar in die hele Republiek omtrent 3 000 stookketellisensies. Ek dink nie daar is meer as 100 vandag beskikbaar nie en hiervan is seker 90% in die Transvaal gelokaliseer. Daarom dink ek werklikwaar ’n mens kan weer na hierdie situasie kyk ten einde dit in heroënskou te neem. Dit is eintlik ’n tipiese Afrikanertradisie wat hier nek omgedraai word, meneer; dit word stadigaan uitgefaseer. Die winter is aan die kom, en die agb. Adjunk-minister wat min of meer dieselfde tipe kiesafdeling as ek verteenwoordig, weet dat die tyd vir biltong en mampoer aanbreek. Een van die dae is nog net die biltong oor en dan is die mampoer nie meer daar nie. Dit is wat so jammer is van die hele aangeleentheid. Ek sou eerder wou sien dat hierdie ou gebruik aangemoedig word en dat hy nie nekomgedraai word nie.

Ons praat van die kultuur-historiese aspek van mampoer. ’n Man soos Herman Charles Bosman het pragtige verhale geskryf oor mense wat mampoer gebruik. Die Voortrekkers het hierdie gebruik saam met hulle gebring vanaf die Kaap na die Transvaal en die Vrystaat. Die onderwyskomitee van die Suid-Afrikaanse Landbou-unie het ernstige vertoë in daardie verband gerig, so ook die Transvaalse Landbou-unie. Ek dink ons agb. Minister van Landbou het al in die Volksraad gesê dat hy graag sou wou sien dat hierdie gebruik voortleef. Hy het self ’n artikel in die Landbouweekblad daaroor laat skryf. Daar is talle staaltjies, meneer. Dit is jammer die tyd laat my nie toe nie, anders kon ek vir u ’n paar vertel het. Daar is talle staaltjies rondom hierdie pragtige ou tradisie, as ons praat van die kultuurhistoriese sy daarvan. Dit is jammer dat daar ’n absolute verbod is op die oorerfbaarheid van so ’n lisensie. ’n Seun mag dit nie van sy vader erf nie. Dit kan ook nie van een plaas na ’n ander plaas oorgedra word nie. Sê byvoorbeeld ek het ’n klein vmgteplasie en ek het ’n ketellisensie. Nou verkoop ek die plasie, ek wil uitbrei en ek koop vir my ’n pragtige groot vrugteplaas maar nou sterf die lisensie onmiddellik.

Dan is daar nog die ketel.

Ek het nog die ketel, maar die lisensie is daarmee heen. Ek mag nie meer stook nie. En ’n vader mag nie hierdie hsensie aan sy seun bemaak nie. Dit is net so jammer. Daarom my ernstige pleidooi dat daar ’n verandering aan die wet aangebring moet word. Ons vra nie vir toegewings aan ’n sekere persoon nie. Ons vra nie dat ’n sekere vader toegelaat moet word om sy lisensie aan sy seun oor te dra nie. Ons wil nie toegewings hê nie. Ons vra vir ’n verandering aan die wet want dit is al wat gaan help.

Daar word gesê dat hierdie stookketel op sigself nog altyd sal kan bly as ’n omament of ’n rariteit. Maar wie wil nou in ’n koue museum gaan kyk na ’n ornament of ’n rariteit? Al uitwerking wat dit in museums of in huise sal hê, sal wees om ons tereg te laat staan voor ons nageslag dat ons hierdie gebruik laat uitsterf het. Ons sal aangeklaagdes wees voor ons kinders. Niemand pleit daarvoor dat dit na museums moet gaan nie. Ek het al self gewonder, om ’n wenk aan die hand te doen, of daar nie ’n vereniging van mampoerstokers in die lewe geroep kan word nie. Laat huhe self ’n kode neerlê; laat hulle self strafmaatreëls op hul lede toepas indien hulle misbruik daarvan maak. Ek weet nie hoeveel van die agb. lede al mampoer geproe het nie, maar ek dink dat as hulle dit geproe het hulle sal sê dit is beter as enige whisky of ingevoerde likeur of wat ook al. Ek dink hierdie gebruik moet uitgebrei word. ’n Mens kan selfs dink aan ’n mampoerkorporasie wat hierdie hele saak kan reël en beheer. Daarom my ernstige pleidooi dat indien die agb. Minister of die agb. Adjunk-minister miskien op die saak ingaan, hulle dit nie net sal sien in ’n kultuur-historiese verband nie, maar ook in ’n breër opsig.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I have very great sympathy for the point made by the hon. member. Where he says there could be a co-operative society or affiliated agricultural union for “mampoer” and so forth, I can see a great future for such an idea. One could have a national “mampoer” day or one could have a national frog-jumping competition to find out how frogs can jump on “mampoer”! [Interjections.] I think a serious case can really be made out for something which ought to be part of the life of South Africa, where we can relax and laugh at ourselves and do the sort of thing the hon. member has proposed. I would support him wholeheartedly in his appeal. I think there is a crying need in our national life for this kind of thing which is distinctive to us. There are so many stories in the United States about the moonshiners and Daisy Belle and that sort of thing. I think it would be a wonderful idea if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to agreeing to such a proposal.

I should like to return briefly to the point I was making when I ended my previous speech and that is the taxing power in the hands of a group. I accept the point the hon. the Minister has made which is why I have put forward the idea that where each group would have a taxing power, there would obviously be other sources of income such as, for example, customs and excise, the general sales tax, company tax, etc. These are taxes that are paid by the population at large and in those cases it would be extremely difficult to identify the groups or individuals who pay them. Income tax is paid by individuals who are identifiable and I think for that reason a group may be entitled to say: “People who are members of my group and who pay income tax, should pay that to my group Government.” The other taxes will then be available to the joint body in the constellation or confederation, whatever it may be, so that there can be a distribution of income. It is vitally important that we give leaders of other groups a very clear indication now that it is the intention of the constellation or confederation or whatever it is, to share the income which is generated jointly in South Africa in the economy at large. Take a state like QwaQwa, for instance where I would imagine the taxable personal income would be very low and would obviously produce very little revenue. In that case a guaranteed amount would be made available so that they would know that they could carry their own costs. In the United States, for instance where the State rights are very strong—the hon. the Minister knows the history of this as well as I do—the founding fathers were people who insisted on the rights of the states. The States that formed the United States were represented by the most pernickety, cantankerous group of people one could find but over the years the power of taxation has fallen into the hands of the Federal Government and the States’ rights are gradually being eroded one after the other because they cannot protect themselves and pay for their own services without being dictated to by the central power. So I want to make this point to the hon. the Minister that if one has a body that represents one’s group, and if one has a tax power that nobody can take away, then one has an element of control over one’s own affairs that cannot be affected.

Whatever may happen in the communal area, whatever may happen in the Government s of the emerging constellation of states, or whatever it may happen to be, every group will know that it is safe and secure. Even if it is necessary at this moment to subsidize the smaller areas from the general fund, at least they will know there is an amount set aside that cannot be affected or taken away. I would therefore say to the hon. the Minister that this is a matter that deserves urgent attention, and I would like an assurance from him that now, in the immediate future, as we are entering a negotiation situation, attention will be given to this matter. I proposed in the Schlebusch Commission that we should try to get a document before the Commission on this basis, that is, a document that might have affected or coloured the thinking of our proposals. But, Sir, there was not time in which to get that kind of information. So I put it to the hon. the Minister that he and his department obviously have the expertise and the technical people who can give him this kind of advice to enable them to work out the sort of formulae that, in my view, are going to be vital in the future.

Mr. Chairman, may I simply comment on what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in regard to sales tax. I agree with him entirely that this should be something that should be applied to all commodities. As soon as one starts making exceptions one merely complicates the whole situation until it defeats its own purpose altogether. I think the right decision has been taken. In my opinion the example of vat. in Great Britain has stultified the whole purpose of what they were trying to achieve. Even Prof. Meade who is one of the more left-wing members and who published a report on proposals for a move towards indirect taxation and away from direct taxation in Great Britain was insistent that exemptions should be avoided as far as possible in order to allow the thing to take its normal course.

I would like to return to another matter that I raised with the hon. the Minister during the budget debate, and that is the whole question of tax-free investments. We have been talking about the subscription share issue, and I am only too pleased to utilize it for myself because of the rate at which one is taxed, namely, at marginal rates of 40%, 50% or 60%, etc. I want to raise the point with the hon. the Minister as to whether it is not really desirable that the entire system of tax-free investments should be done away with altogether, because this is used—and the hon. the Minister himself said so—to subsidize certain other groups of taxpayers. As soon as one gives a person a tax-free advantage, somebody else has to pay for it. As soon as one uses that to benefit the Post Office, for instance, or to benefit building societies, what one is doing is giving an advantage to certain people but somebody else has to pay. The same applies to fringe benefits although I do not want to go into detail in this regard. But as soon as a firm gives somebody a tax-free advantage, somebody else has to pay. One wonders therefore whether it would not be desirable to bring the direct tax on individuals down to a level that would be regarded as reasonable. I am not going to argue about what would be reasonable. Company tax is levied at 40%. If, for instance, one knew that one’s entire income would be taxed at 40%, one might then reach a situation where people would still pay tax and the State could still gather enough for its purposes, without this what I regard as a cumbersome business—these tax-free investments.

You are a real fat cat!

No, Mr. Chairman, in my view it does not benefit the fat cats. I don’t think it benefits the fat cats in the sense that the hon. member for Yeoville suggests because the tax will be levied at one level. We are always told that taxation should be neutral; it should not benefit one group over another. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might with profit look at this particular proposal from the point of view of simplifying the whole administration of the taxation structure in our country.

Just to prove that I am not a fat cat, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question once again. He replied to this question in the budget debate at some considerable length and I am very grateful for this. I am referring to the taxation on gold mines. I do not pretend to vouch for the figures but in a magazine called The Underground Official dated May 1980, certain figures are given and it is stated that these figures were taken from the Goldfields Group. These are first term results.

Dit is ’n Natalse ding daardie.

“’n Natalse ding”? No, I do not think it is a “Natalse ding” because there are no underground happenings in my part of Natal. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that I want to ask for a reduction.

And you say you are not a fat cat?

For instance, West Driefontein showed a profit of R177 674 of which the State’s share was R113, or 63% of the profit.

Millions!

Very well, but these are the figures I have here. They do not say millions here. Of a figure of R33 323 million, if you like, the State’s share is R18 million, 53,9% of the profit. I understand the situation which the hon. the Minister set out in detail in his reply, but I still believe this is a perfectly normal part of the free enterprise system; and to tax ordinary companies that, to my mind, are part of the normal free enterprise life of our country at that sort of level is in my opinion excessive. I realize that there are all kinds of problems. A lot of the money is not collected in tax and is paid out as dividends that go out of the country. I accept that. That might be an undesirable factor.

[Inaudible.]

I do not have time to deal with the whole system. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, nadat die agb. lede vir Potgietersrus en Mooirivier hier so liries geraak het oor die voortreflike eienskappe van mampoer, wil ek graag in hierdie debat ook ’n heel ander noot aanslaan, waarby ek weldra sal uitkom.

Dit is met ’n mate van nostalgie dat ’n mens in hierdie Saal opstaan om te praat. In hierdie waardige en pragtige Saal onthou ek nog die dae toe die agb. Minister van Finansies voorsitter van die finansiesgroep in die Senaat was en ek die sekretaris. Daar was aangename samewerking en toe reeds het ons besef dat hierdie agb. Minister besonder bekwaam is. Ek onthou nog goed hoe die agb. Minister destyds as gewone lid in hierdie Saal voorspel het dat die goudprys wat toe $35 was, nog tot $80 sou styg. Toe het die Opposisie hom uitgelag, maar vandag lag hy vir die Opposisie met die goudprys op $500. Ek wil die agb. Minister van Finansies bedank vir die groot werk wat hy as Minister van Finansies vir Suid-Afrika doen. Op ons parlementêre toer verlede jaar in Amerika, Engeland en Duitsland—en sommige van die agb. lede hier het meegedoen aan daardie toer—het ons oral die spore van hierdie agb. Minister gevind. In finansiële kringe oorsee is daar die hoogste agting en waardering vir hom. Hy maak baie deure vir Suid-Afrika oop en daarvoor wil ons hom hartlik bedank.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek het gesê ek wil in hierdie debat ’n ander noot aanslaan en ek wil vandag praat oor harde kontant, oor munte en note. Wanneer ’n mens gesels met bankklerke, kassiere en winkelklerke, en ook andere wat daagliks geld moet hanteer, kom jy tot die ontstellende gevolgtrekking dat baie Suid-Afrikaners nie respek vir geld het nie. Baie Suid-Afrikaners is ’n roes op geld, soos die oumense gesê het. Dit skok ’n mens om te sien in watter toestand note en selfs munte van die koperspubliek terug ontvang word: opgefrommel, besmeer, vuil, stukkend, gehawend, op geskryf, in twee geskeur en selfs gekontamineer. Muntstukke het gate in, is gebuig en bekrap. Soms is note in so ’n toestand dat ’n mens gril om daaraan te vat en om dit in jou beursie te sit. ’n Noot bly gemiddeld net ses maande in Suid-Afrika in sirkulasie en dan is dit so verslete en vuil dat dit onttrek moet word. Baie note hou skaars drie of vier maande. Dit bring mee dat nagenoeg 280 miljoen note van R2 tot R20 jaarliks teen groot koste in Suid-Afrika vervang moet word. Ek wonder of mense wat so onverskillig met note en munte werk, besef dat dit ’n strafbare oortreding is om ’n munt of ’n noot doelbewus en opsetlik te beskadig. Daar is die geval van die man wat ’n halfkroon op die treinspoor geplaas het om te kyk hoe plat die trein dit kon trap, of dié van die man wat voor sy vriende met groot bravade sy pyp met ’n tienrandnoot opgesteek het. Mnr. die Voorsitter, daar is te veel vandaliste in hierdie land wat hulle daarin verlustig om geld, padtekens, telefone en wat dies meer sy, op roekelose wyse te beskadig. As hierdie mense geen volkstrots het nie, moet hulle vasgetrap en swaar gestraf word. Die verskoning word soms aangevoer dat ons note so vinnig verweer omdat die gehalte daarvan nie meer is wat dit was nie. Die amptenare van die Reserwebank ontken dit egter dat ons nuwe note van swakker gehalte is. Hulle gee die versekering dat die papier waarop ons note gedruk is, nog van die beste in die wêreld is. Behalwe dat so baie van ons mense nog nie weet hoe om geld te spaar nie, weet hulle ook nie hoe om munte en note te versorg nie. Wit, Bruin en Swart mense in ons land moet meer daarvan bewus gemaak word dat munte en note versorging nodig het. Ons moet op skool by ons kinders begin. Wanneer onderwysers kinders leer om te spaar, moet hulle ook sommer by hulle inskerp dat geld volksbesit is wat met respek gehanteer moet word.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, inflasie verteer nie net ’n volk se rykdomme nie, dit verteer nie net ons geld se waarde nie, maar dit is ook besig om ons geld self te verteer, ons munte en ons note. Die randnoot se waarde het as gevolg van inflasie so gedaal en so vinnig van hande verwissel dat die slytasie daarop so groot was dat ’n muntstuk in die plek van die randnoot uitgegee moes word. Dit is jammer want dit het van die rand kleingeld gemaak. ’n Noot is ’n noot maar silwer of koper is nou eenmaal kleingeld. Dit het die rand afgetakel. Dit het sy status verlaag. Nou is dieselfde ook besig om te gebeur met die tweerandnoot. Hy sirkuleer so vinnig dat slytasie ook sy ondergang gaan bewerkstellig. So sal dit seker ook voortgaan tot die vyfrandnoot ook die prooi van inflasie geword het. Dit is nie net die ervaring in Suid-Afrika nie. Dit is ook die ervaring in ander lande van die wêreld. Dit is die gevolg van inflasie.

Ek wil nou aan die agb. Minister vra of hy dit nie wil oorweeg om nou reeds ’n nuwe onderskeidende reeks munte, eenrand-, tweerand- en vyfrandmunte te laat ontwerp nie? Dan kan van die rand iets heel besonders gemaak word. As dit moontlik is, kan dit in ’n ander kleur as silwer gemaak word, moontlik goudkleurig om ons rykdom aan goud te simboliseer. Dan sal die rand, hoewel n munt, nie meer saam met die kleingeld, die sente, getel word nie en sal dit inderdaad nie meer kleingeld wees nie. Die rand kan dan ook kleiner en ligter gemaak word en nie so groot en lomp soos wat dit nou is nie.

Soos u weet, Meneer, is die rand nie alte gewild by die publiek nie, hoofsaaklik vanweë sy grootte en sy gewig. Kassiere sit dikwels met die probleem dat die publiek traag is om ’n handvol randnote oor die toonbank te aanvaar. Mans sê dat die swaar munte in hulle geldsakkie of in hulle agtersak hulle broeke afrem. Klerke wat loongeld moet hanteer, sit dikwels met ’n onhanteerbare swaar vrag munte.

Om af te sluit, wil ek net beklemtoon dat ons meer van ons rand moet maak. Daarom vra ek vir die agb. Minister of hy dit nie wil oorweeg om ’n onderskeidende reeks munte te laat ontwerp van een rand, twee rand en vyf rand nie. As die rand nie meer ’n noot kan wees nie, moet dit ’n heel besondere muntstuk wees, sodat ons trots op ons rand kan wees en dat dit status kan hê, ook onder die geldeenhede van die wêreld.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek sou graag die agb. lid vir Bloemfontein-Noord wou volg en ook iets wou by voeg tot dit wat hy gesê het, maar aangesien ek na hierdie oombhk uitgesien het om met die agb. Minister te kan praat, wil ek graag dadelik daartoe oorgaan.

Ek wil my dank betuig aan die agb. Minister dat hy na my pleidooi insake boedelbelasting nie net geluister het nie, maar dat hy dit oorweeg het, en gunstig oorweeg het, en toegewings van tot R100 000 per boedel gemaak het. Die publiek is hieroor baie dankbaar. Die toegewings ten opsigte van Inkomstebelastingaanslae is met net soveel toejuiging ontvang. Ons bedank die agb. Minister dat hy ’n gevoelige oor vir hierdie pleidooie gehad het. Steeds glo ek dat die toegewings vir die Republiek van SuidAfrika veel voordele sal inhou. Soos die agb. Minister wel bewus is, word daar nou daagliks in ons media gerapporteer van die oplewing van die ekonomie en die entoesiasme wat daar by die publiek bestaan om tot die sake-ondernemersterrein toe te tree. Ek wil aan die agb. Minister sê dat sy goue begroting soveel lig en energie uitgestraal het dat dit eintlik vir baie persone verblindend was. Baie individue en instansies het nog nie die betekenis daarvan verwerk nie. Ja, Meneer, daar is selfs nog sektore van die samelewing wat betoog en protesteer met bakhande, net omdat hulle nog nie die begroting na behore met al die toegewings verwerk het nie.

Dit is vir my oorbodig om vir die agb. Minister te sê dat belasting ’n onpopulêre maatreël is. Maar in dieselfde asem wil ek egter vir hom sê dat die instelling en die handhawing van die algemene verkoopbelasting, alhoewel die agb. lid vir Yeoville nie so dink nie, met ’n totaal ander gesindheid aanvaar en betaal word. Hoekom, Meneer? Omdat algemene verkoopbelasting as grondslag die beginsel van regverdigheid inhou. Hierdie beginsels van regverdigheid en billikheid het die resultaat dat ’n onpopulêre maatreël sonder teenspraak aanvaar is. Inteendeel, dit is verwelkom. Hierdie inkomste word byna nie as inkomste van die Staatskas deur Jan Publiek gesien nie. Dit word eintlik as ’n gemeenskapkas gesien. Almal wil ’n serwituut daarop eien. Elkeen reken homself medeseggenskap daarop toe. As ek elkeen sê, dan bedoel ek individue, inrigtings, organisasies, plaaslike owerhede, selfs provinsiale owerhede en dies meer. Hierdie gesindheid openbaar vir my die mooie en die goeie. Dit openbaar die karaktertrek van eie trots, d.w.s. die mens se nasionalisme. In die lig hiervan wil ek by die agb. Adjunk-minister, wat die Verkoopbelastingwet hanteer, baie ernstig aandring dat hy met arendsoë sal toesien dat hierdie wet van tyd tot tyd so aangepas sal word dat die skuiwergate daarin dermate toegestop sal word sodat die ontduiking en die betaling daarvan sover moontlik verhoed sal word.

Ek het ’n bekommernis, en dit is dat indien daar nie daadwerklik ’n plan beraam word nie, die ontduiking van hierdie belasting op ’n al groter skaal sal plaasvind. Daar word handel gedryf naby die grense van Nasionale State en daar vind ontduiking plaas. Ek kan vir die Komitee sê dat algemene handelaars in die Republiek van SuidAfrika naby Transkei—en dit is nie in my kiesafdeling nie—aan kliënte afslag aanbied veral vir kontantaankope en dan die 4% wat as algemene verkoopbelasting betaalbaar is, vir hierdie doeleindes aanwend, deur eenvoudig op die faktuur of strokie te skryf: ,,sold to Transkei”.

Meneer, hierdie gebruik kan wyd uitkring tot groot skade van die Staatskas. Dit kan na ander Nasionale State uitkring deur byvoorbeeld op die fakture aan te bring ,,Sold to Bophuthatswana,” of ,,Sold to Venda” of later ,,Sold to Ciskei”. Derhalwe stel ek aan die agb. Adjunk-minister voor dat, eerstens, ingevolge die Wet daar nie binne die randmonetêre gebied afslag ten opsigte van A.V.B. aan invoerders gegee sal word nie maar slegs aan herverkopers; tweedens, dat deelname van lidlande aan die Doeane-unie gekoppel moet word aan die aanvaarding van die implementering van A.V.B. minstens gelykstaande moet wees aan die koers waarteen A.V.B. in die RSA gehandhaaf word; en derdens, dat om die nodige kontrole doeltreffend te kan uitoefen, die direktoraat van binnelandse inkomste dienooreenkomstig versterk word.

Ten slotte wil ek ’n uiters ernstige pleidooi rig aan die agb. Minister van Finansies, naamhk dat die belastingstelsel asseblief ondersoek moet word om te bepaal watter aspekte daarvan kapitaalintensiewe produksiemetodes bevoordeel en dat dan geoordeel moet word of kapitaalintensiewe-produksiemetodes bevoordeel moet word waar werkloosheidsprobleme bestaan. Meneer, in Oos-Kaapland is werkloosheid nie ’n periodieke verskynsel nie maar word dit al hoe meer ’n strukturele probleem. Om hierdie versoek te regverdig kan daar in lengte gemotiveer word, maar my tyd is byna verstreke en ek meen die agb. Minister het begrip vir my pleidooi.

Werksaamhede opgeskort om 18h30 en hervat om 20h00.

Aandsitting

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek wil graag reageer op die opmerkings van die agb. lid vir Griekwaland-Oos, naamlik dat daar op die grens van Transkei op aansienlike skaal ’n misbmik beoefen word deurdat daar nie A.V.B. op goedere wat aan burgers van Transkei verkoop word, gehef word nie. Ek wil net sê dat daar slegs vrystelling van A.V.B. gegee kan word wanneer dit goedere geld wat bestem is vir ’n adres in die buiteland. Dit is die eerste uitsondering wat geld waar daar goedere versend word. Die tweede uitsondering geld waar ’n koper uit die buiteland die goedere self kom haal by ’n handelaar binne die Republiek en daardie handelaar tevrede is dat die goedere vir die koper se bedryf of boerdery of vir herverkoop gebruik gaan word. Mnr. die Voorsitter, hierdie uitsonderings geld natuurlik net die BSL-lande en die onafhanklike Nasionale State soos Transkei, Bophuthatswana en Venda. Die uitsondering ten opsigte van die BSL-lande moes gemaak word omdat daar nie die nodige doeaneposte is nie en ook omdat daar nie die nodige personeel is om dit te implementeer nie. Ek wil dit nou hier baie, baie duidelik stel vanaand dat indien daar handelaars is wat hiervan misbruik maak deur goedere aan burgers van vreemde state te verkoop en nie A.V.B. daarop hef nie, hierdie persone hulle aan ’n misdryf skuldig maak. Ek sal dit waardeer as die agb. lid vir Griekwaland-Oos die name van die betrokke handelaars waarvan hy bewus is en wat sulke misdrywe pleeg, aan ons Direktoraat van Binnelandse Inkomste kan verstrek sodat daar op die saak ingegaan kan word. Mag ek net verder daaraan toevoeg dat hierdie vrystelling van A.V.B. normaalweg ook nie vir verkope op kleinhandelsvlak geld nie aangesien dit bestem is vir verkope op die groothandelaarsvlak wat vir uitvoer bestem is.

Ek bedank die agb. lid dat hy hierdie feite onder ons aandag gebring het en sal dit waardeer as hy meer besonderhede in hierdie verband kan verskaf.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek wil verwys na die roerende pleidooi wat deur die agb. lid vir Potgietersrus gelewer is. Ek het selde voorheen in hierdie komitee so ’n mate van eenstemmigheid teengekom. Ek het in der waarheid die indruk gekry dat die komitee totaal eenparig is. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die afleiding wat ek wil maak is dat dit die voorsitter ook insluit. Ek het opgemerk dat die agb. Minister ook geweldig beïndruk was deur die agb. lid se pleidooi en namate die agb. lid voortgegaan het, het ek gesien dat die Kommissaris van Doeane en Aksyns al hoe meer bekommerd raak. Die agb. Minister het aan my gesê dat hy nie kans sien om op hierdie pleidooi te antwoord nie, want as hy moet antwoord sal hy ,,ja” sê. Hy het my toe versoek om te antwoord. Nou het die agb. Minister ’n baie groot fout begaan want daar in Lydenburg-distrik waar ek grootgeword het, het ons as kinders mampoer gekry vir maagkrampe en vir verkoue en ek het goed grootgeword op daardie medisyne. En nou is dit natuurlik vir my baie moeilik om negatief te antwoord op die vertoë van die agb. lid vir Potgietersrus.

Ek wil nou hier sê dat dit op rekord kom dat ons hoegenaamd nie onsimpatiek is teenoor die pleidooie wat die agb. lid hier gelewer het nie. Daar is ander agb. lede wat aan ons in daardie verband skriftelike vertoë gerig het en ek wil toegee dat die kwessie van mampoer seker ’n diepgewortelde gewoonte is in ons volkslewe. In die etensuur het iemand my vertel dat as jy die mampoer tot ’n sekere stadium gestook het en jy maak die glasie half vol en jy drink hom en ry ’n halfuur te perd en jy skop heeltemal styf in die saal, dan moet jy weet hy is nog nie ver genoeg gestook nie. Dan moet jy terugkom en hom weer stook. Hulle sê as jy hom dan ’n hele ruk verder gestook het, en jy ry weer en na ’n kwartier skop jy styf en jy voeter van die perd af, dan moet jy weet hy is nou reg. Ek besef hierdie is ’n kultuursaak en dit is ’n ernstige saak en nie ’n maklike saak nie en daarom sal ek nie ligtelik daarvoor nee of ja sê nie. Ek kan aan die agb. lid vir Potgietersrus sê die saak word nou ondersoek en ons sal baie ernstig na die saak kyk en dan later kom met ’n antwoord en probeer om ’n aanvaarbare oplossing te vind vir die hele kwessie van mampoer sodat die kultuuraspek daarvan nie verlore gaan nie. Ek wil darem ook net meld dat die saak nie baie maklik is nie. Ek dink daar was ’n bietjie baie lisensies voorheen. Nou het sekere mense hul lisensies verloor en as ’n mens nou sê van vandag af is daardie lisensies byvoorbeeld oorerfbaar of verkoopbaar, dan kan die mense wat hul lisensies sedert 1965 verloor het, ’n redelik geldige argument hê wanneer hulle sê: Hoekom het ons ons lisensies verloor en die ander mense wat toevallig langer geleef het, moet hulle lisensies hou? Ek gee die Komitee en die agb. lid vir Potgietersrus die versekering dat ons met simpatie na hierdie saak sal kyk.

I was interested to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister say how he drank mampoer from a glass. I remember on a previous occasion when I came to taste a new bottle offered by somebody else, it was poured into a little screw top that went onto the bottle and each person in turn took a drink from the same screw top and then poured it full again and drank it. When I looked at this at first I thought: What an unhygienic way of drinking the stuff … until I had a taste. Then I realized that there was not a germ in this world that could live with that mampoer. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on to more serious subjects.

I want to talk a little bit about the responsibilities of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. One must realize that the responsibilities of the Registrar are largely concerned with public protection, consumer protection. He looks after the public interest as far as financial institutions like banks and building societies are concerned. I want to go a little deeper into a branch of financial institutions, namely the Registrar of Insurances who has to look after consumer interests in the field of insurance. He has certain responsibilities to consumers, to the man in the street, to the public. He has to ensure that insurance operations are reasonably safe investments for the man in the street. That is his function. Recently we had a situation where certain group insurances have gone very sadly wrong. Group insurance operations had benefits where the sum assured actually changed and most of the members of those group schemes were unaware of the fact that the insurance company concerned had the right to change those benefits. It had not been adequately spelt out by the insurance company in the first instance and it transpired that many members, in fact, all the members of these schemes—many of the schemes were concerned with the Public Service, specifically the public service scheme, the police scheme, the schemes of the three branches of the Defence Force, that of the Railways Salaried Staff Association, etc.—had never seen the policy and had never even had the opportunity to see it. In many instances the trustees of the particular group schemes had not seen the policy either.

According to The Business Times of 23 March 1980 a Sanlam spokesman—and it was Sanlam schemes we are talking about—is reported to have admitted the possibility of the sum assured being reduced not being specifically spelt out at the time the scheme was entered into. Although this may not have been done with intent to deceive, participants were in fact deceived, whether intentionally or unintentionally, I am not able to say. Certainly Sanlam’s dealings with these voluntary life schemes left thousands of State employees and their widows, possibly, facing hardships and in some instances even financial disaster in very difficult circumstances. I believe that there is possible illegal action going on about this, but I think that we should take a look at the role the Registrar of Insurances through this. One must accept that he is a public official charged to exercise very strict surveillance over insurance companies for the benefit of policy holders and the general public. His duties and responsibilities are spelt out in the Insurance Act of 1943 and he is presumably a man of considerable experience in insurance. He has an advisory council to help him and he is a man well versed in the business of insurance and able to supervise the manner in which such business is conducted. It has been suggested that the trustees of the voluntary group feel that they should have the right now to go to the Registrar of Insurances for some sort of redress. I realize that this is a very difficult thing indeed, but there have been accusations levelled at the Registrar in this connection that he is dominated by the big insurance companies and he is on the side of the big battalions and that he has a bias towards the insurers rather than towards the insured. I just believe that it should be said that there must be a realization that his primary task is protection of the consumer. In this case the consumer is the policyholder. It is interesting to note that through all this difficulty there have been a lot of changes in particular group schemes. I know that, for example, the police group scheme, one of the ones that were in trouble, has now gone to another insurance company which have put forward a policy which doesn’t increase or decrease the sum insured or alter the premium in any circumstances. The accusation has been levelled—and there has been a lot of publicity in the Press about this—that the Registrar does nothing in response to complaints levelled by the public. One has to appreciate that when selling policies any insurance company presents an optimistic picture of what the future is going to be like. Insurance companies make guesstimates, if I may call them that, of how things will go in the future. They are selling, so obviously they tend to be optimistic. They are trying to sell a good looking product and they make it look good. The point that I am trying to make tonight is that the public deserves protection against this sort of optimism which in Sanlam’s case has done considerable damage. I believe that there is a case for looking at legislation in this connection and I believe also that there is good reason for the Registrar of Insurances to look at his whole approach to protecting the consumer. One, I think, should realize in looking at the broader picture following on this, that the future of any policy of this nature is actually tied up with the future of our country. It is tied up with the future of the economy. If the country does well, policies of that nature are likely to do well and if the country does badly or goes through a tough time economically, certainly those policies are going to be very difficult to keep at the benefit level originally projected. We depend, in other words, on a stable future. It depends on exactly how stable our future is to how good any insurance policy is going to be because one should realize that insurance is a long-term operation. Life insurance is a very long-term operation.

We are talking in many instances of 30 or 40 years. We are talking about the future of our country. I believe there is room here for private enterprise, namely the insurance companies I am talking about, being able to contribute something right now towards providing stability for the future. We talked a little earlier about the terrible situation with regard to flat rentals and housing rentals for the less privileged classes in South Africa. I must say that I was a little disappointed and did not like the hon. Minister’s reply in this regard. He put forward no solution at all and solutions have to be found for this matter. We have many people, specially people on fixed income, pensioners, and so on, who just cannot find any place to stay at all which they can afford under the present circumstances. I would like to commend to the hon. the Minister a scheme put forward by a Cape Town insurance consultant, Mr. Isaac Hickman, who has received a little Press publicity for this. He believes that the South African insurance industry should be encouraged to start investing its revenue surplus—South Africa has had a big revenue surplus, because last year’s revenue surplus was more than R1 500 million—in mass housing projects. This would be lower grade housing projects which would of course contribute towards a stable future for our country. He makes the interesting comparison between the post-war years in the United States and now. In the post-war United States they also had a tremendous problem in providing low-cost housing for similar sort of disadvantaged communities. By various measures the insurance industry was encouraged to make loans at low rates of interest available for these particular projects. It was a private enterprise operation. The question may well be asked why they should be prepared to make this sort of investment at a low rate of interest, but I would submit that it is in fact to their long term advantage. The insurance industry, especially the life insurance industry, depends on time for its very salvation. If South Africa gets into grave economic difficulties they are in grave economic difficulties. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, aan die begin wil ek graag reageer op wat die agb. Adjunk-minister gesê het na aanleiding van wat die agb. lid vir Potgietersrus gesê het oor die vervaardiging van mampoer. Die uitfasering van sodanige lisensies hou verband met die feit dat die lisensiehouers grotendeels ouer mense is. Hoe langer ’n mens wag hoe beter is die kans dat baie van daardie mense sal doodgaan en dat baie van daardie lisensies dan binne die volgende jaar of wat sal verval. Ek dink dus dat daar redelik gou aan hie’rdie aangeleentheid aandag gegee sal moet word sodat uitsluitsel na die een of ander kant toe verkry kan word.

Ek wil die agb. lid vir Orange Grove vra dat hy my moet verskoon as ek nie spesifiek met sy toespraak handel nie. Ek wil ook oor versekering praat, maar meer spesifiek oor versekering vir die landbousektor. Ek wil graag verwys na plaasverbandskemas.

Dit gebeur van tyd tot tyd dat die doeltreffendheid en wenslikheid van die Landbank se groepversekeringskema van plaasverbande ter sprake kom en om verskeie redes bevraagteken word. Een van die vrae wat gestel word, is of dit die funksie van die Landbank is om self daardie soort versekering te behartig en of dit nie die private sektor se taak is nie. Ander vrae is of die premiekoerse nie te hoog is nie, of daar nie ’n afkoopwaarde of uitkeringsvoordele vir sulke polisse moet wees nie, subsidieer die jonger polishouers nie die ouer polishouers nie, subsidieer die gesonde polishouers nie miskien die latente siek polishouers nie, en so meer. Om hierdie vrae behoorlik na waarde te kan beoordeel, is dit miskien gepas om op die geskiedenis van hierdie aangeleentheid in te gaan.

In 1954 het die Landbankraad besluit dat hulle sodanige versekeringskema wil instel. Hulle het ’n paar voorwaardes gestel. Dit moet op ’n groepsbasis wees waar die totale skuldlas van sulke polishouers verseker moes word, wat gedelg sou word met die uitfasering van sodanige skuld of wanneer dit moontlik vereffen word. Die premietariewe moes vir die eerste 15 jaar onveranderd bly of dit kon voor die tyd verlaag word, maar dit kon nie in daardie tydperk verhoog word nie. Alle skuldenaars moes ook op ’n nieselektiewe basis sonder bewys van versekerbaarheid verseker word. Met hierdie uitgangspunte het hulle na die private sektor gegaan om te kyk of sodanige versekering moontlik was. Sommige versekeraars het glad nie belang gestel nie, terwyl ander versekeraars sekere voorwaardes gestel het, byvoorbeeld ten opsigte van mediese geskiktheid, die bedrag van risiko wat daarby betrokke is, die ouderdom van die versekerdes en die hersiening van premiekoerse afhangende van hoe so ’n skema loop. Op grond van hierdie eise wat hulle gestel het, het dit nie stabiliteit in sodanige skema gebring nie en sou dit weinig voordele vir die polishouers, spesifiek in die landbou, beteken. Die Landbank het daarna onderhandel met ’n spesifieke herversekeraarsgroep om te kyk of hulle nie iets van die grond af kon kry nie. Op 1 Januarie 1955 het hulle toe in samewerking met die ,,South African Reinsurance Company” so ’n skema van stapel laat loop, met die spesifieke idee dat hulle nie met die private sektor wou kompeteer nie. Daar is dus nie vir uitkeringsvoordele of afkoopwaardes voorsiening gemaak nie.

Na die eerste vier jaar het dit duidelik geword dat die onderskrywers van die polis nie meer bereid was om daarmee voort te gaan nie en het die Landbankraad besluit om self te poog om sodanige skema in werking te stel. In 1959 is die Wet sodanig gewysig dat die Landbank self so ’n skema kon behartig. Na 8½ jaar, in 1963, is die onderhandelings met die versekeringsmaatskappy afgehandel en het die Landbank sy eie skema gestig. In daardie stadium was daar slegs R170 268 as ’n reserwe beskikbaar van ’n surplus van R1,7 miljoen se premies bo eise wat ingesamel is. Dit kon hoofsaaklik aan hoë administrasiekoste toegeskryf word. Die premies het aanvanklik gewissel van 1,63% tot 1,8%, afhangende van die termyn van die lening, maar geen gedifferensieerde premie ten opsigte van ouderdom is gehef nie. Dit is dan wat die geskiedenis tot in daardie stadium betref.

Sedert 1963, toe die Landbank self sy skema ingestel het, is daar gevind dat die premiekoerse van 1963 gedaal het tot 0,82% en 1,7%, afhangende van die ouderdom van die polishouer en die polistermyn wat ter sprake was. Die premietarief het ook gedaal vir die jonger skuldenaars onder 35 jaar en wel met 50% en vir diegene tussen 35 en 45 jaar met 20%. Na aanleiding hiervan kan ’n mens duidelik sien dat met betrekking tot die Landbank se skema daar beslis voordele was. Premietariewe vir diegene onder 35 jaar kon met 50% verminder word en vir diegene tussen 35 en 45 jaar met 20%. Die versekerde bedrag het gegroei van R128 miljoen tot R484 miljoen. Wat verder interessant is, is dat die reserwefonds vanaf 1963 van R170 000 tot R22 678 848 gestyg het op 30 Junie 1979. Die totale premie en renteinkomste van iets oor R91 miljoen vanaf 1955 is soos volg oor hierdie hele periode aangewend: Die betaling van eise het 72,33% beloop en die gedeelte toegewys aan die reserwefonds was 24,70%. Die administrasiekoste in die eerste 8½ jaar, toe van onderskrywers gebruik gemaak was, was 1,49%, en die administrasiekoste in die daaroplvolgende 16½ jaar wat dubbel so ’n lang periode was, was slegs 1,48%; d.w.s. ’n kleiner persentasie administrasiekoste vir dubbel die aantal jare.

Daar is ook verdere voordele, mnr. die Voorsitter, onder hierdie skema, nl. dat die premies jaarliks agteruitbetaalbaar is en by die nie-betaling van ’n polis nog vir ’n jaar en 90 dae in stand gehou word. Na een jaar en 90 dae verval dit tydelik waarna dit met ’n bybetaling van agterstallige premies binne vyf jaar weer herstel kan word. As ’n mens van hierdie standpunt uitgaan en op hierdie geskiedkundige agtergrond en die stand van die versekeringskema let soos wat die Landbank dit daargestel het, dan is dit baie duidelik dat dit groot stabiliteit en sekerheid in die landbou gebring het, in ’n bedryf waar daar veranderende klimaatsomstandighede en onsekerhede is en dat die totale spektrum van skuldenare teenoor die Landbank gedek word by dood ten opsigte van hulle totale skuld. Hulle boedelposisie en erflating vir hul kinders is dus baie gunstiger. Dit is ’n groot voordeel. Ek wil nou sê dit is voorwaar ’n prestasie waarmee die Landbank geloof moet word en waarvan met dank kennis geneem moet word. Dit het nie alleen stabiliteit meegebring nie, maar ook groot voordele aan alle ouderdomsgroepe wat onder die skema verseker is. Dit het tot stand gekom deur die volgehoue deursettingsvermoë, vernuf en bekwaamheid van die Landbank in tye toe niemand ’n ekonomieslewensvatbare skema kon aanbied nie. Ek vra die agb. Minister om nie nou deur die moontlike vertoë hierdie skema deur verdeling af te takel nie, maar deur verdere gesonde aanpassings uit te bou tot voordeel van die landbou met sy velerlei probleme. [Tyd verstreke.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek is bevrees die agb. lid vir Carletonville het te hoog gepraat vir my. Al wil ek hom volg sal ek hom nie kan volg nie. Ek dink dis net die boere wat hom sal kan verstaan, maar ek is seker daarvan dat hy ’n baie goeie bydrae gelewer tot hierdie Komitee se werksaamhede.

Hoewel ek my miskien skuldig sal maak aan herhaling kan ek nie anders as om die agb. lid vir Paarl en ander lede aan hierdie kant van die Komitee te volg wat die agb. Minister lof toegeswaai het vir die wyse waarop hy die ekonomie die laaste aantal jare beheer het nie. As stuurman van ons ekonomie het hy werklik ’n baie bekwame bydrae gelewer om ons ekonomie in ruwe internasionale waters op die regte koers te stuur.

Die agb. lid vir Paarl het veral gewag gemaak van die gedisiplineerde wyse waarop die agb. Minister hom van sy taak gekwyt het en ek wil hom graag ten sterkste ondersteun in hierdie verband. Ek is daarom baie dankbaar om kennis te neem van die feit dat die agb. Minister laat blyk het dat hy nie voornemens is om as Minister van Finansies uit te tree nie.

Hoor, hoor!

Vir my is dit veral belangrik dat daar kontinuïteit in die leierskap in ons ekonomie moet wees, en dit is grootliks daarom dat ek hom wil bedank.

As Nataller wil ek hom ook bedank en sê ons is baie dankbaar dat hy nog by ons wil bly en ek is seker hy sal vir baie jare nog by ons welkom wees.

Ek wil ook verwys na die bydrae van die agb. lid vir Mooirivier in sy eerste spreekbeurt. Hy het ’n bruisende toespraak van optimisme gemaak. Hy het klem gelê daarop dat daar geen land is met die ekonomiese moontlikhede van Suid-Afrika nie en ook nie die politieke moontlikhede van SuidAfrika nie. Ek wil vir hom baie dankie daarvoor sê. Ek dink veral komende van ’n lid van die Opposisie beteken dit baie vir ons land.

Ek wil graag van die geleentheid gebruik maak om twee sake aan die agb. Minister voor te lê. Beide van hierdie sake gaan oor die ouer mense en veral die pensioentrekkers, en meer spesifiek oor belastingtoegewings om hulle lot te verlig. Die eerste saak gaan oor die reg van pensioentrekkers om bydraes tot goedgekeurde uittredingsannuïteitsfondse af te trek vir belastingdoeleindes. Tot nog toe kon persone bydraes tot uittredingsannuïteitsfondse slegs aftrek as daardie bydraes afkomstig is uit belasbare inkomste uit ’n besigheid, bedryf of professie, maar bydraes wat afkomstig is van dividende op beleggings, rente op kapitaal, jaargelde en dan pensioeninkomste is spesifiek uitgesluit en dis veral daaroor wat ek wil praat. Daar is ook ’n ouderdomsperk wat dit stel dat die bydrae wat aftrekbaar van inkomstebelasting is, nie dié is wat tot ’n pensioenfonds bygedra word wat uitbetalings doen voor ’n persoon die ouderdom van 55 bereik het nie, behalwe as hy liggaamlik gebrekkig is of wat eers betaal sal word as ’n persoon ouer as 70 jaar oud is nie.

Soos die Wet op dié stadium staan, beteken dit dat ’n pensioentrekker van 55 nie aangemoedig word om verdere voorsorg te maak vir ’n annuïteit vir latere uitbetaling nie, terwyl ’n persoon wat ’n salaris verdien wel tot op ouderdom 69 aangemoedig word om bydraes te maak. Maar nog meer onregverdig is die feit dat ’n persoon selfs jonger as 55, wat afgetree het en ’n pensioen ontvang weens mediese redes, nie aangemoedig word om verder vir sy oudag voorsiening te maak nie, terwyl ’n persoon wat jonger as 55 is, en ’n salaris verdien, wel aangemoedig word.

Die grondliggende rede wat aangevoer word waarom hierdie onderskeid getref word, is die argument dat pensioentrekkers reeds voorsiening gemaak het vir sy aftrede en nie verder voorsiening daarvoor hoef te maak nie. Ek wil met alle respek aan die hand doen dat in die vyftigerjare toe hierdie vergunning ingestel is, en in 1960 toe die vergunning uitgebrei is ná professies, en die inflasiekoers 1% of 2% was, hierdie argument grond kon gehad het, want toe kon gesê word dat die persoon reeds voorsiening gemaak het vir sy pensioen. Hy kon met redelike sekerheid aanvaar dat hy ’n redelike lewenstandaard in die toekoms sou kon handhaaf. Maar sedertdien het sake dramaties verander, as gevolg van die geweldige hoë inflasiekoerse, en dit is absoluut noodsaaklik dat pensioentrekkers ook aangemoedig moet word om vir hulle oudag verder voorsiening te maak. Dit is ook die tendens, soos reeds gesê is deur die agb. lid vir Yeoville. In Brittanje bv. is daar ’n sisteem waarby persone bo ’n sekere ouderdom die geleentheid gegee word om ’n sekere bedrag by die Regering te belê teen ’n rentekoers wat gelykstaande is aan die inflasiekoers. Met ander woorde, dit onderstreep net die beginsel dat pensioentrekkers ook die geleentheid gegun moet word om bydraes te maak vir hulle toekoms. Ek wil daarom ’n beroep op die Minister doen om op dié saak in te gaan.

’n Ander saak wat ek graag aan die agb. Minister wil voorlê is die verkoopbelasting wat betaal moet word op die oprigting van ouetehuise. Ek wil dadelik aan die begin sê dat ek heelhartig saamstem met wat die agb. Adjunk-minister in hierdie verband gesê het, en ek wil aanvaar dat mens nie te veel uitsonderings op die algemene verkoopbelasting wil hê nie. Dit ondermyn die doeltreffendheid van die belasting; dit veroorsaak dat die belasting duur word en dit maak die belasting administratief lomp. Maar in hierdie geval, indien hierdie uitsondering gemaak word, sal dit nie ekstra administratiewe koste tot gevolg hê nie. Daar is reeds die uitsondering dat vir herstelkoste aan ouetehuise daardie koste vrygestel is van algemene verkoopbelasting.

’n Ander probleem wat geopper word in hierdie verband is dat moeilik onderskei kan word wanneer ’n ouetehuis ’n bona fide ouetehuis is. Daar is in die laaste tyd ’n hele aantal groot luukse ouetehuise gebou wat bekend staan as ouetehuise, maar eintlik luukse hotelle is vir oues en wat eintlik op ’n besigheidsgrondslag bedryf word.

Ek wil aan die hand doen dat die probleem opgelos kan word deur te bepaal dat alleen ouetehuise wat opgerig word deur geregistreerde welsynsorganisasies vrygestel word. Soos die A.V.B. tans toegepas word op die bou van ouetehuise, belas dit in der waarheid welsynswerk. Om ’n voorbeeld te meld. In my eie kiesafdeling is daar twee spesifieke ouetehuise wat gebou is en waaraan nog verder aangebou word, slegs uit skenkings van privaatpersone en instansies. Hulle kry geen staatshulp nie. Ek wil aan die hand doen dat wanneer ’n belasting daarop gehef word, dit beslis die entoesiasme vir welsynswerk in hierdie verband sal ondermyn. Daarom lê ek hierdie saak voor aan die Minister.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, die agb. lid vir Pietermaritzburg-Noord het ’n sekere saak aangeraak, veral die van pensioene. Dit is nie eintlik my veld nie en dus sal ek dit nie betree nie. Ek verwelkom egter wat hy gesê het.

Ek meen die agb. lid vir Carletonville het ’n baie belangrike saak aangeroer, nl. dié van die Landbank en versekeringsaktiwiteite. ’n Mens kan net dankbaar wees vir wat die Landbank vir die boere doen en ek ondersteun die agb. lid in sy vertoë.

I have several smaller matters that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Carletonville raised the question of mampoer with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said that it was the older people who were today practising this craft and that there was a danger of this craft dying out should those people die without being able to pass it on to their sons. Let me point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that some of the most interesting liquors in the world are secret recipes that have been passed down from year to year either by monks in a convent or from families to families and this kind of thing. There is a very real danger …

What are the monks doing in a convent? [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, I think I will leave it to the hon. member who made that remark to answer that question. In a monastery, not a convent. I withdraw it, Sir! The idea I am trying to get across is that recipes are often family secrets and they have been passed down in that way over centuries. I think what the hon. member has in mind is that one will be able to create a lot of individual liquors in the country where they will have a ready sale because of their variety and so forth. I am just putting that to the hon. the Deputy Minister in passing.

I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter that has come to my attention. It is a rather sad case. It is the question of a divorced husband. A husband who is not the guilty party in the break-up of the marriage gets the custody of the children and has to pay alimony to his ex-wife. The position as I understand it is that he is taxed and he gets no rebate or deduction for the fact that he pays alimony. He is taxed as a single, unmarried person which I regard as unfair. In terms of the new budget proposals he can in future only claim rebates in respect of the children. The letter that I have here states—and I think this is a very fair statement—that the man is in fact being punished for being a divorced husband. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. member there is no such thing as the question of guilt. In fact, however, in the case that has been brought to my attention, he was not the guilty party. Would it not be fairer to tax a divorced father on the basis of that of a married man? He could then claim rebates for the children and should also be able to deduct a certain amount—I have not thought this out completely for myself—in respect of the alimony that he is paying to a wife who does not assist him in the running of the home or the bringing up of the children. I think it is fair to say that a man in that situation should be taxed as a married person because he has all the responsibilities, worries and troubles of bringing up the children. It seems to me to be a sort of punitive taxation for him to be taxed as a single person.

I am sorry the hon. member for Malmesbury is not here. I tried to catch his attention earlier on but failed. I want to raise a matter which came up during the meetings of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I do so for a reason that will be apparent in a minute. The Select Committee was discussing the question of new programme budgeting and the hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of the information that was made available to members. He felt that this was not satisfactory. The point was raised by the representative of the hon. the Minister’s department that if it were necessary for more information to be made available to members, perhaps the sort of Select Committee I proposed some years ago in a private member’s motion would be the answer in that, because of the programme budgeting the amount of information available to members seemed to be diminishing. I raise the matter here because on the occasion of the debate on the private member’s motion the hon. the Minister adopted the attitude that he did not think that was necessary and that the motion which I had moved asking that members be given insight into the workings of the departments just after they had presented their budgets and before the Votes of the Ministers were debated in the House, which would serve an immensely …

Order! To what evidence is the hon. member referring?

Sir, the matter was raised during this year’s proceedings on the Select Committee.

Order! The committee has not reported on this matter yet, so I think the matter is sub judice.

That was why I was hoping to get the chairman to discuss the matter. May I then raise it as a general matter, as a matter which is entirely …

Order! The rules are clear on this and that is that matters which are sub judice should be avoided unless reference is made to them in a general manner. With respect, I cannot see the hon. member in this case being able to refer in general to the matter because that is what he is discussing. Although this is a matter that was discussed by the Select Committee, the same sub judice principle applies as applies in a court of law.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I am in a difficult position. The hon. the Minister replied to a matter that I had raised in a debate. May I then raise with the hon. the Minister the subject that I raised in a private member’s motion on another occasion?

Yes.

If I may do that, I will be grateful for your help so that I can bring the matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In the debate that we had, in reply to my motion, the hon. the Minister adopted the attitude, if I remember it correctly and I think I remember it fairly well, that the task of Parliament and of the members of Parliament was more to give political expression to the sentiments in the country and the balance of power among the parties and so forth, rather than that members of Parliament should pay particular attention to the affairs of departments and the budgets that were being presented. It turned on the point that my attitude was that members should pay far more attention to the financial aspects of their responsibilities as members of Parliament. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me there; that was the whole trend of my argument. The reason why I raised it in the House was because I felt that members did not get enough insight into the affairs of departments. It is only when the Select Committee on Public Accounts has to report on them after a year or so, that matters are brought to the attention of members of Parliament. As I remember it, the hon. the Minister took the attitude and in his reply specifically stated that it was not primarily the responsibility of members of Parliament to interest themselves in financial aspects but that Parliament was more of a political body than a financial body. Whatever the attitude the hon. the Minister adopted at the time, however, I think he should have another look at this in view of the fact that programme budgeting has come about. And I put it to the hon. the Minister as a point on which he might like to express an opinion. Programme budgeting has changed the structure in which the accounts are represented to members of Parliament, and I think my private member’s motion that I introduced at the time is of particular relevance at this stage, and if the hon. the Minister would like me to, I will introduce it again next year so that we can have another debate on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River made quite a few interesting remarks but as far as the last one is concerned I cannot recall his private members motion and I cannot speak about this year’s evidence, therefore I cannot comment on the last point he raised. As far as the previous two points that he made are concerned, I think the first one was very valid while as an attorney I would have supported him on the second one. The hon. member for Mooi River, when he spoke the first time, asked how wealth was going to be divided in a practical way. I will come back to that point as well as to the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville who, when speaking for the first time, said that he stands for change and stability. My theme I think I could call “sound economics vs. political ideology”.

Die eerste punt wat ek in dié verband wil maak, mnr. die Voorsitter, is dat in al die gesprekke wat vanjaar in die Komitee plaasgevind het, een ding baie duidelik uitgekristalliseer het. Van alle kante van die Komitee het daar een gemeenskaplike gedagterigting uitgegaan, naamlik dat met die finansiële steun wat ons tans aan die tuislande en onafhanklike state verleen, ons besig is om geld in ’n bodemlose put te gooi waaruit ons feitlik geen resultate kry nie. Dieselfde is egter ook besig om plaas te vind op internasionale vlak en ek wil die VSA as ’n voorbeeld neem. In die afgelope tyd het hulle twee voorwaardes vir hulle ontwikkeling en vooruitgang gestel. Die eerste een is die kwotastelsel, d.w.s. waar daar ’n sekere aantal kopers vir ’n sekere produk is, of waar daar ’n sekere aantal werknemers van ’n firma is wat Blank en Nieblank is, moet sekere van die senior poste aan Blankes en sekere aan Swartes gegee word. ’n Ander voorwaarde wat hulle gestel het is die een wat in die algemeen “the system of affirmative action” genoem word. Die resultaat van albei hierdie stelsels is dat ’n verlaging ingetree het in die produktiwiteit van hul ekonomie sowel as in hul opvoedingstandaarde. Ek het reeds in vorige debatte verwys na uittreksels wat sover teruggaan as 1978 waarin aangetoon word dat ’n standaard wat voorheen in hul leereenhede vergelykenderwys gelyk aan ons standerd nege was, nou gedaal het na standerd ses. Dit is dus glad nie snaaks om nou te vind dat eerstejaarstudente lees- of optelstandaarde nie meer kan hanteer nie.

Ek wil egter graag verwys na ’n baie interessante artikel wat Sondag verskyn het. Dit is geskryf deur ’n Swart Amerikaanse professor, te wete prof. Walter E. Williams. Hy sê Suid-Afrikaners is nie rassiste nie en hy is ook nie ten gunste van ,,affirmative action” nie, d.w.s. die Amerikaanse term wat gebruik word wanneer werkgewers vir diskriminasie moet vergoed. Ongeag hiervan, sê hy, kan hy nie sien hoedat dié Wit mense nou gepenaliseer moet word vir dit wat in die verlede miskien verkeerd gedoen is nie. ’n Tweede belangrike stelling wat hy maak is dat hy ook nie ten gunste van hierdie sogenaamde rassekwotas is nie maar dat alleenlik produktiwiteit sal moet tel in die verband.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, om hierdie redes wil ek dit stel dat wat ons in Suid-Afrika betref, ons ons nie aan die kwessie van kwotastelsels, ,,affirmative action” of die paternalisme wat ’n mens onder die liberaliste kry, moet steur nie. Ons moet liewer ’n positiewe, ekonomiese stelsel invoer met alle geleenthede vir alle mense op gelyke basis. Want in teenstelling met die Amerikaners het die Suid-Afrikaners ten minste dít, nl. dat waar die Amerikaners en die ander lande besig is om hul standaarde te verlaag, ons ten minste besig is om ons standaarde te verhoog, op ekonomiese vlak, wat produktiwiteit betref en ook op opvoedkundige vlak.

Verlede jaar het ons in die VSA ’n heel interessante ondervinding opgedoen. Toe ons een oggend The American Lawyers’ Society for Human Rights ontmoet het, was daar ernstige beswaar van hulle kant teen die feit dat ons in Suid-Afrika minimum loonvasstellings het omdat, so sê hulle, daardie minimum loonvasstellings diskriminerend teenoor die gekleurde groepe is. Hulle het aangevoer dat die hoër produktiwiteitspeil van die Blanke die Nieblanke sou uitskakel. Ek verwys net terloops daarna, want die teendeel is dat daar geen beperking deur die Regering daarop geplaas word dat hoër lone van watter aard ook al betaal word nie. Ek dink dit is ’n stelling wat die agb. lid vir Yeoville gemaak het toe hy gepraat het van ,,the lower income groups” of iets te dien effekte. Die punt wat ek wil maak is dat niemand deur die Regering verbied word om lone aan te pas wat hy aan Blank of Nieblank in sy diens betaal nie.

Terwyl die ekonomiese en finansiële orde in wanorde en in ’n warboel is, word al hoe meer belangstelling getoon in Suid-Afrika met sy teenstellende voorspoed in vergelyking met die res van die wêreld. Het die tyd dus nie aangebreek dat ons ’n herwaardasie van ons situasie moet maak nie, onder meer odk van die aanvalle wat op ons gemaak word asook van ons sterk en swak punte in hierdie situasie nie? Die eerste vraag wat ’n mens kan vra is of ons nie te gou en te lig geraak word deur die politieke aanvalle wat op ons gemaak word nie. Dit het mode geword dat elke klein politikus en agterbanker, wanneer hy nie enige ander platform het nie, Suid-Afrika uitkies om ’n aanval op te loods. Steur ons ons nie miskien te veel daaraan nie? Aan die ander kant, moet ons nie liewer met die mense wat ons wel vriendelik gesind is, soos bv. die bankiers, finansiers, nyweraars, ekonome en realiste, kontak maak nie, in teenstelling met daardie ideoloë, politici en idealiste, Swart en Wit rassiste in trurat, wat ongeag die feite, net die Blankes se ondergang in Suid-Afrika soek nie? Ek wil aan die hand doen dat ons daaraan moet dink om ’n rondreisende finansieel-ekonomiese ambassadeur, of miskien meer as een, aan te stel om te konsentreer op die intelligente realiste, binnelands sowel as in die buiteland.

Ek wil egter ook graag die binnelandse situasie aksentueer en in daardie verband wil ek die volgende drie voorstelle maak. Eerstens, dat onderhewig aan die demokratiese selfbeskikking van elke volk om oor sy eie sake te regeer en te besluit, daar vrye ontwikkeling moet wees en gelyke geleenthede, en dit sluit in werkgeleenthede vir almal sodat elkeen aanspraak kan maak op private besit, ondernemingskap en gelyke beregtiging onder die wet. Tweedens, dat die Blankes sowel as die ander groepe moet meeding, onderhewig aan dieselfde voorregte, maar ook aan dieselfde verpligtinge en verantwoordelikhede. Ek meen dat ons dit wat ons aan die buiteland bestee, liewer binnelands moet bestee, want as ek na my vriende, binnelands sowel as buitelands kyk, moet ek erken dat Gatsha Buthelezi, alhoewel ek op die politieke terrein van hom verskil, nog ’n groter vriend van my bly as Andrew Young van Amerika. Ten spyte van die ideologiese verwydering tussen Adam Small en myself, bly ons twee nogtans sielsgenote in poësie en kultuur. Hoekom? Omdat ons almal die suksesvolle pad na môre òf saam sal loop òf in verdeeldheid saam sal ondergaan, behoort ons binnelands sowel as buitelands ons vriende te tel.

Mnr. die Voorsitter, dit is aangenaam om die agb. lid vir Vasco te volg. Ek glo agb. lede sal saamstem dat hy ’n besonder positiewe bydrae tot die debat gelewer het, ’n bydrae wat as tema gehad het ,,sound economics versus political ideology”. Die agb. lid het tereg gewys op dit wat produktiwiteit eintlik is en dat die buiteland, veral die Westerse wêreld al hoe meer belangstel in die ekonomie en die finansiële opset in Suid-Afrika. ’n Mens kan dus vra waarom dit die geval is.

Myns insiens het ons vanmiddag en vanaand ’n nuttige samespreking gevoer, en ’n mens kan begin by die bydrae van die agb. lid vir Yeoville. Hy het in der waarheid die huidige finansiële opset in die internasionale sfeer vergelyk met die opset tydens die tydperk voor die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. Ek wil hom gelyk gee want vandag leef ons, hier aan die suidpunt van Afrika, in ’n besondere siek finansiële wêreld, veral in ’n besondere siek finansiële Westerse wêreld. As ons daarvan hou of nie, ons is ’n onafskeidbaar deel van daardie wêreld. Die agb. Adjunk-minister het vanmiddag hier tereg daarop gewys dat as ons van inflasie praat, moet ons eers kyk na wat inflasie is en dat dit nie net na aanleiding van Suid-Afrika se monetêre beleid is dat ons inflasie het nie. Ons moet kyk wat die buitewêreld se effek op ons inflasie is en hoe dit eintlik ook via invoere of wat ook al hierheen Suid-Afrika kom en uiteindelik hier tot rus kom. Ek wil egter vanaand die stelling maak, en glo dat ek dit wel kan maak, dat die owerheid op flnansiële en ekonomiese gebied ons gebring het tot ’n posisie waarvandaan Suid-Afrika die toekoms met optimisme kan betree. As ’n mens na die koerante kyk, nie net spesifiek na ons plaaslike koerante nie, maar ook na koerante elders in die wêreld, dan lees ons bv. dat ,,West Germany doubles gold trade deficit”. Onrusbarende syfers word genoem. As ’n mens rondreis in Europa en jy kom in Wes-Duitsland, dan sien ons dat die finansiële en ekonomiese prestasies wat Wes-Duitsland na die tweede Wêreldoorlog behaal het, kop en skouers bokant die res van Europa staan. Dan is dit onrusbarend wanneer ons hoofopskrifte in die koerant lees van die probleme wat tans op finansiële gebied deur Wes-Duitsland ondervind word. ’n Mens kan ook let op wat bv. verlede week gebeur het met die pond sterling op die internasionale monetêre mark. Sterling het ’n hoogtepunt bereik, seker een van die grootste hoogtepunte sedert die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. Maar ten spyte van die krag wat daardie monetêre eenheid behaal het in op internasionale gebied, het die Verenigde Koninkryk absoluut magteloos intern gestaan om daardie vrugte te pluk na aanleiding van die stabilisering van die pond teenoor die dollar, weens die feit dat inflasie en interne finansiële probleme van so ’n aard is in Brittanje dat dit absoluut onbeheerbaar geword het. So kan ons van land tot land ’n vergelyking tref. Daar is die magtige Japan wat probleme met die jen ondervind. Dit wys vir ons een ding, soos die agb. lid vir Yeoville ook gesê het, te wete dat dit ongelukkig so is dat ons in Suid-Afrika realisties moet wees. Om te groei uit krag, is ons beleid.

Ons is egter onafskeidbaar deel van daardie wêreld, en myns insiens is ons besig om saam met daardie wêreld te gly. Finansieël gesproke, kan dit nie langer so voortgaan nie. Een of ander tyd gaan probleme opduik in die ganse Westerse wêreld, probleme waarvoor ek glo ons, as siele geplaas op die aarde met ’n roeping, nie skouer aan die wiel sal kan sit om ’n oplossing te vind nie. Dit is sorgwekkend. Ons hier in Suid-Afrika moet dus die potensiaal wat aan ons gegun is via hierdie Regering en die private sektor benut. Ons aan die suidpunt van Afrika moet voortgaan om ons infrastruktuur uit te bou, en om ons beskeie rol te speel in hierdie finansiële kolos wat besig is om uitmekaar te breek. Derhalwe is dit baie positief en baie goed wanneer ’n mens in koerante en finansiële tydskrifte lees wat die ganse wêreld ingestuur word, dat instansies in die georganiseerde handel en georganiseerde nywerheid vir die wêreld sê: ,,Business outlook in South Africa excellent.” Een van die beste barometers ter wêreld is sekerlik die Effektebeurs. Dan voel ’n mens sommer trots wanneer ons die volgende lees: ,,SuidAfrika se beurs presteer beste ter wêreld.”

Ek glo die edele Minister van Finansies het ’n besondere lansie gebreek vir die wêreld se finansies toe hy uitgenooi is na die Schultz International Monetary Seminar op 15 Mei en ’n adres onder die volgende hoof gelewer het: ,,Monetary gold and monetary reform: quo vadisT’ Wanneer ’n mens hierdie toespraak lees, wonder ’n mens wat die wêreld teen goud het. Besef mense dat papier nie vergelyk kan word met goud nie? Goud leef; goud word groot; goud sal nie doodgaan nie; goud sal voortleef. Wanneer ’n mens na die wêreldopset kyk, wonder jy of die internasionale monetêre beleidmakers dit besef. Of is dit reeds te laat? Goud gaan wat ons betref, in die toekoms ’n noemenswaardige rol speel. Wat die internasionale wêreld betref, het goud egter nie daardie betekenis nie. Is dit jaloesie? Is dit as gevolg van die feit dat hulle Suid-Afrika finansieël wil breek? Of wat is aan die gang? Besef hierdie mense nie waarmee hulle besig is om te speel nie? Ons moet ook almal onder die besef staan van die verantwoordelikhede wat op ons skouers rus. Ons moet almal hierdie besondere uitdaging aanvaar sonder aarseling. Dit is al werklike antwoord vir ons vyande.

Ons kan vir onsself vanaand die vraag afvra: Wat gaan die gemiddelde goudprys in 1980 wees? Wat gaan die gemiddelde goudprys wees? Om die bewegings van die goudprys te voorspel, het nou inderdaad moeilik geword. Ons bly egter daarvan oortuig dat alhoewel die prys aansienlike skommelings op die kort termyn kan vertoon, dit op die lang termyn verder opwaarts sal neig. Dit is die uitdaging van môre. Die hoër goudprys het beslis gunstige implikasies vir die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie gehad. Ek sê gunstige implikasies, want dit versterk ons betalingsbalans.

Die edele Minister het spesifiek in sy toespraak, waarna ek vroeër verwys het, ’n stelling gemaak wat ek glo ons almal in ag moet neem hier in Suid-Afrika toe hy gepraat het oor goud. Hy het gesê: ,,If it is properly harnessed then gold can be of vital concern in the future to South Africa.” Dit geld vir ons almal; ons moet ons huis in orde hou. Almal moet strewe om dit so te hou. Groot moontlikhede wag op ons.

Dit is onrusbarend as ons kyk na die bankkoers op lenings in die buitewêreld, ’n bankkoers van tussen 20% en 21%. Daagliks kom mense wat geld wil leen na Suid-Afrika om sodoende nie ’n bankkoers van 20% te betaal nie. Onlangs het ek die geleentheid gehad om met kiesers te gesels, spesifiek oor hierdie saak. Die man arriveer hier op die Saterdagaand en hy wil lenings in SuidAfrika aangaan weens die feit dat hy ’n rentekoers van 20% gekwoteer is op ’n lening in die buiteland. Ons is nie daaraan gewoond om daardie rentekoers te betaal nie. Op die Maandagaand ontvang hy ’n teleks van die buiteland: ,,Die rentekoers is nie meer 20% nie, dit is nou 21%.” So kan ’n mens voortgaan. Ons in Suid-Afrika moet net besef dat soos die edele Minister gesê het: ,,What is at stake here, as I shall try to point out, is nothing less than monetary and political stability in the Western world and the survival of the free enterprise system.” Hoe gouer die Westerse wêreld dit besef en hou gouer hulle vennote word in die wonderlike dag wat moontlik kan aanbreek, des te beter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Overvaal has, I think, dealt with a wide range of subjects relating to the economic situation outside of South Africa. The one point that I want to draw attention to is that if one, in fact, is not vigilant in one’s own country in respect of a matter such as inflation, and you do not endeavour to control it to the maximum extent possible, the situation can get utterly out of hand. I am going to quote just two simple figures. Firstly, in the decade from 1960 to 1970 the average inflation rate in Chile was 32,9%. To us this would mean a disastrous situation. Yet they did not control it. There were whole series of reasons. But what happened? From 1970 to 1977 the average annual inflation rate in Chile was 267,8%. When the inflation rate reaches that level, the country is finished. All savings are lost, the whole infrastructure and the whole fabric of the community are destroyed. And Chile is not an isolated case, Sir. [Interjections.] Correct, your property remains value. I am with the hon. member. The inflation rate in Argentina was 21,8% between 1960 and 1970. Because of what happened there in the following seven years, it was an annual average rate of 107,3%. The difficulty I have is that I see the spectre of inflation hanging over countries and I see it hanging over the Western world. I can tell you the history of what happened in Germany in 1923. Eventually they had to bring wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. And that is why we will continue to impress upon this Government in the interests of everybody in South Africa that this must never be allowed to happen here. [Interjections.] We will pressurize them to ensure that whatever action is taken, such action is designed to protect the country against inflation, because that is what is to my mind one of the greatest destroyers of people, morale and economies. That is why this must be done.

Sir, I want to raise a variety of topics with the hon. the Minister, the first of which is bonus bonds which is a matter, as he knows, fairly close to my heart. I regard bonus bonds as one of my babies.

I think we should let the hon. member win a prize sometime. [Interjections.]

I think that is not a bad idea. With the amount of money you have already got from me on bonus bonds I probably deserve it! But, Sir, the issue I want to raise is twofold. The first is that there exists a considerable controversy in regard to when the prizes should be capable of redemption. Should there be a period of three years as in terms of the present rules; should we cut down on the period of time; or should it be that at such time when the bond is presented to be redeemed, one should be able to get the prize if one has won it? Sir, I believe people should look after their own interests and the fact that they should check to see that they get their prizes when they are entitled to them, but life being what it is, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider very carefully—I have written to the Deputy Minister in this connection and I am still awaiting a reply; perhaps he will give me an answer tonight—that when one redeems one’s bond one should get one’s prize. It does not matter whether one has held it for six months, two years or five years, on the day that one can redeem one’s bond one should get one’s prize.

Mr. Chairman, you may well know of the classic case of the man who actually won a big prize but he cannot claim it because his wife has the bond and will not give to him. This can go on for a long time. Why penalize either the wife or the husband or anybody else? I believe that when one redeems a bond, that is the time for one to claim the prize.

The second point I want to make is that these bonds at the moment bear simple interest. What happens is that when a bond has been in existence for a year people go and cash in their bond, take the money and immediately buy another bond. In other words, if one has bought a bond for R100 and after one year one gets R105, one buys R105 worth of bonds. After another year one cashes in R105, gets one’s 5% and then one buys more bonds. This is done because it is simple interest and I would like to submit to the hon. the Minister that he would save himself a tremendous amount of administrative work as well as saving the public a tremendous amount of trouble if interest were compounded annually. If anything, what happens is that a person who does not redeem his bond after a year, loses the chance of the extra 5% on the bond. Why not allow the interest to be compounded so as to avoid that situation and where the person at least gets the compound interest but does not have to go through all the processes of redeeming and repurchasing bonds. Sir, I submit these two matters to the hon. the Minister and ask him to consider them.

The second matter I want to raise is one of my favourite topics and that is the duty-free shop at Jan Smuts Airport and the question of sales tax. Sir, let me tell you that I have been through that duty-free shop frequently and every time I go there somebody says: “How can this be a duty-free shop when in fact I am asked to pay general sales tax on the articles I am buying?” These persons are foreigners who do not experience this anywhere else in the world, but when they come to South Africa and buy articles in a duty-free shop, they say: “This is a bluff; it is not a real duty-free shop.” I am aware that this is a source of revenue and I know a fair amount of revenue is earned by this shop. I also happen to know that we are going to have more duty-free shops. I am in favour of them, both here in Cape Town and in Durban and I am very happy that we are going to have them. But I really think it creates a bad image for visitors to South Africa to visit a duty-free shop and then to be told that it is not really a duty-free shop. Now I know that the argument is that general sales tax is not an excise duty. I am aware of that, Sir; but I am talking about our image in respect of the thousands of people who visit South Africa.

The third point I want to raise is exchange control.

One can often buy those items cheaper outside.

Well, that is another matter as to what the price levels are in duty-free shops. I assume that that is a question which will have to be dealt with when the tenders are dealt with.

Sir, let me now deal with exchange control. Sir, the policy of the Government as I understand it is to move towards a general relaxation of exchange control and particularly in respect of non-residents. I would like to make a submission and get a reaction to it. The hon. the Minister announced a short while ago that he was removing the limit of R100 000 which ex-residents could receive by way of income from South Africa and that they could now receive unlimited income from South Africa. The capital they may remove amounts to R100 000 worth of financial rands but income may be removed in an unlimited fashion. Sir, let me put that case to you and, against that, the case of a resident who would like to expand his business and so perhaps encourage exports but not initially perhaps to the extent that he would like, who would like to invest overall, but he resides in South Africa, his profits stay in South Africa, his assets are in South Africa and if he tries to get permission in order to invest abroad he cannot do so. Sir, dealing with this issue, I ask: What is more in the interests of South Africa—that an ex-resident should get unlimited income or that the resident should be able to some extent to diversify his interests? I put that position to the hon. the Minister and would like to get a reaction to it. I do not believe that there should be unlimited investment abroad; I am not a Milton Friedman freak who thinks that one can remove all control and that eventually everything will right itself because my problem is that I do not know whether we live that long; obviously everything does right itself but it takes a tremendous amount of time as has, for example, happened in Israel at the present time, where Milton Friedman persuaded them to lift exchange control and we have seen the consequences of it. I do, however, think that one might weigh up the pro’s and con’s for South Africa of that kind of exchange control situation.

There is another point I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. We have had a long discussion about interest rates and the fight against inflation but thus far we have not had a concrete response from the hon. the Minister. My fears are in connection with interest rates and the savings of the aged. The argument advanced by the hon. the Minister in regard to fluctuating interest rates is absolutely correct. Interest rates do go up and down and we may or may not yet have reached the nadir of interest rates in South Africa. I do not know; the hon. the Minister is obviously far better informed on this issue than I am. [Time expired.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek staan op om die agb. lid die kans te gee om voort te gaan met sy toespraak.

Die agb. lid vir Yeoville kan voortgaan met sy toespraak.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I believe that the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister are absolutely valid except for one simple issue and that is that when interest rates are substantially below the inflation rate something is wrong with the investment patterns for aged people because they cannot cope with that situation. I have seen a table drawn up of international interest rates in relation to inflation rates and I want to say that the general policy of the Government should be to see to it that in these circumstances the aged people do not have to invest at rates which are below the inflation rate. The hon. member for Mossel Bay raised the issue—he posed the question more than the solution—but the solution is there. The hon. member for Bloemfontein who spoke a little earlier also drew attention to this issue. There is a solution, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously once again index bonds for the aged because I think this is necessary in the times in which we are living. It is not good enough to say that we should wait a little while because in the meantime people are suffering, people who have made their contribution to South Africa.

Then, Sir, I would like to raise the question—and I am going to do this in a proper, non-political manner—of the Secret Services Fund. In terms of section 23 of the Secret Services Account Act the hon. the Minister may, at the request of any other Minister and in such manner and subject to such conditions as he may after consultation with such other Minister determine, make available to a department of State for which such other Minister is responsible, moneys in the Account for utilization for services of a secret nature determined from time to time by the Minister of Finance and such other Minister as being in the national interest and for expenses incidental to such service. The budget provides for no less than R33 million for secret services this year. Last year it provided for R29,5 million. I am not asking for secret information, but I think we are entitled to know which State departments are using this money, whether any of this money is used for information purposes and whether the hon. the Minister has actually made determinations with other hon. Ministers that the services are in the national interest. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in terms of section 3 of that Act, any direction has been given as a result of which the Auditor-General is not auditing all the accounts fully; in other words, whether there are any aspects which are not being audited. Lastly, I should like to know what has happened to the funds which were allocated to the former Department of Information until its abolition after 1 April 1978, when this Act came into being, particularly those funds which are referred to in Exhibit 17(d) and Exhibit D of the Interim Report of the Erasmus Commission. I think that the hon. the Minister has a duty to tell us something about these matters.

I also want to raise two other aspects, namely, capital gains tax and fringe benefits. Nobody will say that the tax concessions for this year are not meaningful. They certainly are. There is, however, a shadow that is at present hanging over both the Public Service and the private sector with regard to fringe benefits. Uncertainty is the order of the day and there is a feeling among entrepreneurs and managers that what is being given with the one hand will be taken away with the other next year. The concept of capital gains tax is also around the corner. The question which now arises is when the hon. the Minister is going to introduce Bills in relation to these matters. I do not know, although I assume that they will not be introduced this year. Are they going to be introduced next year, and will the hon. the Minister remove the uncertainty that exists in respect of these matters at the earliest opportunity.

One last matter is that I do not believe that I have to convince the hon. the Minister that job creation is the No. 1 priority in South Africa. I can quote from the statistics with regard to unemployment. They have been quoted again and again. I can also refer to the number of jobs that have to be created. All these things are known to the hon. the Minister. However, the purpose of my request tonight is to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give fiscal incentives, firstly, to those who create new jobs, those who create labour intensive industries and to those who use men instead of machines wherever they are able to do so. There are incentives to buy machines, there are initial allowances and investment allowances, and there also are incentives in the homelands. I do, however, believe that they are not enough and that fiscal incentives for the creation of jobs should be a priority. I noticed something strange with regard to these incentives. In one of the publications of the Department of Co-operation and Development I read about the incentives that are available for industries in the homelands. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell me why, if one starts a business in Gazankulu or at Sishego in Lebowa, one only gets 40% with respect to Black wages, but when one starts a business in Phatudi in Lebowa or in Phuthaditjaba in QwaQwa, one gets 50%. What is the logic behind this? With regard to rentals and interest, the rates vary from 7,5% at Dimbaza, 7,5% in Phatudi to 8% in QwaQwa, and to 5,5% in kwaZulu. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any logic in regard to why these incentives are given in this fashion.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. The hon. the Minister of Finance will fully reply to the matters he raised.

Ek wil in die eerste plek aan die agb. lid vir Mooirivier verskoning vra dat ek nie netnou op sy roerende pleidooi geantwoord het nie. Soos ek die agb. lid verstaan het, het hy eintlik ’n ,,national mampoer day” bepleit. Die agb. lid was ook baie bekommerd oor die familiegeheime wat verlore sal gaan. Ek het daarvan kennis geneem. Ek wil die agb. lid vir sy bydrae bedank, veral met betrekking tot dit wat hy oor die Landbank gesê het.

Ek het baie min tyd tot my beskikking en agb. lede sal my verskoon as ek baie kortliks op hul toesprake antwoord. Ek wil die agb. lid vir Carletonville graag bedank vir die baie diepsinnige wyse waarop hy ten opsigte van die versekering, wat deur die Landbank gedoen word, gepraat het. Ek dink dit is ’n baie lofwaardige skema wat al baie smarte in ons land uitgeskakel het. Aangesien mense hierdeur versekering gehad het, was daar, wanneer daar ’n skielike sterfgeval was, voorsiening gemaak. Daar is tans sprake daarvan dat die private sektor gaan poog om hierdie skema oor te neem. Sover dit ons betref, is enige voorstel welkom. Hierdie skema van die Landbank kan egter nie maklik geklop word nie. Ek kan die agb. lid egter die versekering gee dat, vanweë die stabiliteit wat dit in die landbou en die Landbank teweegbring, ons nie maklik aan hierdie skema sal laat torring nie. Ek is egter nietemin bereid om met enigiemand oor voorstelle met betrekking tot ’n beter skema te gesels.

Die agb. lid vir Pietermaritzburg-Noord het gevra dat ons nie algemene verkoopbelasting moet hef wanneer ouetehuise opgerig word nie. Ek wil die agb. lid egter net daarop wys dat algemene verkoopbelasting nie op geboue as sodanig betaalbaar is nie. Die kontrakteur wat vir die oprigting van daardie geboue verantwoordelik is, betaal algemene verkoopbelasting op die boumateriaal wat gebruik word. Die kontrakteur verhaal natuurlik nie die algemene verkoopbelasting van die ouetehuis nie, maar sluit dit in by sy tenderprys. Selfs met betrekking tot reparasies wat ’n kontrakteur aan ’n ouetehuis doen, wat die verf en materiaal wat gebruik word, insluit, word hy nie van algemene verkoopbelasting vrygestel nie. Vrystelling met betrekking tot algemene verkoopbelasting geld slegs ten opsigte van die lopende koste van ’n ouetehuis. Met betrekking tot alle benodigdhede wat ’n ouetehuis aankoop, soos byvoorbeeld voedsel, onderhoud, meubels, voertuie en herstelwerk, kan die ouetehuis sy sertifikaat aanwend. Wat die herstelwerk wat deur die ouetehuis self onderneem word, betref, kan die sertifikaat gebruik word om die benodigde materiaal, vrygestel van algemene verkoopbelasting, te koop. Ek wil egter net daarop wys dat, waar ’n kontrakteur byvoorbeeld die herstelwerk doen, die arbeid nie belasbaar is nie. Dit is net die materiaal wat belasbaar is. Indien die ouetehuis self onderneem om aan te bou, en dit as ’n geregistreerde welsynsorganisasie geregistreer is, kan daardie materiaal gratis verkry word.

Dit is nie gratis nie.

Ek het my verspreek. Die ouetehuis word net vrygestel van algemene verkoopbelasting.

Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with at least two matters that were raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think we are all in agreement that something should be done to guard elderly people against the ravishing influences of inflation, particularly when low interest rates prevail. As far as his plea for greater incentives for labour intensive development is concerned, I do not think that anybody on this side of the House will, in principle, disagree with him. I also think the hon. member has honoured his intention not to draw politics into this debate and we are all grateful for that.

However, I wish to reply to a matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton in the Second Reading Budget debate concerning the taxation of married women. Although the hon. member for Yeoville is not responsible for what the hon. member for Houghton says I think that as shadow minister of Finance he is at least accountable for what she has said in this instance. It is up to him to take her to task if he does not agree with her.

Die agb. lid vir Houghton het gedurende die tweedelesingsdebat gesê dat die agb. Minister en sy departement nog nooit ’n dieptestudie gedoen het van die moontlike Skatkisverlies as getroude mense vir belastingdoeleindes afsonderlik aangeslaan word nie. Dit is egter nie waar nie, want op bladsy 21 van ’n verslag wat in 1976 gepubliseer is, word daar duidelik gemeld dat vir elke R100-belastingverligting wat in daardie stadium aan getroude werkende vroue gegee sou word, die Skatkis ’n verlies van R36 miljoen sou ly. Die agb. lid se eerste stelling in verband met die belasting van getroude vroue was dus heeltemal onwaar. Wat ek verder eintlik teen haar het, is dat sy my argument in verband met die saak simpel genoem het. Nadat sy my argument simpel genoem het, het sy my toe in haar eie woorde, ’n bitterlik ,,eenvoudige” oplossing aangebied. Sy het gesê dat my argument simpel was toe ek gesê het dat dit diskriminerend sou wees as ’n egpaar met net een broodwinner meer belasting moet betaal as ’n egpaar waar daar twee broodwinners is terwyl albei egpare dieselfde inkomste verdien. Sy sê dit is ’n simpel argument en vir die rekord wil ek die saak graag regstel. Die goed wat sy daardie dag oor hierdie aangeleentheid gesê het, is heeltemal te gek om los rond te loop. Vir die rekord dink ek dit is belangrik dat ons aan hierdie kant van die Raad moet sê dat die amptelike Opposisie dit moet regstel, want anders sal ons dit aan die publiek daar buite moet meedeel dat die amptelike Opposisie ons simpel noem as ons agiteer dat dit diskriminerend sou wees as die man wat oortyd werk meer belasting moet betaal as die werkende egpaar wat langs hom woon en net soveel verdien as wat hy verdien met sy oortyd en al. As ons dus agiteer vir die regte van die man wat oortyd werk, word ons argument simpel genoem. As ons aan hierdie kant van die Raad agiteer dat daar nie teen die professionele man wat 12 en 14 uur per dag werk en sy vrou by die huis laat om die kinders groot te maak, belastinggewys gediskrimineer moet word teenoor sy bure wat albei werk en wat net soveel verdien soos hy alleen nie, word ons simpel genoem. As ons agiteer dat daar nie teen die man gediskrimineer moet word wat ’n ekstra betrekking aanvaar om die pot aan die kook te hou en sy vrou by die huis laat bly om die kinders op te pas en die huis in stand te hou nie, word ons argument simpel genoem. Ek wil hê dat dit op rekord moet wees dat as ons so argumenteer ons simpel genoem word. Die agb. lid vir Yeoville moet òf die agb. lid vir Houghton onderrig òf haar repudieer, want ons gaan hierdie dinge teen hulle gebruik.

Die beste van alles is die ,,eenvoudige” antwoord wat die agb. lid my gegee het. Sy het vir my daardie dag gesê dat die rede waarom die enkel broodwinner meer belasting behoort te betaal as die man en vrou wat al twee werk, is omdat daar in daardie huisgesin dan twee mense is wat ’n bydrae maak tot die bruto nasionale produk. Ek wil nou vra van wanneer af dit as ’n argument geld oor hoeveel mense ’n bydrae maak tot die bruto nasionale produk. Is dit, daarenteen, nie die waarheid dat party mense twee maal of drie maal die bydrae maak tot die bruto nasionale produk as wat ander mense maak nie? Dit het hoegenaamd niks met die argument te doen nie. Ek dink dit is nodig dat ek die agb. lid daar laat en net enkele opmerkings oor hierdie aangeleentheid maak. Dit is onmoontlik om in die kort bestek van ’n 10-minute toespraak die saak volledig in sy regte perspektief te stel.

Die saak is drievoudig. In die eerste plek word belasting deur die Staat gehef om sy noodsaaklike uitgawes te dek, niks meer nie en niks minder nie. Die oomblik as ’n belastingtoegewing gemaak word en daar ’n tekort in die Skatkis ontstaan, moet daar eenvoudig op ’n ander plek daarvoor gekompenseer word. Die Regering het nou oor ’n tydperk van jare besluit om ’n egpaar in plaas van ’n individu as ’n belastingeenheid te beskou. Dit is nie omdat die Regering iets teen die werkende getroude vrou het nie, want dit het hoegenaamd niks met die saak te doen nie.

Kan ek die agb. lid ’n vraag stel?

Nee, ek het ongelukkig nie tyd om nou ’n vraag te beantwoord nie. Die Regering het nie iets teen ’n werkende getroude vrou nie, maar dit behels die kwessie van wat ’n belastingeenheid moet wees en wat ook elders in die wêreld baie deeglik onder oë gesien is. Dit is ook nie ’n onherroeplike verknogting aan die stelsel van die belasting van egpare in plaas van individue nie. As dit egter ooit gebeur dat daar ’n beleidsverandering kom, sal daar in die eerste plek gehandel moet word met die verlies aan inkomste en sal daar in die tweede plek die nodige beheermaatreëls getref moet word om te sorg dat daar nie uitbuiting plaasvind nie.

Die tweede feit in verband met hierdie saak is dat alle benaderings voor- en nadele het ten opsigte van belastingpligtigheid. Die voordele van ’n egpaar as ’n belastingeenheid is in hierdie stadium volgens die mening van hierdie kant van die Raad groter as die nadele daaraan verbonde. Die voordele verbonde aan die egpaar as ’n eenheid is in hierdie stadium—dit mag later verander—ook meer as die voordele verbonde daaraan om die individu as ’n eenheid te sien. In die eerste plek voldoen dit by uitnemendheid of in ’n baie hoë mate aan die eerste vereiste waaraan goeie belasting moet voldoen, te wete die vermoë om te kan betaal. Hieroor sal die agb. lid vir Yeoville en sy party tog nie met ons twis nie. Die eerste vereiste van belasbaarheid is die vermoë om te betaal. Dit is ook, terloops, waarom mense met ’n groter inkomste hoër belas word. Dit is ook ’n manier om die herverdeling van rykdom, waaroor hulle so emosioneel raak, te bewerkstellig.

Dit is ’n wetenskaplik bewese feit dat die tweede eenheid in ’n huis goedkoper lewe as twee afsonderlike eenhede.

Dit is nie die punt nie.

Dit verhoog die vermoë om te betaal, en dit is die punt wat dit vir my lyk of die agb. lid vir Constantia ook nie kan verstaan nie. Twee wetenskaplike ondersoeke het bewys dat as die man ’n eenheid van honderd betaal om homself aan die lewe te hou en hy sou trou, die vrou slegs 36 eenhede meer of 42 eenhede meer sou kos. Dit is die resultaat van twee wetenskaplike ondersoeke. Wanneer ’n getroude vrou werk, is dit dus ’n kwessie dat haar vermoë om te betaal, verhoog word. Daar is dus groter sekerheid oor daardie belasting. Dit is ’n gerieflike manier om belasting te vorder en verg min administratiewe koste.

Daar is egter ook nadele aan hierdie benadering verbonde. Dit is waar dat dit sekere dames kan ontmoedig om te werk, maar as ’n mens kyk na die resultate van die ondersoek waarna ek vroeër verwys het, sien ’n mens dat die mark feitlik versadig is. Daar is relatief baie min vroue wat nog tot die arbeidsmark kan toetree.

Ek wil nog een laaste punt maak, want my tyd loop uit. Dit bly ’n feit dat daar oor ’n tydperk van vyf jaar gepoog is om die belastinglas van die getroude vrou te verlig. Daar moenie vergeet word nie dat die marginale belastingkoers van haar man vanjaar verminder is na 50%. Dit is ’n uiters belangrike toegewing, want die ondersoek het getoon dat die meeste vroue kla oor hulle belasting omdat die marginale koers te hoog was. Nou is nie net die marginale koers verlaag nie, maar tree dit slegs in werking op ’n gesamentlike inkomste van meer as R40 000 per jaar. ’n Verdere toegewing is dat R1 200 van haar inkomste belastingvry is. Dit is nie net ’n bedrag van R1 200 nie, maar ’n bedrag wat van groot waarde is wanneer dit by die marginale belastingkoers kom. Hoe hoër die inkomste van so ’n vrou se man, hoe meer beteken daardie R1 200 vir haar. Dit stel haar in staat om ten minste die uitgawes wat sy moet aangaan om te kan werk, te kan bestry.

Ek dink dus dat ons die kwessie van die werkende getroude vrou in sy ware perspektief moet sien en dat ons asseblief nie daarvan ’n politieke speelbal moet maak nie. [Tyd verstreke.]

Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek wil die agb. lid vir Florida wat laaste gepraat het, bedank vir sy bydrae. Ek dink hy het die belastingposisie van die werkende getroude vrou baie duidelik gestel. Ek wil ook die agb. lid vir GriekwalandOos bedank vir sy bydrae. Soos in die geval van boedelbelasting dink ek dat enige objektiewe waarnemer sal moet toegee dat ons darem baie groot verbeterings aangebring het in die posisie van die werkende getroude vrou. Ek hoop dit sal as sodanig gesien word, veral wanneer die nuwe gedetailleerde belastingskale beskikbaar is.

Mr. Chairman, I have quite a number of points to which I could reply and in the limited time I have I shall do my best. The hon. member for Edenvale explained he had to be in the House and I wanted to say that he made a thoughtful and very useful contribution to this debate. He has obviously studied his subject when he talks about insurance. He referred to pension funds in the context of the sort of debate we had this evening, and I thought he was very much at home in this subject too. I wanted to inform him that so far as his point was concerned that buyers of insurance policies should perhaps be given more information and, in regard to pension funds, that those concerned should have more details made available to them, these are matters we shall go into again. In the meantime I propose to refer these issues to the Advisory Committee for Long-term Insurance. This is turning out to be an extremely useful body which was appointed just over two years ago. I think this committee can also give consideration to the suggestions in respect of pension funds, especially as long-term insurers are active in that field as well. I shall proceed on that basis, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to exchange control and the transfer of capital and free transfer of income of ex-residents. He asked why we allowed free transfer of income by ex-residents and not the transfer of capital by residents.

In a limited fashion.

I think the main reason arises from our commitment to the International Monetary Fund. We are bound not to control current transfers but may control capital transfers, and it is in that sense that this point really arose. It is something we are constantly looking at and the hon. member is quite correct when he says we are hoping to relax exchange control for non-residents still further and, indeed, in good time, also the exchange control applying to residents in certain important respects. The only reason why the limit of R100 000 on the transfer of funds abroad was lifted, was because it is a purely current transfer and capital transfers are allowed via financial rands these days under limited or specific conditions. That is the policy at the moment. As I say, it is not a static policy; we are constantly looking at it and I hope to be able to make other announcements in this respect as we go along.

On the subject of exchange control, may I just interpose something we have done of late in this respect.

Ek verwys na wat ons nou die Tegniese Komitee oor Deviesebeheer noem. Agb. lede sal hulle herinner dat ek tydens my tweedelesingstoespraak van die Gedeeltelike Begrotingswetsontwerp voor die Raad op 25 Februarie melding gemaak het van die wenslikheid om vir verskeie redes genoem weer eens te kyk na die samestelling en die opdrag aan die kommissie wat aangestel was onder die voorsitterskap van mnr. H. J. D. van der Walt, LV., om aandag te skenk aan wanpraktyke in deviesebeheer en verwante belastingvelde. Ek het ook gemeld, soos agb. lede mag onthou, dat ek in hierdie verband die raad van twee buitepersone, twee deskundiges, by name dr. G. W. G. Browne en prof. D. G. Franzsen, gevra het. Hulle aanbevelings het onder meer ingesluit die aanstelling van ’n tegniese komitee om op ’n deurlopende basis aandag te skenk aan deviesebeheer-wanpraktyke. Ek het hierdie aanbevelings dan ook aanvaar. Ek kan agb. lede meedeel dat hierdie komitee, wat bekend sal staan as die Tegniese Komitee oor Deviesebeheer, aangestel is onder die voorsitterskap van dr. S. S. Brand, die hoof van die Direktoraat van Finansiële Beleid van die Departement van Finansies, en dat die volgende persone ook in daardie komitee sal dien: Dr. Slals, vise-president van die Reserwebank; dr. Burton, Direkteur van Finansies in die Direktoraat van Finansiële Beleid; mnr. Massyn, adjunk-sekretaris, Direktoraat van Binnelandse Inkomste; en mnr. S. P. du Plessis, ondersekretaris van die wetsafdeling van die Direktoraat van Doeane en Aksyns. Ek het verder voorsiening gemaak in die samestelling van die komitee, wat ’n vaste komitee sal wees, vir die koöptering, soos en wanneer nodig, van kundige persone uit die openbare en die private sektore. Alle tersaaklike stukke wat tot die aandag van die Van der Walt-kommissie gebring is sal aan hierdie nuwe tegniese komitee oor deviesebeheer voorgelê word, as dit nie alreeds gedoen is nie.

Die taak van die nuwe komitee sal wees om nie alleen aandag te skenk aan wanpraktyke in die deviesebeheer-veld en verwante belastingaspekte nie, maar ook om op die lopende grondslag aanpassings in die stelsel te oorweeg, veral nadat die De Kockkommissie die deviesebeheerbeleid as beleidsinstrument behandel het, aanbevelings daaroor aan die Regering voorgelê het en hierdie aanbevelings deur die Regering aanvaar is. Die komitee sal van tyd tot tyd vergader en sy aanbevelings voorlê aan die Komitee vir Finansiële Beleid en Strategie waarvan ek self die voorsitter is. Uitvoering aan besluite sal dan gegee word deur die deviesebeheer- en inkomste-owerhede na gelang van die geval. Ek verwag stellig dat die tegniese komitee wat deur spesialiste en kundiges op elke terrein gesteun sal word, daarin sal slaag om nie alleen wanpraktyke te bekamp nie, maar veral aandag te skenk aan die vereenvoudiging van ons deviesebeheerstelsel en die aanpassing daarvan by die meer mark geörienteerde benadering soos aanbeveel deur die kommissie onder voorsitterskap van dr. De Kock. Dit moet ons strewe wees om hierdie beheer te beperk slegs tot absolute noodsaaklike maatreëls en dan moet dit so eenvoudig en effektief moontlik gedoen word. Ek wil net byvoeg, Meneer, dat dit goed gaan met die sogenaamde De Kock-kommissie. Ek dink dit is ’n baie belangrike kommissie oor die monetêre stelsel en die monetêre beleid in Suid-Afrika. Hulle is hard besig en ek sien uit na ’n moontlike verdere verslag teen die einde van die jaar, of kort daarna.

Die agb. lid vir Bloemfontein-noord het ’n interessante toespraak gemaak en ek moet sê ek het waardering vir sy gedagte dat ons ons munte en note moet versorg. Ek dink dit is reg. Hy het met reg gesê dat baie mense letterlik nie die waarde van geld besef nie. Hy het verder gegaan en voorgestel dat ons ’n heel nuwe reeks munte moet laat ontwerp vir R1, R2 en R5.

Die bankstelsel in Suid-Afrika het die taak om verslete banknote onmiddelhk na die Reserwebank terug te stuur vir kansellasie en vervanging met nuwes. Miskien voer die bankstelsel nie altyd hierdie taak behoorlik uit nie. Ek wil ook sê dat die uitreiking van muntstukke met hoë waardes natuurlik nie vanself verseker dat die waarde van ons geld meer stabiel gaan wees nie. Daarby sal dit die beweging en versending van fondse bemoeilik, want muntstukke vervoer moeilik in groot hoeveelhede. Die grootte en gewig van ons munte word deur die Munt bepaal, met inagneming onder meer van die behoeftes van blindes en die gebruike in outomate. Dit is net natuurlik slegs twee oorwegings. As ’n mens in die buiteland getoer het, dink ek glo jy nie dat ons munte buitengewoon groot is nie. Maar, Meneer, ek noem net daardie puntjies wat my onmiddellik opgeval het i.v.m. die praktiese probleme, maar ek sal hierdie voorstelle aan die Munt oordra en ons sal sien wat hulle reaksie is. Ek dink die gedagte is ’n baie goeie een. Ek hou ook van die verdere gedagte dat ons ons geld letterlik beter moet versorg. Dit is baie belangrik.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove raised the question of group life insurance particularly. He pointed out that in certain schemes conditions were apparently changed and possibly to the detriment of the policyholder or the participant in the scheme. He was rather critical of the Registrar of Insurance. He said that allegations had been made that the Registrar had not taken particular interest of protests that had reached him in this respect, or of criticism that had been expressed. I should like to say that whatever the possible defects may be of some of these schemes and whatever the dissatisfaction that may arise on the part of participating policyholders, from my experience of him and his office, I really do not think that the Registrar of Insurance is in any way guilty of a lack of interest or any kind of dereliction of duty. He is one of the most dedicated and hard-working officials whom I have to deal with. I work very closely with him and I want to give that absolute assurance to the Committee. I think that is necessary.

I think, however, that as far as the schemes are concerned, this is something that has been worrying me too. I think the hon. member may take it as quite definite that we will certainly make a very close study of the position—we have already started—and see whether it may be necessary to give more protection to the public in the light of what may have happened in order to prevent that kind of arbitrary thing from possibly happening again.

As far as his suggestions regarding investments by life insurers in housing projects are concerned, where he thought that insurers could make money available at comparatively low interest rates, I am not sure whether he was suggesting that the State should subsidize interest rates there or that the insurers should be persuaded to make the money available at lower rates. That is something which appeals to me but it is a question of how that can be done in practice. It is an interesting thought and we will certainly give it further consideration. Mr. Chairman, I have to be rather brief because of the time factor.

Waar my agbare kollega, die Adjunkminister alreeds op sekere agb. lede aan hierdie kant geantwoord het, sal hulle my verskoon as ek nie verder op die punte wat hulle geopper het, ingaan nie.

The hon. member for Mooi River may remember that we had an interesting debate on his private motion. I did not quite state the case as he says I did. I remember it well; I thought I gave a rather masterly reply! [Interjections.] But it was a very interesting debate and we took quite a lot of trouble to answer his proposal. We can look it up. However, what I should like to tell the hon. member is that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has asked the Secretary to the Treasury to investigate methods to improve the insight of members into the estimates of expenditure. The Secretary to the Treasury informs me that he has undertaken to report back to the committee early next session. So that matter is being pursued.

The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the position of a divorced husband who pays alimony and has the custody of the children. Such a person will be regarded as a married person for tax purposes provided he supports the children wholly out of his own funds. Where he does not have the custody I would say he is no worse off than an unmarried person paying maintenance for his child or children and both would be regarded as single. The mother who receives the maintenance or alimony is not taxed on that maintenance or alimony.

He also raised the question of gold mining taxation and I think he rather suggested that it was high and that we might reduce it. Is that correct? The structure of the gold mining tax formula is based on profitability. That is quite clear. The lower the profitability, the lower the rate of tax and, in certain circumstances, it can even lead to a subsidy. For example, we have the subsidy on the so-called marginal mines. Furthermore, gold mining taxable income differs from commercial taxable income in that capital expenditure is deducted in the determination of gold-mining taxable income. The rates quoted by the hon. member would include lease payments. I think gold can be regarded as a sort of patrimony of the people of South Africa. If one accepts that, then I would say they have the right to exact payment for the right to mine such a payable possession of the people. After all, when the mine is worked out the State’s responsibility towards the citizens who must be provided with work and so on, remains. The South African gold-mining tax formula has been praised in mining circles abroad as the only system which appears to encourage the mining of lower grade ore and thereby prolongs the life of the mines and provides employment and so on beyond the date that may otherwise have been the case. I did undertake on a previous occasion to make more information available to the hon. member. I think I slipped up; I will see to it that the hon. member obtains that. It is an interesting subject and one on which I think one could talk for quite a long time.

The hon. member for Mooi River made an interesting statement. He asked why did we not do away entirely with tax-free investments. There is something to be said for that, Sir. I have a note here from the Commissioner for Inland Revenue which says “Hear, hear!” [Interjections.] Of course, these are instruments that were devised to induce saving. That is the whole point. It is felt on our side that they are rather effective in that respect. But who knows? These things are constantly being looked at by the Standing Commission on Tax Policy and we will see how we go from here. It is an important point and one which I think needs constantly to be reviewed.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised a number of points. One of them was the payment of prizes at redemption of bonds. Why not pay a prize on redemption? he asked. I am assured by the Secretary to the Treasury that this matter is being looked into and that there is a reply on its way to the hon. member. If he has not received it yet it is apparently on its way. I have not seen it yet, so I shall have to leave this matter at that.

The hon. member asked why there should be GST on purchases at the duty-free shop at Jan Smuts. Sir, it is difficult for us to make an exception. We have said that this is a tax that should be applied right through with very, very few exceptions such as in the case of certain medical facilities and so on. We are very reluctant to make this kind of exception because, if one does, one is certainly going to have a number of other representations.

They can put up a sign outside saying the goods are subject to GST.

Well, it is duty-free except for that. It is a low tax. I have no objection to making it quite clear that GST is payable on the transactions. As to the prices, I would not know. I am not competent to say how the prices compare. However, what is interesting—I noticed this again recently in a duty-free shop abroad—is that the prices of at least certain articles compared rather badly with the same article in one or two shops outside, although not all shops. So this is something which is constantly changing.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of decentralization concessions. The fact is that the concessions vary according to the relative disadvantages of being located in specific areas. Generally speaking, the further from the market, the less developed the infrastructure and the better the concessions that are available. I think if one were to analyse the position one would find that that is the explanation for the cases which the hon. member raised.

Then the hon. member also asked which departments were financed from the Secret Services Account. I am quite prepared to say they are Police, Information (Special Account), Foreign Affairs (Special Account), the Intelligence Services Account and Defence (Special Account).

“Information” is still in?

They have a special account. It is done on a very judicious and very careful basis. At the moment I think it is certainly to the advantage of the country. I have not excluded any of these accounts from auditing by the Auditor-General. In one specific instance there is a matter of detail that we are still discussing, but that answer is true; I have been adamant that the Auditor-General must audit in all cases.

Die agb. lid vir Yeoville het verwys na sekere gelde wat die Departement van Inligting ontvang het en waarvan in die Erasmusverslag melding gemaak is. Mnr. die Voorsitter, ek wil onmiddellik sê dat ek nie heeltemal seker is van die presiese bedrae wat daarby betrokke is nie. Ek het ’n bietjie meer tyd nodig om op die saak in te gaan, maar sal weer met die agb. lid daaroor gesels. Ek is nie heeltemal seker waaroor dit gaan nie.

Die agb. lid vir Pietermaritzburg-Noord het die kwessie van bydraes tot uittredingsannuïteitsfondse geopper en het veral verwys na die oues-van-dae. In die minuut of twee tot my beskikking wil ek die volgende onder sy aandag bring. Ingevolge die Inkomstebelastingwet bepaal die reëls van ’n uittredingsannuïteitsfonds dat ’n lid nie op die betaling van ’n jaargeld geregtig is eerdat hy nie die ouderdom van 70 jaar bereik het nie. Die vernaamste rede waarom uittredingsannuïteitsfondse vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes erken word, is om selfgeëmplojeerde mense te help om gedurende die tydperk terwyl hulle ekonomies aktief was, voorsiening te maak vir hul aftrede, sodat hulle dan net soos gepensioneerdes inkomste in die vorm van jaargelde kan ontvang. In die gewone loop van omstandighede sal die persoon wat aftree sy bydraes plus rente terug ontvang in die vorm van ’n jaargeld gedurende sy leeftyd. Aangesien die jaargeld belasbaar is, is dit ’n vorm van uitgestelde belasting. Waar die persoon reeds die ouderdom van 70 jaar bereik het wanneer hy aftree, is die kanse dat hy die volle voordeel van die jaargeld sal geniet nie baie goed nie en kan die posisie bereik word waar bydraes as aftrekkings toegelaat word sonder dat jaargelde betaal word. ’n Verslapping van die reël kan meebring dat welgestelde persone op gevorderde ouderdom by uittredingsannuïteitsfondse kan aansluit om, eerstens, hul belastingaanspreeklikheid te verminder en, tweedens, ’n voordeel vir hul erfgename te skep; met ander woorde, die fonds word as ’n gewone versekeringspolis behandel, wat natuurlik nie die bedoeling was nie. Ek sê nie dat so iets in die algemeen gebeur nie, maar dit kan wel gebeur. As ’n gepensioneerde bydraes aan ’n anuïteitsfonds maak, kwaLIfiseer daardie bydraes nie vir aftrekking van sy inkomste nie. Die rede daarvoor is dat hy geen bedryf beoefen nie. Hierdie fondse was nooit bedoel vir sulke gevalle nie, maar was slegs bedoel om werkende persone te help om voorsiening te maak vir hul aftrede. Die gepensioeneerde het reeds afgetree. Daar word soms beweer dat ’n gepensioeneerde of ’n afgetrede persoon wie se inkomste uit rente en dividende bestaan, genoodsaak voel om by ’n annuïteitsfonds aan te sluit om voorsiening te maak vir die verwagte daling in die waarde van sy vaste inkomste as ’n gevolg van inflasie—’n punt wat dikwels hier geopper is. Dit mag ’n goeie rede wees, maar dit is nie een van die doelstellings van hierdie annuïteitsfondse nie. Dit is in wesenlikheid ’n ander vorm van versekering as die voorsiening van ’n inkomste by aftrede. Mnr. die Voorsitter, dit is die huidige siening van die departement of direktoraat. Die agb. lid het ’n goeie saak gestel en ek sou dit graag verder met hom wou bespreek. Ek het so pas net gemeld wat die amptelike siening op die oomblik is.

Ek meen nie ek kan meer sê nie, alhoewel ek miskien nie na elke afsonderlike lid verwys het nie. Ek wil egter agb. lede aan albei kante hartlik bedank vir wat, myns insiens, ’n baie interessante en waardevolle debat was. Ek meen die besprekings was waardevol en die Senaatsaal het vanaand goed gevaar. Nogmaals baie dankie aan u almal.

Begrotingsposte goedgekeur.