Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to make a statement.

With reference to the statement I made in the House on Friday, 5 February 1981 concerning the appointment of a technical committee of experts to carry out an in-depth review of all my department’s draft legislation, I now wish to announce that the Cabinet has given approval for the committee to consist of the following persons: Mr. Justice I. M. Grosskopf Snr., who will be the chairman; Mr. H. J. D. van der Walt, M.P.; Adv. J. H. T. Mills, Director-General: Department of Co-operation and Development; Dr. P. J. van der Merwe, Deputy Director-General: Department of Manpower Utilization; Prof. N. Wiehahn; Mr. R. S. K. (Bob) Tucker; Dr. I. M. Rautenbach, Head: Constitutional Planning: Office of the Prime Minister; Mr. F. B. du Randt of the Department of Co-operation and Development as secretary; Mr. B. Mokatle and Mr. M. B. Kumalo, lecturer in African languages. University of the Witwatersrand and chairman of the Kathlehong Community Council and of the East Rand Community Council Liaison Committee.

The terms of reference of the committee are to carry out an in-depth review of the draft legislation as a whole, to simplify them, and in the process to ensure that they will be in full accordance with the contents and the spirit of the Riekert Report and the White Paper, taking due account of the proposals and comments received, and after consultation with anyone whom the committee deems appropriate.

The Cabinet also decided that after the task of the committee has been disposed of, it will be proposed that the draft legislation be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution in so far as it may have constitutional implications.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on a fine little budget. Once again it attests to the strength this country is given by a dynamic NP under a dynamic Prime Minister. It also points to the signs of growth and stability in our country.

On this occasion I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and to the rest of the Cabinet for the ample contributions made towards the rehabilitation of Laingsburg. An amount of R10 million has already been appropriated for this purpose and we believe that if it should be necessary to call for additional funds, there will always be an open door.

This, then, brings me to the circumstances of Laingsburg. What struck Laingsburg on 25 January 1981 is now history. The best efforts of the SABC and the rest of our media afforded a great deal of publicity to the circumstances there, but the true picture, seen as a whole, can never really be brought home to people who had not known Laingsburg before.

On 25 January the Moordenaarskaroo and the Buffels River lived up to their names, and a mass of water from the Nuweveld and Roggeveld mountains descended on Laingsburg, that small Karroo town on the banks of the Buffels River, and literally converted the town into a watery grave. The raging torrent of water virtually wiped out that little town—three-quarters of the town was flooded, if not literally swept away. In its violent onslaught the water dragged with it or tried to drag with it between 260 and 270 people on that Sunday afternoon. During the floods about 120 of this number were saved, chiefly by the S.A. Police and local inhabitants of Laingsburg. With the assistance of the S.A. Defence Force and Police, a further 20 were saved from the river and the Floriskraal Dam on the following day. At present, 78 people of Laingsburg are still missing and 55 bodies have been found, 47 of which are thought to be those of inhabitants of Laingsburg.

I do not wish to ask why this disaster struck Laingsburg. I am not qualified to answer questions of that nature. All I can say is that we should rather remain silent about what hit Laingsburg and not discuss the subject, because it was the will of God. But in His mercy, He also gave the inhabitants of Laingsburg, in these sad and painful times, the strength and the grace to face the future with heads held high.

On the day of the disaster, history was made in Laingsburg, too, not only by the heroic deeds of people who risked their lives, but also by the deeds of those who lost their lives in their efforts to save the inhabitants of the town, and according to God’s Word: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” At some time in the future I should like to see some of these people being honoured in appropriate fashion for the heroic deeds they performed, although many of them are no longer there today.

The inhabitants of Laingsburg have had their past wrenched away from them. Many of them have lost links between past, present and future. As I have said, possessions were literally swept away, including much of sentimental value—such things as a photo, an antique heirloom or a memento of earlier generations and families. How many of those remaining have lost a father, a mother or child and are now mourning the fact that they have nothing by way of a keepsake to remember that loved one by. Faced with losses of this nature, one feels small and realizes that it is impossible to conceive of the depth of their sorrow.

Agricultural land and dwellings were swept away, and on that Monday morning of 26 January, the people stood devastated and stunned. Lines of communication and communication services had been disrupted. Churches, schools and the magistrate’s court and post office had come to a standstill. In this regard, however, I want to express my appreciation towards our hon. Prime Minister, because when I contacted him on the Monday morning to try and give him an impression of what had happened in Laingsburg, he took immediate and positive action. I also wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. Ministers of Defence and of Health, Welfare and Pensions, who visited Laingsburg that same afternoon to take the necessary coordinating steps. The Defence Force and the S.A. Police were on the scene immediately, and in this regard I want to mention the names of Brigadier Dirk Genis and Brigadier Geldenhuys of the S.A. Police and the S.A. Defence Force, respectively, and thank them for that gigantic task they carried out for the community of Laingsburg in such an orderly way and with such dedication, but also in a spirit of love and compassion for the community of Laingsburg.

In the short time at my disposal I shall probably not be able to mention every Minister and Deputy Minister and the various departments by name, but instead I just wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to every department whose officials immediately visited Laingsburg and carried out the necessary repair work to enable the community to start functioning again. The officials of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications went out of their way to establish lines of communication on that Monday morning so that contact with the outside world could be made, because initially, neither the Press nor the radio could be reached, and reports that were delivered, were incomplete. The highlight of that week, to me personally and to the voters of Laingsburg, was the visit of our hon. Prime Minister and his most charming, sympathetic wife, Mrs. Elize Botha. I can give the hon. the Prime Minister the assurance that their personal visit—the handshake here, the encouraging word there—was of incalculable value to the people of Laingsburg. Of incalculable value, too, were the hon. the Prime Minister’s words of encouragement, his message of strength and vigour to rebuild Laingsburg into a proud town in the Republic of South Africa. For that I, personally, want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, and I also thank him on behalf of the people of Laingsburg. The hon. the Minister and Mrs. Botha will never know what they meant to Laingsburg.

In the days that lie ahead a great deal of building will have to be done. The planning has been carried out and the floodline has already been drawn. It is with deep gratitude that I can say today that the community is functioning again. With the help that is being granted, the people are finding their feet again. In this regard I refer to State Auxiliary services, etc. It has already been possible to a large extent to withdraw the S.A. Police and the Defence Force, and the people themselves are now beginning to take over the task to an increasing extent. Accommodation has already been provided on a large scale by various Government departments. This has been done with the aid of the Police and the Railways. The Department of Community Development is going to provide mobile units. There are also facilities for those who still have families— viz. if the mother or daughter is still alive— so that they can begin to look after themselves. Those who have lost loved ones, and whose households have been disrupted, are also being assisted. The school is open and the community can go to church again, thanks to the fine contribution of S.A. Defence Force. Those young boys did not hesitate to bend their backs to get to work on the mud with a spade and push a wheelbarrow to restore the church building in such a short time that it was even possible to hold the memorial service there.

I am not in a position to express thanks and appreciation on behalf of a town like Laingsburg in such unhappy circumstances. It was probably the worst-ever disaster, not so much as regards the extent of the temporary damage and the loss of property and possessions, but against the background of the tragedy of the human loss. However, those people are going to hold up their heads. They are prepared to do so; to tell the truth, they are determined to do so in order to build Laingsburg up again, and we therefore convey our thanks and appreciation to everyone. I refer, too, to the overwhelming contributions from throughout the country, across colour lines and national borders. We are grateful for all the sympathy which has also come from people who themselves are not well-off people, who themselves are struggling. They, too, contributed, and to them we convey our most heartfelt thanks. We appreciate it.

It is a pity that there has been the odd Press report which has sought to exploit the situation and upset relations. It is a pity that even such a tragic event as that which occurred in Laingsburg and the surrounding districts should also have been exploited for that type of thing. Is it necessary that such a thing should be done? With these few words I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to all who contributed and are still contributing to help Laingsburg to become a beautiful town on the banks of that river.

Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of sorrow that we listened to the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West. Our hearts go out in great sympathy to those overtaken by so terrible a tragedy as the one that struck the people of Laingsburg. Our sympathy goes out to those who have survived, those who suffered such great losses in the tragedy. We can only admire the courage with which they have rallied in the face of this terribly tragedy. I also acknowledge with gratitude, on behalf of my party, the assistance given by various bodies and institutions.

I should like to refer to the administration policy of the Government. It is the Government that has brought about the crisis in the salary structures of the Public Service, the Police, the Defence Force, the teachers and the nurses. The Government has also been responsible for the crisis in the pensions structure. The Government is responsible by virtue of the fact that it allowed the crisis to develop without taking adequate action to combat it. It seems to the people of South Africa that the only time they get any sort of action whatsoever is when there is a general election, because that is the only time the Government seems to do anything about taxpayers’ demands. The pension increases, announced by the hon. the Minister, are both too little, because they are not enough, and too late, because the pensioners have to wait until October, in any event, for what they are getting. The aged and the pensioners, the neglected and forgotten poor relations of this Government, have no union and therefore no voice; they have no direct representation; they cannot strike as the teachers have threatened to do and they cannot threaten. They can, however, refuse to support the Government on 29 April as a token of their protest against the treatment they have received. This is the only weapon they have. Can one blame them if they use this weapon?

We are dealing here with approximately 141 154 White pensioners—the number in December 1980. We are also dealing with 84 719 Coloured pensioners, 16 340 Indian pensioners and 188 000 Black pensioners. These people have no direct voice in the House and no representation as far as their pensions are concerned.

The Government has not only trod on the toes of the teachers, the policemen, the doctors, the members of the Defence Force and the Civil Service. It has treated the pensioners of South Africa with indifference and scorn. They will find out that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, because of the 141 154 White pensioners, as many as 111 237—a staggering 78,7% of the total— are women, and they will show the Government how they feel about the scornful treatment they have received.

Hear, hear!

I should now like to examine the Government’s record in this regard. We heard the hon. the Minister of Finance making the long-awaited announcement in regard to increases. What is the effect of these announcements on the pensioners? White social pensioners will receive a meagre increase of R13, Coloured and Indian social pensioners will receive an increase of R9, while Black social pensioners will receive an increase of R7. In the case of the White pensioner, this gives a total pension of R121 per month. Surely that is not enough.

Why is there this disparity? The gap between the pensions received by pensioners in the various population groups has been widened since 1977, instead of being narrowed. In 1977 the gap between the pension received by a White pensioner and that received by a Coloured or Indian pensioner was R26,50. In 1978 it increased to R30,25, in 1979, to R43,00 and in 1980, to R47,00. The gap has now been increased by a further R4 to R51. As far as narrowing the gap between the pensions received by the different races is concerned, the hon. the Minister should at least announce a programme whereby this gap would be eliminated completely over, let us say, a three-year period. I should like to hear him make such an announcement.

The hon. the Minister cannot justify the gap, because the cost of food, the cost of clothes, the cost of living is the same for everyone. In fact, in 1980, the cost of living soared by 15,8%. In the case of most Blacks the increase was a massive 20%. Food prices alone increased by 30%. Although the growth rate was 8%, the Blacks suffered more than anyone else. The consumer price index rose by 15,8%, but the subdivisions show a rise of 20% for the lower-income groups, a rise of 16,9% for the middle-income groups and a rise of 14,1% for the higher-income groups. These figures have been furnished by the Department of Statistics. Pensioners in the lower-income group therefore needed an increase of 20% in their pensions to keep up with the rise in the cost of living; yet the increase granted to them is barely 14%. At the same time there is every indication that during the next six months inflation will certainly rise to approximately 20%. If the hon. the Minister is unable to assist the pensioners to live and eat properly, surely he should abolish the general sales tax on essential foods. I have cited examples of pensioners who have only R30 per month left for food after they have paid their rent. They have to eat three meals a day, which means that they can spend R1 per day on food. How can any person supply himself with three meals a day when he has only R1 to spend on food every day? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to that. According to information, the pensioner spends a bigger proportion of his earnings on food than the ordinary member of the working population does. With the prospects of inflation rising from 15% to 20%, things are even worse.

Some pensioners have managed to save R8 000 or R10 000, and they live off the interest. But over the years that money is becoming worth less and less; therefore they are receiving a double blow. How are they going to survive? I think what we need in South Africa is an organization to represent the interests of pensioners, a body that can be recognized by them and by the Government to negotiate and constantly put the needs of the pensioner to the Government. Now insult is added to injury, although I must say in passing that any amount the pensioner receives is better than nothing. Why is it necessary for the pensioner to have to wait until October? The old argument that pensions are payable from October to October holds no water. The pensioner has to eat now and he has to pay his increased rent now. He needs the money now and not in six months’ time.

As far as the bonus is concerned—the Whites are getting R30—there is no justification for the bonus being different for the different race groups.

Let us look at the increases in pensions over the last 10 years. In 1970 the pension was something like R35 per month. If we take into consideration the value of the rand 10 years ago, it is worth only 35 cents today. On that basis, if one looks at the increases in the pensions, all they are getting extra is R3. That is on the basis of the same criterion. I do not think that that is realistic. In other words, what the Government gives with the one hand it takes away with the other. As regards the procedure for obtaining a pension, it is still too difficult and complicated for people to understand. The hon. the Minister has also referred to alterations in some of the conditions concerning pensions, as he did last year. This means that those whose incomes require adjusting will have to apply afresh to have their pensions reviewed. Most people, however, do not know they have to apply afresh because the revision of pensions is not automatic. Someone should tell them to apply afresh for their pensions to be revised to fit in with the new means test.

I sometimes wonder whether it is any good to make requests to the Government and to bring matters to their attention. I should like to ask the Government what force a petition has in the House. The rules provide for petitions. However, when a petition is signed by 31 555 petitioners and that petition, calling for a better deal for pensioners and for a national contributory scheme, is tabled in the House, not a word is heard from any Minister. There is no response whatsoever. The public are treated with contempt. Although 31 555 people have signed such a petition, no notice is taken of them whatsoever.

They do not care.

That is right. They do not care.

We do not ask for a total abolition of the means test. We ask for a revision. We ask for a simpler formula. In actual fact, the whole question of the means test and of the amount payable to the pensioner would be better handled if a national contributory pension scheme were introduced in South Africa. It should be compulsory for all. Every employee and employer should contribute to it. The recipient of a pension would then feel that he had contributed towards that pension and was not simply receiving a handout.

Was it not the interdepartmental committee which recommended that all economically active people who do not belong to any pension fund or scheme or who belong to a fund or scheme the benefits of which do not at least equal those of the proposed S.A. Pension Scheme, should become members of that scheme? There are over 5 000 schemes in the country. We do not propose for one moment that any of them should be interfered with. We do propose, however, that there should be a co-ordinated body with regard to pensions, that pensions should be freely transferable and that eventually every employee should be in a pension scheme. Those who are not, should in certain circumstances be entitled to a social pension. This would enable social pensioners to receive a far better pension, because as the years go by the Government would be able to set more and more aside for social pensioners while employees would be covered by the pension schemes.

Let me turn to war veterans. They are getting an additional allowance of R15 per month and also an increase of 12% in their pension. Let me point out, however, that no difference should be made between members of the various race groups since all of them risked their lives equally fighting in the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. the Minister of Defence described only the other day how everybody participates. Why then is there any difference in the payment members of various race groups receive?

I charge the Government with complete neglect and indifference as far as the military pensioners are concerned. The basic pension of R300 per month is totally inadequate. The very minimum basic pension should be R650 per month for the ex-serviceman who is 100% disabled. In addition there should be an increase to cope with the increased inflation from year to year. The country owes the ex-servicemen a great debt of gratitude, not only for the past but also for the present and the future. Who knows what further casualties we shall suffer?

The approach to the four categories of disabled soldiers, i.e. those who are blinded, those who have lost both arms, those who have lost both legs, and those who are paralysed, must be different from the approach to social pensioners in so far as it is said that one does not have to provide them with a full living. These people must be provided with a full living, because they cannot work. They cannot earn a living. We have to look after them so that they can look after their families. Some of them have to have motorcars. They cannot make use of public transport, and therefore have to have a motor-car. We should make motor-cars available to these people as is done in other countries, for example in England, America and France. In these countries the pension paid to veterans is twice as high as that paid in South Africa. We believe that a pension bonus bond scheme on the lines of that which we have for the Defence Force is necessary. The money from such a scheme can be used to eliminate the gap between races and to pay a decent pension to the aged. It is the aged who have suffered most over the years. They have been the victims of the flatlords, and not only have they been faced with ejectment; in addition they are facing a crisis when they can no longer look after themselves and have nowhere to go. There are no institutions that can accommodate them because the institutions for the aged are all full. Should the Government not be doing something actively in order to obviate the situation and see that proper homes are provided for all? The hon. the Minister has just taken R720 million out of the coffers of the Treasury in order to meet salary increases. Of this amount he has only taken R23 million to pay the bonus which has been announced for pensioners and R65 million to pay the increase in the pensions. That is 12,2% of the total amount. Is that all he can spare the 429 000 pensioners in South Africa?

In all these circumstances I, on behalf of the PFP, call for a new deal for pensioners in South Africa. I call upon the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into the whole question of pensions and pensioners and to review Act No. 84 of 1976 so as to bring about an increase in military pensions at least equivalent to the proposed increase in the payments under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The hon. the Minister will remember that he introduced a Bill the other day which recognizes that people who receive workmen’s compensation should be paid a realistic amount.

As far as disability grants are concerned, I want to say that a person has to earn less than R42 per month to qualify for such a grant. The irony is that if a person with a disability grant earns more than R42 and one wants to give him an incentive every penny above R42 is deducted from his pension. The disabled need an incentive, but what is the good of encouraging these people to work by paying them more if any increase in their salary is immediately deducted from the total amount of their pension? This is a nonsensical situation and needs attention.

Last year the attendant’s allowance was increased to R15 per month, but where does one find someone who is prepared to attend to any old person in need for R15 per month? This is an unrealistic allowance.

This year is the international year of the disabled. I should like to know from the Government what they are doing to help the handicapped and whether they will make a declaration in this regard. I am talking about the person who is suffering from or is afflicted with impaired mobility, permanently or temporarily, and whether or not such person is confined to or makes use of a wheel-chair. What has happened to the legislation relating to national building regulations and building standards drafted in 1977? Why is no provision made in public places, such as municipal buildings, places of public assembly, hotel lobbies, shops, business centres, education institutions and hostels. Why are no parking spaces provided for handicapped persons? We take many of these things for granted because we ourselves are not disabled in any way. Why are suitable ramps not provided to enable handicapped persons to enter into or travel in any public building? Why are staircases and toilets not designed in such a way that handicapped people can use them? Simple things like washbasins, electric sockets, etc., should be placed in such a way that they can be reached by handicapped people. This Government has been urged to do something about this since 1977 and they are still dragging their feet. This is the international year of the disabled, and I call upon the Government to make a declaration and to do something for these people.

In conclusion I should like to say that the election called suddenly by the Prime Minister is calculated to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate who have been neglected in the many spheres to which I and other hon. members on this side of the House have referred. The Government used the flags of “rooi gevaar” and “swart gevaar” so that the electorate cannot raise their voices against the personal neglect and the total onslaught which they have suffered at the hands of this Government. The simple truth is that the Government does not care for the people. Finally, I issue a challenge to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services and to his deputy to attend a meeting of flat dwellers and pensioners any Saturday afternoon in Hillbrow so that they can listen to the problems of those people and try to solve them as we are trying to solve them.

Mr. Speaker, I gained the impression that the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow was intended to be a great and mighty election speech which was to cause hundreds upon thousands of people to swing to the PFP, but alas, not even anyone in this hon. House listened to the hon. member. The hon. member became quite desperate. He began by pleading that the Government should appoint a body which could make representations to the Government on behalf of the pensioners. Then he asked that in addition, a commission of investigation be appointed. I gained the impression that the hon. member knows he is going to lose his seat and therefore he would like two bodies so that he might find a place on one of them when he loses his seat.

Do you want to bet? Put your money where your mouth is.

Make him chairman of the ex MPs.

Yes.

Do you say “yes”?

No, I am not saying “yes” to the hon. member for Hillbrow. This Government has a fine and sympathetic record as regards pensions, and particularly with regard to the elderly people of South Africa, and not only in respect of pensions but also in respect of other matters. When one travels through this country and looks at the provision of housing and the care that is taken of elderly people, and one takes into account the fact that over the past 19 years, social pensions have increased every year and that in the past year alone social pensioners have three times received a bonus of R30, then the record of this party and the Government is a fine record and it is a pity, indeed a scandal, that that hon. member comes and drags the pensioners of South Africa across the floor of this House for the sake of a few cheap votes in Hillbrow.

And it is he who threw the old people out of the flats.

Yes, that is after he threw them out of the flats.

In a part appropriation debate such as this one expects two things to be in the limelight. The one is the financial situation of South Africa, and the other is the politics of South Africa, because we are on the eve of an election. Now the Opposition has sustained a knock-out blow, right between the eyes. The hon. member for Yeoville was as pale as a sheet when he had to stand up the other day and reply to the hon. the Minister, because he did not know where to find a toe-hold. They then came up with the most illogical arguments. In the first place, they take it amiss of the hon. the Minister for having introduced a good budget, because that does not suit their book. They wanted a poor budget, because they wanted to use it to hold an election. The hon. member for Yeoville asks the hon. the Minister why he is giving the teachers and the officials a salary increase now, before the election. He maintains that he wants to bribe them. But in the same breath he says that the pensioners cannot wait until August or October; that is too late. Do hon. members think that the mentality of the people of South Africa is such that the hon. member can persuade them with arguments like that? From a financial point of view, as far as this part appropriation is concerned the Opposition has been completely demolished, because it is a good budget. I think it is one of the best, and taking into account the fact that it is a part appropriation, it is perhaps the very best this country has ever seen. And why is it such a good budget? It is a good budget because there is a good Government in this country.

Good for whom?

Good for South Africa. This budget is what it is due to the financial discipline which the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government have imposed over the past few years in order to regulate the economy of South Africa with a firm hand in view of world circumstances, with the result that last year this country had a real growth rate of 8%.

A world record.

What other country in the world has done better than that?

A champagne party.

No, it is there, in black and white; it is there already. What other country in the world has such a record? That is due to good government. However, it is not only due to financial management; it is also due to the stability that prevails in South Africa that this country’s economy has grown by 8%. After all, it is true that there is turmoil and unrest in the world today. In South Africa, too, efforts are being made to cause turmoil and unrest, but due to this Government and this party, that serve this country dedicatedly under the command of an inspired leader, there is stability in this country. It is because we in South Africa follow a policy—since South Africa of all countries is the country with the greatest potential for unrest and conflict—which enables people to achieve their aspirations without coming into conflict with one another.

That is why the hon. Opposition has not been able to achieve anything on the financial front. However, one would also have expected them to attack the Government on the political front because the election lies ahead. After the hon. the Prime Minister announced the election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Prime Minister was holding an election for two reasons: In the first place, to preserve the unity of his party, and in the second place, because the initiatives of this party and this Government had failed. I believe that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that, he did not believe it himself. Or if he believed it then, he no longer believes it now. The reason is simple. If he had believed it was true, then surely it was absolutely the kind of situation that any Opposition would dream about. Here sits the Government, divided, according to his opinion. The Government’s policy is supposed to have failed. What more could an Opposition want than that? That is absolutely a gift, presented to him on a plate.

Exactly.

Did they climb in and try to widen that supposed split in the NP? No, they sat dead quiet. They did nothing whatsoever. The so-called failed initiatives and policy of the Government surely offered them the opportunity to tell the nation that in the light of these failures they had an alternative to offer. Have we heard a word about it? No, we have heard nothing about it. However, I shall tell hon. members why we have heard nothing about it. It is a dream situation. It is like a boxer who drops his gloves and exposes his face so that his challenger can climb in and knock out the champion. One would expect him to keep hitting until the champion was down for good. However, he is sitting dead still. He is not even moving.

We have heard no politics in this debate. Hon. members on the Government side have tried to provoke the Opposition. However, they sat there without a word. The hon. member for Hillbrow came along and spoke about pensions. What did the hon. member for Orange Grove do? Instead of attacking the Government, he attacked the Meat Board. [Interjections.] One would swear he knew that he was going to lose his seat and was now trying to find himself a place on the Meat Board. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sandton had all the time in the world to annihilate the Government. However, he spent his time elaborating on the unpatriotic letters he wrote abroad. As if people abroad would vote for him! It is pathetic. They have every opportunity, but they are doing absolutely nothing. They are not making use of the opportunity. I know why they are not making use of the opportunity. It is because the PFP is a divided party. What they say is not true. The NP is not divided. Nor is the NP’s policy failing. The NP’s policy is succeeding. That is why the PFP is unable to attack us here. However, the PFP is divided. That has been proved time and time again in this House. I am not going to advance the evidence for this again. I am merely going to mention it in passing.

It is, after all, true that there are hon. members in the PFP who say that they believe in a majority Government. That is so, without question. The hon. member for Houghton is one of them. The hon. member for Groote Schuur is another. However, there are eight hon. members of the PFP who say that they do not believe in it. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of those who says that he does not believe in a majority Government.

And brother Kobie, where does he stand?

Yes. That hon. disciple sitting over there against the wall at the back with his head in his hands, where does he stand? [Interjections.]

I cannot hear what you were saying.

You are getting old, man.

I cannot hear what you are saying.

I believe it, because the hon. member’s fingers are in his ears. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the PFP is divided. The hon. member for Yeoville does not believe in a majority government. He is one of those who said that foreign investors must invest in South Africa. However, there are other people who say they should not invest here. The hon. member for Yeoville is the man who said that people who believe in a revolution should not attend their national convention. The hon. member for Houghton, however, said that those people must come to the national convention. She ought to remember it. She voted for it at her party congress. There are hon. members of the PFP who maintain that the ballot-box and constitutional means, parliamentary means, should be abandoned and other methods, methods other than constitutional ones, should be followed to bring about change in South Africa.

Who says that?

You are now speaking absolute nonsense.

Of course that is so. One of their former hon. members, the former member for Durban North, Harry Pitman, said that. [Interjections.] He did say it. He is again a candidate in the coming election. I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he says the same thing.

All I say is that no one in this party is in favour of adopting unconstitutional means to bring about change.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that they do not believe in unconstitutional means. However, the Opposition has now had the opportunity to show the people of South Africa what the alternative is. They have now had the chance to tell the voters: “Here is our alternative to determine the future of South Africa.” What have we heard about their alternative? Nothing, Sir, because they themselves know that their alternative is a failure. I now want to predict for them that after this election they will have to appoint a commission, as they did after the previous election, to draw up a new policy for them. After the previous election they had to appoint a commission to get a policy because the voters rejected them, and this time it is going to happen to an even greater extent. Why, Sir? In this last commission report of theirs they say that their answer is a national convention, but they say that if the national convention fails, then there will be confrontation and chaos in South Africa. They say that themselves.

We do not say that.

They do say it, Sir. [Interjections.] Oh yes, Sir, they do say it. They say it on page 18 of this report which I have before me which was approved by the congresses.

Read it then.

I am going to read it. It goes as follows—

[Interjections.] I just want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he must not challenge me again and say I must prove it. I am going to make other statements and I can prove all of them. They say that it will then fail.

Mr. Speaker, I have just told them that they differ with one another on at least four points. They do not even have consensus on that. But then they want to call a national convention with the various divergent ethnic groups in South Africa and they hope they will achieve consensus there. Then they go further. They say that they have seven non-negotiable points which all the others must accept. I am telling them now: We shall not accept the points.

Will the hon. the Minister answer a question?

No, the hon. member must be quiet. [Interjections.] I am not afraid of questions. I am busy fighting an election against you, Harry! [Inter-jections.] I am not answering questions now. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville can put his questions to me after the election, but now he must listen to what I want to tell him. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon. member now, before the election, what he ought to know. Those hon. members will not be able to achieve consensus at that national convention of theirs because in their party they have a group of liberalists, and that is why they cannot achieve consensus. Now they say that there will be chaos and confrontation. We know those hon. members, Sir. They are afraid. They are already shaking. They are already providing for that confrontation, and they say that this national convention is merely an orderly transition in order to hand over power. That is what it is. When that confrontation comes, as everyone knows it will, then they will hand over the political power. That is the tragedy of that party. Now they go to the voters of South Africa and they say: Give us the power to govern the country, because we want to give this power away as soon as you give it to us. The hon. members say so in so many words in this very document of theirs. They speak about “peaceful transition”. They should read their own documents! [Interjections.] If that hon. member were to take his finger out of his eyes and his ears and read these documents he would see that that is exactly what they are propagating. They speak about peaceful transition. The question now is: What kind of transition is it? Some of those hon. members say that it is transition from domination to power-sharing. Others, like the hon. member for Houghton, say it is transition from domination to majority government, or they did say that.

Not at all. I spoke about multi-racial Government.

That is what she says when she goes abroad. When she goes abroad she says that it is a temporary measure, majority government, but I believe her, Sir.

Multi-racial government.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member. I do not think she believes in majority government any longer.

*I think she now believes in something else. I want to quote to you something that appeared in a periodical, The Eastern Echo. In it a person writes . . .

Who is he?

I shall tell the hon. members in a moment. He writes as follows—

†And now, Mr. Speaker, this very significant statement—

Ideologically, Sir, this move has not been without consequence. What is the ideological significance of this move? He states it very clearly—

This is important—

And then he says—

This article was written by Mr. Japie Basson, a previous front-bencher of that party.

And now a member of the President’s Council and outside of politics.

That does not matter; he was a member of the party and he knows what goes on in that party. He said that when he helped to found that party, that was not what he had in mind.

Reading the article, one realizes that it became clear last year that there were people in that party who wanted power to be transferred to a Marxist minority government; not joint government.

That is absolute rubbish.

But that is what the former colleague of the hon. members opposite says, and I agree with him 100%. It is the observation of every person who has political senses with which to observe what is going on in South Africa.

Do you believe everything Japie Basson says?

I concede that not everyone in that party thinks in those terms, but that hon. bishop and the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members thinks so, and it is they to whom reference is made here.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order . . .

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members in accordance with the customs of this House.

I am an archbishop; not just a bishop. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall do so. Of course, what we have here is a fantastic combination of an hon. archbishop and an hon. disciple.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not joke when the Chair has given a ruling.

I regret having done so, Sir.

That is what those hon. members are aiming at, but now they say that the policy of this party, under the leadership of our dynamic hon. Prime Minister, has failed, but surely that is not true. Surely our policy has not failed.

What policy; after all, you do not have a policy.

At this stage we are engaged in something we started a long time ago. We are carrying on with it. We are creating fatherlands for different peoples. Under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, a commission of inquiry, the Van der Walt Commission, was appointed to look into consolidation. In the mean time the commission has submitted its report, and for the first time in the history of South Africa we now have an overall picture and all the information together. That report can serve as a guideline. Had it not been that the hon. the Prime Minister displayed that initiative, we should not have had the perspective we do have. The outcome of that was that the hon. the Prime Minister said that at this stage we realize that economic development must be afforded a higher priority than geographic consolidation.

After 32 years!

But in the interim we have constantly been promoting economic development. The hon. the Prime Minister has displayed initiative. The hon. members opposite said that those places should not be developed. The hon. members have always been opposed to those places being developed.

That is not true.

As a result of that initiative, the Small Businesses Development Corporation is coming into being and the Development Bank is coming into being. Are these, then, initiatives that are falling flat? And that is far from all . . .

Next day you will discover the law of supply and demand.

And the day thereafter that the earth is round.

Order!

We are assisting in the establishment of fatherlands for nations in South Africa. We are assisting various nations to preserve and develop those things which represent the deeper values in the life of a nation, those things which lie deeper than other things and which truly afford security to a nation, namely its religion, its language and those things that are precious to it.

[Inaudible.]

It is not only with regard to profounder matters that we are active at the moment; in the material sphere, too, we are enabling nations in South Africa to develop and build themselves up. Then, too, we are enabling nations to co-operate meaningfully with one another, although each can still decide on its own future, and we envisage doing so by way of the constellation of States which the hon. the Prime Minister is seeking to establish in cooperation with the other States. And in spite of that, hon. members opposite maintain that the initiatives of this party have fallen flat. But these initiatives are constantly receiving new support and, what is more, are becoming a raving success.

Raving, yes.

Yes, raving, in spite of the fact that many people want to make out that our initiatives have failed. The provisional census figures published last year showed that the Black people in the national States have increased by 59% over the past decade, while those in the White areas increased by 13%. Why? Because the people want to live in their own fatherlands. For that reason we realize and know that if more economic development can take place, it will be possible to accommodate more people there, and that is proof that they want to live there.

A wise man told me one day that the ten commandments embodied two important aspects, one being that one should not do certain things, for example one should not steal, and the other, that one should do certain things, for example one should work six days a week to make a living. The NP is taking certain steps, steps which are of importance for us and for the other nations. However, there are certain things we shall not do. We are not prepared to forfeit our freedom of worship. We are not prepared to forfeit democracy in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite waved farewell to democracy long ago. Nor are we prepared to forfeit the free economy system. Nor are we prepared to forfeit our right to self-determination. At the same time we are prepared to convey the power we still have over other nations to those nations so that they can develop to the highest level. In this way we shall be able to ensure peaceful co-existence in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. the Minister of Education and Training will forgive me if I do not debate in the same vein as he did this afternoon, because unfortunately my time is very limited and I should like to bring a very important matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

†The hon. the Minister of Finance probably has a portfolio where his executive actions have greater effects on the lives of all South African peoples than possibly the actions of any other Minister in the Cabinet. Whatever the hon. the Minister of Finance does has a ripple effect throughout South African society, very much like that of a pebble cast in a pool. Whatever the Minister of Finance does has a direct bearing, positively or negatively, on the quality of life of all South African citizens. In exercising this power the hon. the Minister has available to him two specific strategies. In the first instance he can act passively and only react to distortions in the free market system. We think here of, for instance, adjustments to the foreign exchange control, intervention in terms of the Monopolies Act and all the various types of disfunctions in the economic system where the Minister at a specific time has to step in in order to change any undesirable factor that has made itself felt.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important for the quality of life of all South African citizens, the hon. the Minister also has available to him an innovative and positive strategy. I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister last year, but I shall be coming back to it again when raising another factor that I raised last year as well. A responsibility he has to all the citizens of South Africa is to ensure that the quality of life enjoyed by them is enhanced year by year because, after all, that is the major function of government. If the hon. the Minister, or the rest of the Government, neglects that responsibility, they will be failing in their duty to the country. I want to urge the hon. the Minister of Finance once again to look into this issue, and I shall keep coming back to him until he relents in his attitude towards interest paid on mortgage bonds for private dwellings. The hon. the Minister did reply last year, and I shall be coming back to the hon. the Minister’s argument in this regard. We shall keep coming back to him until he relents on this issue and is able to give relief to the private home owners of South Africa.

We do not have to be geniuses to realize what it costs to build a very modest home today, and I really mean “modest”. I am referring to a home of approximately 100 sq. meters, which is very modest indeed and probably includes two bedrooms and one bathroom. The cost of that building today, excluding the cost of land, is in the region of R30 000. That means that the monthly repayments, for the average worker who earns R750 today, is in the region of R300 per month, or 40% of his income. Over the 25-year bond period, the owner of such a modest R30 000 home will have to repay to the building society R90 000.

I believe that the hon. the Minister will agree that there is an increasing shortage of homes for members of all race groups in South Africa. The reason for this is very simple. It is the cost of building which is forcing South Africans to go back into the concrete jungle. They are having to abandon their ordinary dwellings in the suburbs, on one-third acre and one-quarter acre sites, because costs have escalated to such an extent that they can no longer afford to live there. I appreciate the fact that there is nothing the hon. the Minister can directly do about the cost of building, because we operate a private free-enterprise system in a free market place, but the hon. the Minister has it within his power to do something about bringing relief to home owners.

I should like to quote one example of how hard-pressed the average South African home owner is today. I quote from a report in The Citizen newspaper dated 17 February 1981. From the report it is evident that investors are withdrawing their money in order to try to cope with the increasing costs involved in their home mortgages. What do we find in this report? I quote—

That means a decrease in building society investments of the order of 42%. This is indicative of the fact that people who have homes at present are hard-pressed to try and maintain those homes. The drift into the concrete jungles, into rented accommodation and flats, is escalating year by year. That is the one single factor—the most important factor—determining the quality of life of parents and children in South Africa. I do not think this Government can stand by and allow a decrease in that standard of living, because it is a primary responsibility of the hon. the Minister, and the Government as a whole, to ensure that every citizen of South Africa is able to afford his own home. This is a country blessed with vast tracts of land, and there is absolutely no reason why that standard should not be maintained.

This brings me to the argument used by the hon. the Minister last year when I petitioned him about this. Firstly the hon. the Minister said that he would only allow expenditure incurred in the production of income to be tax-deductible and that he could not introduce a new principle. That principle, however, is not all that sacrosanct. For years, in terms of income tax, we have allowed deductions on income. What about rebates for children, something which is very necessary and very desirable? But here the principle is exactly the same. When rebates for children are granted, the hon. the Minister’s motivation must be to lessen the burden of coping with the cost of living on the parents of those children. Wherever the hon. the Minister is able to grant rebates for children—and he must continue to do so— we support him wholeheartedly. But why can he then not see his way clear to allow interest paid on mortgage bonds on private dwellings to be tax-deductible as well? Therefore that argument does not hold water.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister has indicated that the rate of income tax in South Africa is so low in comparison to the rates overseas that this would seriously affect the real tax rate. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister—and here I use the United States of America as an example— that incomes in the United States are almost treble the incomes in South Africa and that the proportion of disposable income in the United States is considerably greater than the proportion of disposable income in South Africa.

Thirdly, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that when he makes comparisons with overseas countries, he must also look at the basic cost of living in those countries. It is well known that for example clothing and motor vehicles cost at least 20% less in the United States than in South Africa. I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that he is already collecting 4% of the disposable income of South Africans when it reverts to the State in the form of GST. That in itself will minimize the effect of reducing the effective rate of income tax quoted by the hon. the Minister last year. The hon. the Minister also said it would be unfair and we would discriminate against those citizens who prefer to live in rented accommodation as compared to building their own homes. I do not believe that argument is valid, because the objective here is to encourage and motivate more people to want to build their own homes and live in them. Real homeownership is the objective closest to the heart of every citizen. Besides, we operate in a free market system where there is freedom of choice. Surely the individual has the freedom to decide whether he prefers to live in rented accommodation or to build his own home. Why should the hon. the Minister deny that sector of the population which wants to build its own homes the right, the privilege and the assistance just because there are people who exercise their free right to remain in rented accommodation?

Fourthly, the hon. the Minister said—I think this is the crux of the matter—that there is the question of cost to the State. Last year the hon. the Minister indicated that if he allowed all interest paid on all private dwellings as an income tax-deductible allowance, it would cost the State a maximum of R180 million. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity: Is that such a great amount to pay for the improvement in the quality of life for South Africans? It represents only 6% of the income tax paid by private individuals in South Africa. Private individuals contribute R3 000 million to the State coffers annually. Such an allowance would cost the State 6% of that amount, or 1,5% of the Government’s total revenue. Surely that is a small price to pay for the psychological and physical welfare of the nation. Is it not true that the R180 million that he will forego if he allows the interest on mortgage bonds to be tax deductible, is perhaps even less than the unanticipated surplus he gained from GST in 1979? This is indeed a very small price to pay for the returns the country will receive.

Fifthly, the hon. the Minister said there would be abuse of the privilege. I do not believe that at all, nor do I think any hon. member here will believe that it is impossible for the department to control abuse. When we specify the qualifications for people who will be able to enjoy the privilege of deducting interest paid on mortgage bonds on private dwellings, we can surely rule out by qualification those who may abuse it. The hon. the Minister has quoted a case of a man who may have paid off his bond and then goes and raises a second bond and reinvests that money and actually makes a profit on the deal. The simple qualification for this privilege would be to rule out abuse and it is well-known that his department is well able to exclude abuse and to prevent it. I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister today and propose the following: I ask the hon. the Minister to consider granting 5% of the initial capital sum paid on the mortgage bond for the first time on a new dwelling as income tax deductible.

I shall repeat that for the hon. the Minister. I am asking him to grant to the individual, private taxpayer, 5% of the initial capital of a bond granted on a new dwelling as an annually deductible amount for income tax purposes. Secondly, in the case of subsequent owners of a dwelling, i.e. those who did not have it built or occupied it for the first time, he should grant 3% of the initial capital sum as a tax deductible allowance. That means that on the house of R30 000 I spoke about earlier, which would be a very modest house indeed, the builder of the house who occupies it for the first time would have a tax deductible rebate allowance of R1 500 per year while a subsequent owner of the house would receive a tax deductible rebate of R900 per year. It is as simple as that. We want a rebate, which is already established in principle in our Income Tax law, to be granted to home owners, because the present and future generations of South Africa will never forgive us for driving them out of their homes into the concrete jungle with all the horrific consequences on the quality of their life.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point must pardon me for not reacting to his speech in the remaining injury time, otherwise I shall be unable to get through. Mr. Speaker, permit me at the very outset to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance on behalf of all my colleagues who represent border constituencies for the special assistance he has given our farmers in establishing new young farmers in our border areas and in helping farmers to stabilize their farming operations in those border areas. I just want to mention briefly that over the past year the huge sum of R24,1 million was spent in this regard, that 192 new young farmers were established in the border areas and that a total of 324 loans were granted. Consequently the scheme was and is a resounding success. In particular we should also like to convey our gratitude to the energetic Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for his assistance in this regard. Still on this topic, I should finally like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance that all studies which have been carried out in my part of the world, in the lowveld bordering on Mozambique, indicate that in actual fact there is only one stabilizing industry which we are able to offer our farmers in order to establish and keep them in that area, and that is the sugar industry, which should be expanded in that part of the country.

I had expected this debate to reflect the forthcoming election. To an extent that expectation has been realized, but not as I had foreseen. Something remarkable has happened to the economy of South Africa and the competence of the hon. the Minister of Finance since the no-confidence debate three weeks ago. In this debate we have had to hear how ineffective and unreliable the present hon. Minister of Finance is. That was declaimed here by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston, to say nothing of the rest. Apparently those hon. members have short memories, for in the no-confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make, I would almost say a state of the nation speech and tried to be positive. To a certain extent he also succeeded. What were the findings of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the economy and of the mode of action and competence of the present hon. Minister of Finance? In column 24 of this year’s Hansard he spelt out the positive aspects of the South African situation to this House. He said—

It does not end there. In column 33 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He quoted from a report in the Cape Times in which the praises of the hon. the Minister of Finance were sung. The hon. Leader of the Opposition then went on to say—

In other words, a testimonial to the hon. the Minister of Finance by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, barely three weeks ago. Now the same Opposition, admittedly not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself—for he is trying to act in a responsible way—but the men sitting behind him, in particular the former “reformers”, have come forward and tried to denigrate this appropriation in harsh terms. Why do they want to denigrate the appropriation in this way? To put it in a nutshell they asserted that this entire part appropriation was a bribe which was being offered to the voters of South Africa in return for their votes. What an insult to the intelligence of the South African electorate. We shall tell the voters of South Africa that the Opposition thinks that they are prepared to be bribed. The Government, the hon. the Minister of Finance, certainly does not believe that the voters of South Africa would allow themselves to be bribed with rands and cents. What I did expect from this debate was that both the Opposition parties would seize the opportunity to compare policies, but we have had nothing of the kind.

They have nothing of the kind.

Why have we had nothing of the kind? The hon. member for Bryanston said that the voters of South Africa had to decide in the forthcoming election “whether they were going to vote for or against the Government”. This is the attitude of the Opposition parties. How did the hon. the leader of the NRP sum up the position of his party? Initially he said: “We are not fighting to win.” Then he changed his tune and said: “We are fighting to keep the Opposition alive.” The voters of South Africa will not have to choose for or against the Government on 29 April. The voters of South Africa will have to choose between the National Party and the PFP and the NRP and all the other parties that are not yet represented in this House.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 73.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the end of a long Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, a debate which, in my opinion, covered a wide field and which was characterized by a number of excellent and effective speeches, interesting speeches, and perhaps, too, a few strange speeches, which I might comment on later if I get a chance.

This afternoon I should like to convey my sincere thanks to those good friends of ours who made their farewell speeches as hon. members of this House during this debate and who will soon cease to be members of this House. I want to assure them that we shall miss them. We shall miss them as friendly, sincere persons, and good parliamentarians. I wish them everything of the best for the future.

We also heard a few very interesting maiden speeches. Listening to those new members it became very clear to one that they are definitely an asset to this House. We are very pleased to be able to count them among our number here.

†In listening to the Opposition during this debate my difficulty was that I could not discover whether they were telling me that I was being too generous or too mean. If one reads their speeches and if one has listened carefully, as I have, and has made notes, I defy anybody to tell me quite clearly whether I erred on the side of being too generous and too liberal or whether I erred on the side of being perhaps altogether too mean and too cautious.

Too little too late and too mean.

That is something that I want to look at a little more carefully and I also want to say a little more about education because a number of the hon. members of the Opposition have been saying to me that until now I have apparently done nothing, that the Government has done nothing, about teachers and education. That is a completely nonsensical assertion which is easily refuted by the facts.

Talk to the teachers.

My hon. ecclesiastical friend on the other side must just give me a chance and I shall deal with him too.

Mr. Speaker, with these few words today I should like to move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the current financial year the Railways was subjected to a higher cost pressure than was originally anticipated, which resulted in increased expenditure, especially in respect of material items and consumable stores. However, due to positive action by the department, the increase in working expenditure was restricted to approximately R75 million, representing an excess of only 1,7% on the original Working Expenditure Estimates. The revised estimates for the 1980-’81 financial year amount to R4 460 million.

From the documents tabled, hon. members will note that an amount of R74,6 million requires to be voted to cover additional expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds during the current financial year.

Under Railways an additional amount of R16,8 million is required in respect of transportation services as indicated under Head No. 4—Motive Power Operating Expenses—and Head No. 6—Cartage Services. The increased expenditure amounting to R13,2 million under Head No. 4 is exclusively due to higher payments for electricity and increased labour costs while the additional provision of R3,5 million under Head No. 6 is attributable mainly to increased fuel consumption and payments to private contractors, owing to an increase in the traffic handled and also to the delivery during the current financial year of trailers which were expected in the previous financial year; the costs of these trailers are debited to the working account.

An additional amount of R7,4 million requires to be voted for subsidiary services under Head No. 11—Catering and Bedding Services (R1,2 million); Head No. 15—Road Transport Service (R4,1 million), and Head No. 16—Tourist Service (R2,1 million). The additional expenditure under these heads arose from factors such as a bigger increase in the price of foodstuffs, particularly that of meat, than was originally provided for, increased fuel consumption, the hire of more private buses and increased air bookings.

Under Airways provision is made for an additional amount of R50,4 million. The entire amount is to be appropriated under Head No. 31—Working and Maintenance— primarily as a result of increased labour costs, higher fuel prices, additional repairs to hangars owing to hail damage and increased tariffs in respect of hotel accommodation and meals. Increased commission payments to agencies as a result of a hike in certain air tariffs which was not anticipated, also contributed to the additional expenditure provided for under this head.

*I come now to the Brown Book items. Hon. members will note that provision is being made for an additional expenditure of approximately R108,5 million with regard to the capital programme. Of this amount, R68,5 million will be financed from savings on existing appropriations, while the balance of R40 million will be defraid from internal sources.

Under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional appropriation of approximately R5,5 million is required, of which R3,7 million will be used to defray delayed debits for which provision must be made in terms of a decision of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. In this connection I wish to explain that amounts are made available under the various heads in the annual capital budget for the defrayal of delayed costs relating to works which were authorized in previous years but for which no specific provision was made in the year in which such costs are charged. In terms of the Select Committee decision, the appropriation thus made must be used for defraying delayed costs not exceeding R30 000 with regard to every separate work, and where this limit is exceeded, specific provision is made for each case in the next additional appropriation. Under this head, a cash provision of approximately R900 000 is also required for urgent works which were financed from the “Unforeseen Works” item during the current financial year and for which specific provision must now be made.

The additional appropriation required under Head No. 6—Airways—amounts to approximately R2 million. Hon. members will note that provision is made for the purchase of a helicopter. I just want to mention, by way of explanation, that after a thorough investigation, a real need was found to exist for a helicopter to be used under certain circumstances, such as riots, floods and other disruptions in which the time factor is of vital importance. In the light of this, it was decided to purchase, at an estimated total cost of R2 million, a helicopter which is able to convey eight passengers. An appropriation of R600 000 is required for this in the current financial year. It is expected that the helicopter will be delivered during the 1981-’82 financial year.

Approval has also been granted for the purchase of an additional flight simulator for Boeing 737 aircraft. Bearing in mind the 12 Boeing 737 aircraft which are presently on order, hon. member will understand that this equipment is essential for the training of flight personnel. The estimated total cost of the flight simulator is R8 million. A cash appropriation of R1 million is required for the current financial year.

Under Head No. 7—Pipelines—the additional appropriation of approximately R24,3 million is required mainly for the additional pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand (Vote No. 375 of the additional capital budget). In this connection I want to point out that an agreement has been entered into with the Strategic Fuel Fund Association for certain changes to be made to the pipeline system on condition that the Railways Administration be compensated for the additional cost which this scheme will entail and that the additional equipment become Railway assets. The value of these assets, which are being acquired free of charge, is presently estimated at approximately R24,2 million. In terms of resolution No. 2 of the second report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, 1979, assets acquired free of charge or partly free of charge must be included in the capital Budget for appropriation. It is therefore necessary that the cash appropriation of this Vote be increased by the latter amount.

An additional appropriation of approximately R56 million must be made under Head No. 8—Working Capital. Of this amount, R32 million is required with regard to general stores for the maintenance of assets, while R8,5 million is to be used for the purchase of material for future new works. The reasons for these additional cash appropriations are that stores levels had to be raised as a result of a sharp increase in the turnover of stores, arising from relatively higher maintenance and investment, and that additional assets require new and/or additional stores. Rising prices also played a part. The balance of R15,5 million to be appropriated under this head is required for aircraft spare parts. By way of explanation, it may be mentioned that it used to be the general practice for aircraft spare parts that could be released and repaired during maintenance work not to be replaced in stock. However, it has now been decided to replace the repaired spare parts in stock, with the result that the Stores Account of the Airways is being increased by R15,5 million.

In respect of Head No. 10—Railways and Harbours House Ownership Fund—an additional appropriation of approximately R20 million is required. Because of the exceptional rise in building costs and the price of houses, the number of loans that can be granted to employees is insufficient, and an additional amount of R20 million is required, which will mean that the total appropriation for the house ownership scheme for the current financial year will be increased to approximately R85,7 million.

It is the intention, in the capital programme for 1980-’81, to provide for a number of new proposals in respect of the 1981-’82 financial year which cannot without detriment be delayed until the capital budget for 1981-’82 is approved later this year; each of these proposals will be included in the additional capital budget with only a nominal cash provision.

To sum up, therefore, the position is that appropriations from revenue funds have to be increased by R74,6 million and those in respect of the capital programme by R108,5 million.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first appropriation measure that this hon. the Minister has introduced into Parliament on behalf of the Railways I should like at this stage to congratulate him and say that I hope that future appropriations will be the absolute minimum necessary for the Railways because I know he is an economic Minister. I must also say that I hope he does not have many appropriations quite like this one. We know that it is traditional in regard to additional appropriations to look at the amount asked for and in this instance we are being asked for an additional amount of R183 095 100 which is not a tremendous amount of money in terms of the total Railway budget. For Revenue Services we are being asked for an amount of R74 550 000 and on the Capital Programme an amount of R108 545 100.

As far as Revenue Services are concerned I have no fault to find with the appropriation. One is always in a certain amount of difficulty with regard to Revenue Services because one never really knows what the actual revenue for the year in question is. One can go back to the records of the Department of Statistics but the latest that I have available are the figures up to July of last year. Therefore one does not really have any true concept of the amount of revenue the Railway Administration is collecting in each department. One can understand, however, that in many instances more money is required, as asked for in this additional appropriation because, for example, of increased turnover. The hon. the Minister has given us explanations in regard to various items. One can understand that if electricity prices go up he will require more money. The same thing holds good for the Road Transport Services of the Railways. This may well be because greater distances are being covered by the Railways through their Road Transport Services.

We see under “Railways” that there is an additional amount of R1 180 000 for provisions, liquors etc. The hon. the Minister has told us that most of this is because of the increase in meat prices. Perhaps his chickens are coming home to roost! One also hopes, however, that more revenue will be generated here as well because more people will be availing themselves of Railway catering. One hopes too that this will be profitable. I see, for example that the cost of fuel in relation to Road Transport Services has increased by more than R3 million and one hopes that this is because they are covering greater distances, profitable distances. In regard to flying operations, the additional cost of fuel is R32 million. I am not aware of any major fuel price increases that may have contributed towards this increase and so I should like the hon. the Minister to elaborate a little more in this regard. It may well have to do with fuel purchased overseas in which case I am not able to comment on whether or not this request is justified. The increase in agency fees and commission has been due, according to the hon. the Minister, to higher air tariffs around the world which they were not able to anticipate. One hopes too that this is because more seats were sold on South African Airways.

All in all, as far as the estimates of the additional working expenditure for this year are concerned, we have no major quarrel, but I am afraid that when it comes to Brown Book spending, we have a very different situation. This is partly as a result of the upset year. The hon. the Minister finished off his introductory speech by saying very briefly that various items have been put on the Brown Book for the first time purely and simply because they cannot afford to wait until the main Railway budget is presented later in the year.

For the information of hon. members I did a run-down on these particular items of which there are a considerable number. It is a most unusual Brown Book. Time and again we see item after item where simply to have a new operation placed on the Brown Book the hon. the Minister asks for a nominal amount of R1 000—in one instance I think it is R2 000. The total of these nominal amounts comes to R287 000, which is not excessive. However, when one considers the capital expenditure programme on new items which the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve, one finds that capital expenditure of R2 397 million is involved.

Surely this is the wrong time to introduce discussion on this sort of thing. The House may pass these requests for R1 000 but what we are in fact discussing is a major programme of capital expenditure. The hon. the Minister knows the rules of the House. He knows that this is a two-hour debate yet he comes to this House to ask the House to give its approval for new capital expenditure to the tune of R2 397 million. I think this is unreasonable, totally unreasonable. I realize that the hon. the Minister was confronted with a dilemma but how can we possibly apply our minds in a period of two hours to capital expenditure of this magnitude?

Let me give examples of certain items in the Brown Book. In many instances we are given no details at all. Let us look firstly at page 2, item No. 2—“New electrified lines to serve central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein”. For this item he is asking an amount of R145 642 245. This is possibly reasonable because we all know about Bapsfontein. We all know that some time ago we embarked upon the programme of building this marshalling yard. Presumably it was going to be electrified so this is something we might well have expected. We are being asked in this budget to provide a sum of R2 000. I would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would have given us some idea of what is involved because he must accept that if we pass this R2 000, we are tacitly saying that we agree to a final expenditure of R145 million.

One can go a little further. Let us look at page 8 where there is provision for the relaying and strengthening of railway lines. If one goes through the various systems, one finds that we are being asked in money terms in this budget to provide a total of R7 000. This is very reasonable indeed until one realizes that what we are actually being asked to approve is a capital sum in the region of R86 million.

Is it reasonable to expect hon. members to approve this without the hon. the Minister telling us why it is necessary to embark upon a capital expenditure programme of R86 million? Surely in his introductory speech he should have given us some idea of why this is necessary—whether it is normal or not normal for this amount to be appropriated in the main budget.

One looks at page 15, item 133—Durban: “Computer equipment, provide air-conditioning and alterations to building”— R25 million.

Item No.?

Item No. 133. Surely it would have been a good idea for the hon. the Minister to tell us what was going to happen in Durban, why this computer equipment and air-conditioning were necessary and what he intends to do with it. It is a tradition in the House that the Minister of Transport Affairs tells the House why he is doing things. But just, quite arbitrarily, to be asked to provide a sum of R25 million with the total explanation being “Computer equipment, provide air-conditioning and alterations to buildings” is just not good enough.

Let us look at page 17, Item 156: “New computer centre, computer equipment and office building”—R57 million. There are many government departments that do not spend R57 million in one whole year, and yet this House is asked to give tacit acceptance to an ultimate expenditure of over R57 million without the hon. the Minister giving us any explanation at all. I just happened to have heard on the grapevine that they are going to build a great new building next to the Paul Kruger building in Johannesburg, and all sorts of ideas have been put to me. Perhaps at this stage I could ask the hon. the Minister who has bought a lot of buildings in Johannesburg to house the Railways Administration whether we are in full occupation of those buildings, because I do not believe we are. I think there is space owned by the Railways Administration that is not being used by them. And now we decide to spend R57 million on a new building. I am not saying to the hon. the Minister that it is a bad thing to do this; I just want to have some sort of justification for this. The Minister must motivate why he is spending this tremendous amount of money.

Let us turn to page 18 where container depots at Capital Park and Rosslyn are mentioned. Here again we are being asked to provide only R1 000 this year but the total amount involved is R20 million. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us something about these container depots at Capital Park and Rosslyn.

Further down the page we see Item No. 174—“New goods lay-out at Witbank—Stage 2”—to cost an amount of more than R8 million. Again we are only being asked for R1 000 but surely the hon. the Minister owes it to us to tell us what this is all about.

Let us look at the bottom of page 20, Item No. 198—“New quarters, improve and replace quarters for Whites”—R6 million. Can the hon. the Minister tell us why this is necessary?

On the next page we have Item Nos. 199 and 200. The first item is in regard to a hostel at Vryheid East in Natal costing R8 million, while Item No. 200 covers a hostel for non-Whites at New Canada in the Western Transvaal System at a cost of R55 million. Sir, we are talking in astronomical sums without one bit of motivation from that hon. Minister in his introductory speech. He might say that he is only asking for R1 000 but he well knows that we are committing ourselves to tremendous capital expenditure when we are dealing with sums of money of this order.

He thinks he is dealing with a dairy farm.

Well I hope that dairy farms are better run than the hon. the Minister has run this particular budget. No wonder he lost money in his dairy farm.

I want now to refer to the bottom of page 26, Item No. 248—“Allotment to improve carrier equipment”—R5 million. In a normal year when we do not have snap elections the hon. the Minister can make a lengthy introductory speech to his budget and he can explain it item by item. He can say what he intends, in which direction the Administration intends to move and he can motivate his requests to the House. This, however, is not motivation. One only has to look at page 31, Item No. 289: “New Machinery for Workshops.” There he is asking for an amount of R30 million.

What for?

Of course, in the budget itself it is designated as R1 000. We are therefore making this sort of operation look almost ridiculous. I know he has to get the item on the books. This is acceptable, if he justifies it. If his justification is adequate, we let it through, but if his motivation is inadequate, we vote against the relevant R1 000 because we do not want that expenditure or because we think the hon. the Minister should go back and think again about it. That is not, however, what happens.

Think about his salary at a later stage.

Let us look at page 32 where, under “Cartage Equipment” there are Items 296, 297, 298 and 299. Respectively we are being asked to vote for R1,620 million, R7,066 million, R7,795 million and R5,445 million. These amounts are for trailers and semi-trailers, the replacement of vehicles and the replacement of vehicles for container traffic. Again this is a tremendous amount of money. I would find it very difficult to pass this sort of expenditure without knowing what sort of revenue the relevant department is getting, in other words whether it is being run profitably or whether it might perhaps be a better idea to hand the whole thing over to private enterprise so that the Railways could wash its hands of it and not incur losses. [Interjections.]

Do you propose that we give it over to private enterprise?

I am not in a situation to tell the hon. the Minister anything, because he gives us no information. We do not know whether he has made a profit in this department during the year.

A bunch of socialists.

He asks us, in that department, for cartage equipment involving, ultimately, additional expenditure of over R20 million.

Let us look at the following page, page 33, Item No. 302. Here we are dealing with “Non-revenue-earning Vehicles”. An amount of R1 000 is designated for this in the additional appropriation. The explanation given is a simple one: Allotment, 1981-’82 . . . R5 716 000.

What is a nonrevenue-earning vehicle? One that is on jacks?

I would have thought one would have been given something more, by way of an explanation, than is contained in the Brown Book.

It is a bogie.

Let us look at Item No. 304, which refers to “Mechanical Equipment for Maintenance of Track”. Again we have this expansive explanation: Allotment, 1981-’82 … R10 316 900.

That is for those hammers.

When it comes to rolling stock, of course, not very much money is really involved. The hon. the Minister is only asking, in total, for R4 000-odd in this additional appropriation. If one looks at Item No. 306, however, one sees that he is asking this House to commit itself to expenditure of R669 492 200. [Interjections.] That is more than our provinces spend on all their departments in one year.

A lot of milking machines one can buy with that.

Do you not know that this is a viable business? You cannot compare the two.

The hon. the Minister has now committed himself to the viability of this business, which of course means that under no circumstances is he going to consider raising tariffs when he comes to present the part appropriation next Monday.

No, of course not.

If the business is that viable, and we are making these tremendous profits, let me say that I am very glad to hear it. Let us look at Item No. 308: “Coaching stock—New Programme, 1981-’82 . . .” R134 429 100. Then there is Item No. 309: “Motor coaches—New Programme, 1981-’82 . . . R51 064 400.”

We can read too, Rupert.

Well, that may be so, but I am just drawing the attention of the House to what it is doing if it passes this. I must say that I gave deep thought to voting against this Bill because of the lack of detail and the lack of motivation provided by the hon. the Minister. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would at least have done so in his introductory speech. I realize that the hon. the Minister is inexperienced in this department but I have decided that if he can give reasonable and rational answers, we could perhaps go along with them. But those answers have to be full answers. Sir, look for instance at Item 311: “New Programme for Goods Stock.” The estimated total cost is R313 032 900.

I am not asking you to vote all that money.

No, I know that. I knew this argument would be advanced. I will not vote for the R1 000 the hon. the Minister is asking for unless I approve of the ultimate commitment. The hon. the Minister must realize that when we receive the Brown Book later in the year when the main budget is presented, it will read in the column concerned: Previously passed by Parliament. Sir, the hon. the Minister must therefore accept that he has to justify himself. We know that a great deal more than R1 000 will be spent on each such item. We know we are committing ourselves.

Let us look at another two particular items, for instance, items 347 and 348 on page 42 concerning the purchase of aircraft. In each instance the House is being asked to provide R1 000. I want to deal first with item 347 where we are actually committing ourselves to R60 million because, if that amount is to be included in the capital budget, will the hon. the Minister’s department be placing an order now? What about the two Boeing 747’s mentioned under item 348? What will the R1 000 be used for?

The wheels!

One wheel, the spare wheel!

Will it be used to pay for the ink in the pen that will be used to sign the order? The hon. the Minister knows very well that once we place that order, we are committed. He also knows that what the House is making a decision on now, is whether or not we are going to buy two Boeings 747’s. If the hon. the Minister can justify this by saying, for instance, that our traffic has increased or that profitable new routes are being opened for S.A. Airways overseas, we can go along with it. But here we have R193 million in ultimate expenditure and the hon. the Minister is only asking R2 000. What is he going to do with that R2 000?

Buy the hostesses uniforms!

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is going to do. Perhaps he will take a few people to lunch in order to inquire from them whether he should buy their aircraft and whether they are good aircraft. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that he is committing us to that sort of expenditure in terms of aircraft. I must really say that I am very disappointed with that hon. the Minister.

Sir, I should now like to come to page 45, the heading: “Pipelines”, item 375. In respect of this item we were given some motivation in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, albeit very scanty motivation. In respect of this item the ultimate intention is to spend R139 million, but at least the hon. the Minister is asking for an amount which he has already spent this year, viz. R24 million. I understand that type of budgeting in an additional appropriation but I really cannot understand the rest of it. For instance, R1 000 is being put aside for new headquarters for the Pipeline Department, a project which will ultimately cost R4 649 300.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the Railways and Harbours house ownership scheme and justified the additional expenditure of R20 million this year by stating that costs had increased. To be reasonable, Sir, we all know that building costs have appreciated tremendously and therefore the hon. the Minister is probably justified in this instance in asking for an additional R20 million. Unfortunately, however, the blame for these increased costs can largely be laid at the door of the Government. But then we come to item No. 389 where we are asked to vote R1 000 while the intention is to spend another R120 million on the house ownership scheme. This is far in excess of last year’s R65 million, which has now been upped to R85 million. Why are we extending this? This is where I am afraid I have to quarrel with the hon. the Minister. From what I can see, I do not believe we are exercising the necessary financial discipline. This country is faced with a major inflation problem. It is faced with runaway, double-figure inflation, inflation which could well run to 20% this year. The hon. the Minister knows that transport costs and, basically, rail transport costs lie at the root of much of South Africa’s inflation. Inflation has got to begin somewhere and, as virtually every commodity that is sold on the South African market has to be transported, transported by rail, if railway tariffs are increased, that will be part and parcel of starting off a new round of spiralling increases, which is what inflation is all about.

So, Sir, I can only say that it is with a great deal of foreboding that I looked at these Capital Estimates. In each instance, as I say, we are asked to vote R1 000, totalling R287 000, while what is involved is a capital expenditure programme of R2 397 million. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that he was justified in making the speech he did in introducing this? Does he not think he owes Members of Parliament and the House some explanation of why he is embarking on these capital programmes, even if at this stage he is only asking for individual amounts of R1 000.

What items are they?

That is all of them together. I did my own sum, after extracting the information with tremendous trouble. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have presented this information in his introductory speech, but unfortunately he did not. On the question of the sums of R1 000 I would say that the hon. the Minister should justify each and every one of them in his reply to the Second Reading debate or we shall find it very, very difficult indeed to vote in favour of them.

Let us now proceed to another matter. I want to refer hon. members to page 17 of the Brown Book, item No. 159, “Johannesburg: Provide inquiry office for Whites and extend inquiry office for non-Whites”, for which R67 100 is to be voted. This gives me the opportunity to raise a matter of tremendous moment with the hon. the Minister. It is time that we rooted out apartheid on the S.A. Railways. We cannot afford it any longer. If we are going to spend millions and millions of rand each year on separate entrances, separate inquiry offices as in this instance . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to discuss politics here? Is it not so that we are only allowed to discuss the increases? This is a capital budget, not a political budget. Could I please have your ruling on this, Sir. If we have to talk politics, I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure, but this is not the occasion for that.

Order! The hon. member may proceed. This is a Second Reading debate.

Are we not in the Committee Stage yet? [Interjections.]

You are on a slow train.

Sir, I am referring to item 159 which has to do with different inquiry offices for Whites and non-Whites. I am pointing out that, as far as we are concerned, this sort of expenditure for perpetuating the apartheid system on the Railways is expenditure down the drain. How much better would it not be to rationalize operations and have one inquiry office for everybody. How much better would it not be to do away with this nonsensical apartheid. If the hon. the Minister wanted to strike a real blow at inflation in South Africa today, he would start now rooting out separate facilities on the Railways.

It has been argued from that side of the House on many occasions that this might occasion a good deal of trouble between the race groups, that it might be creating friction and flash-points. If the hon. the Minister will at least commit himself to an ultimate objective of getting rid of it completely and will now start moving in that direction we will be doing South Africa a great service indeed. This is a matter I intend to pursue further when I have the opportunity to do so following his introduction of the Railways and Harbours Part Appropriation Bill on Monday.

I must admit, in somewhat lighter vein, that I was very intrigued that the hon. the Minister having achieved the wonderful position of Minister of Transport Affairs will get a new railway station in Delmas. He must be very pleased about that. I see in the Brown Book that the capital sum involved under the heading “Delmas: New station building and increased power supply” is R287 400. We are very glad to approve it. As we are obviously going to fight the hon. the Minister at the next election he has obviously seen that he has to do something about his constituency-—at last! Those angry farmers in his constituency are finally going to do something about it.

They did nothing about Bill Sutton’s Howick station.

That is a great regret.

And what about Howick station?

I think what we need in Mooi River and at Howick is a PFP member, which is certainly going to happen at the next election. When that happens no doubt we will get some action from that hon. Minister. Perhaps the matter will then be accepted in principle and we will at least see an amount of R1 000 set aside in the next budget.

Poor old Howick station. That is why Howick falls.

Seriously, we have to look at the principle underlying this Bill. We have to look at the fact that each time we pass expenditure of R1 000 we are committing ourselves to astronomic capital expenditure. When we look down the columns in this Brown Book and see the number of amounts of R1 000 we realize that we are involved with very serious business which could involve contributing to the inflationary spiral, which could involve what may well be a lack of financial discipline in capital expenditure. It is vitally necessary right now that this Government control itself as far as capital expenditure is concerned. I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate to give us full explanations on every item.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Orange Grove in the cordial welcome and congratulations he conveyed to our new Minister. But what that hon. member does not know is that two Schoemans are far more dangerous than one. Consequently I am looking forward to a full-scale meeting next week when the part appropriation is to be discussed.

What surprised me about the hon. member for Orange Grove was that during this debate on the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation he expected the hon. the Minister to hold a kindergarten lesson on each item which appears in the additional appropriation for working expenditure as well as the additional capital budget. I think this is unreasonable. The items in the additional capital budget alone amount to 392. If one now wants to speak of a farce which will be enacted in this House, it will be when that hon. member’s request is complied with and the hon. the Minister has to make a comprehensive statement on each one of these items. It is true that an intelligent Opposition is expected to ask questions, yet I want to put an example to them this afternoon. They have every opportunity to ask questions on each item in respect of which they desire clarification but I consider it unreasonable of them to threaten to withhold their support for the additional appropriation if a comprehensive explanation is not furnished in respect of each of the 392 items which appear in the Brown Book alone. We shall need three months for that. I am exaggerating a little, but it will in any event take up a great deal of time if the hon. the Minister had to furnish a kindergarten explanation in respect of each of the items. I think it is unreasonable. It is simply an effort on the part of those hon. members to compensate for their resentful attitude during this sitting. They are resentful. Why, I do not know. I just want to tell them that they cut a very sorry figure. Furthermore I want to give the hon. member for Orange Grove a sound piece of advice. As far as the election is concerned, he should rather confine himself to Natal and leave Delmas alone, for he may get the hiding of his life. But he is very welcome to try. In any case I have grown accustomed to meeting him in an election contest.

A further allegation was made here about capital discipline and the astronomical amounts which are being earmarked for expansion and for capital expenditure. The spectre of inflation is then invoked. Surely it may then in all fairness be expected that when such comments are made they must be accompanied by the qualification that since we are dealing with the curbing of inflation, surely it is one of our major obligations not to bring growth to a standstill, but to maintain as well as to stimulate growth under specific circumstances, particularly if we adopt a long-term view of the matter, for if we do not do so, we shall have unemployment and all kinds of undeserved and undesirable elements entering the picture. It is, however, the unspoken desire of those people to create a problem situation within the economy, the national structure and the Government of this country. That is the only claim and hope they have to growing as a political party in this country. I want to give the hon. members of the official Opposition some sound advice in this respect. They should rather try to stimulate their growth by winning more seats. In addition they should rather try to persuade their voters to support them on the basis of their standpoints and arguments. I maintain that it is because their standpoints and arguments lack conviction, they are where they are and will remain where they are and are dwindling away as a party. I should like to state an example of what we ought to do in the discussion of an appropriation measure such as this, and that is to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister on matters about which we should like to have greater clarity. I share the standpoint of the hon. member for Orange Grove in connection with the questions on Bapsfontein, but in this regard I just want to remark that the construction work at Bapsfontein, the motivation and need for it and why it is necessary, were explained in this House a long time ago. That is why it was not necessary now to elaborate on it again. I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the developments and what sections are already functioning at Bapsfontein. He must also furnish us with an explanation as to why this additional expansion of electrified lines was necessary there.

Then I have a further question in connection with the working expenditure account, Item 480, on page 5, an additional amount of R12 391 000 for traction purposes, particularly under the heading working expenditure and not capital expenditure. Why is this quite considerable additional amount of R12 391 000 required? A further question in connection with working expenditure is on page 10 where one sees that working costs of the S.A. Airways are higher under almost every heading than the initial estimate. Could the hon. the Minister please indicate what the administration is doing to curtail the escalation of costs? My personal experience is that our aircraft are fully booked. For that reason I should very much like some further information as to why we are in that case asking for additional monetary assistance in almost every area. What must the fact the expenditure and the revenue do not tally be attributed to, and this at a time when we are already at full capacity as far as services are concerned? This is a matter which I should like to have cleared up.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members of the NRP I should also like to welcome the hon. the Minister in his new portfolio. I am sure he is going to enjoy these debates over the next few years. They may be a little different from debates on agriculture, but I am sure that, being the Minister of Transport Affairs, he will now still be in a position to help farmers. So often in the past did we accuse him of being partly responsible for high food prices. And so often he explained that the reason was that transport costs had gone up. Now he is the Minister of Transport Affairs, and we sincerely hope that his main objective is going to be to keep transport costs in South Africa as low as possible. I believe transport is a service to the wealth-producing sectors of the economy in South Africa. It is not, in my opinion, a primary wealth-producing sector. Therefore I am sure the hon. the Minister, being a practising farmer as I am, will appreciate the fact that one should try to keep one’s service costs as low as possible. I should like to think that he will make that an objective of his in his new portfolio.

This has been a very interesting debate so far. The hon. member for Witwatersberg said that the purpose of this additional estimates debate is to put questions to the hon. the Minister on variations which have occurred in the current appropriation. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. The hon. member for Orange Grove, however, has raised a very interesting and very important subject. Allow me to say that that is a subject which I—during the years when I used to have the first bite of the cherry, if I may say that, as a spokesman on transport for the official Opposition—used as my hobby-horse, namely capital expenditure. There is another aspect of this, which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, viz. what is the purpose of this debate? Surely it is to examine the current budget and to establish just how efficient the Railways Administration has operated within the constraints of that budget, and where the Railways Administration has found itself not able to operate within the constraint of that budget, to come to Parliament asking for approval for additional funds. That is what I should imagine this debate is all about, and I am sure the hon. member for Witwatersberg must agree with me.

As the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, however, that is not what is happening now. What the hon. the Minister has seen fit to do is to bring in—in the Brown Book—a lot of new projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the current year’s operations—nothing whatsoever. He brings them in and tries to slip them through this House for approval without giving us in the Opposition benches nor hon. members on the Government side the opportunity of really understanding and appreciating what we are approving.

You are a member of the Select Committee. You should know what is going on.

As the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, there are projects here amounting to R2 397 million, which the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve. These are projects which are to be completed, not this year, but in future years. I believe the hon. the Minister is erring in asking for approval for these projects today. He should have left it until the next major budget, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has said. Then we could have had a good debate on this matter.

As I have said, this debate, to my way of thinking, is one in which we examine just how efficiently the Railways Administration has been operating during the current financial year as it nears its end. That is the first question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. What is the purpose of this debate?

The second point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, arising out of the debate so far, is the following. What is the role of Parliament in respect of these debates in the House? I should like to put the question to the hon. member for Witwatersberg, because he has had many, many years of experience, and he is after all chairman of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. What is the role of Parliament in regard to these Railway debates? Is it simply a rubber stamp? After all, if we get Brown Book after Brown Book brought before us for approval, and we simply approve the items without knowing the details of each project, all we are doing is simply stamping that book “Approved.”

You have the right to ask for details.

I am glad the hon. member for Witwatersberg says that we have the right to obtain the details. However, I should like to ask that hon. member whether, in all his years of experience—and I want him to be completely honest with himself in this regard—when we look at all the items in the Brown Book—as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, some R2 300 million worth of future capital expenditure which the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve—the hon. member for Witwatersberg has gone into and examined the details of all that expenditure? Has he done this as chairman of the Select Committee on Railways?

That is the reason why I put a few questions.

The hon. member says he put a few questions. May I ask the hon. member if he knows whether cost-benefit studies have been made, and whether the proposed projects totalling some R2 300 million are in the best interests of transportation in South Africa? If I am to be honest with myself I must admit that I certainly have not had the time over the past few days—because of the way we operate in this House—to examine them thoroughly. After all, these documents were only tabled yesterday afternoon. I believe that this is the flaw in the whole parliamentary system when it comes to the question of the budget of the S.A. Railways. I want to repeat my question: What is the role of Parliament in this? Is Parliament the board of directors? We must be because we are approving this capital expenditure.

Don’t you trust your secretaries?

The hon. member for Langlaagte . . .

Don’t you know your business?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte whether he is happy simply to put a rubber stamp on everything that passes through this House.

I shall reply to the hon. member in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the role of Parliament in respect of these projects. I repeat: Are we a rubber stamp? I ask this again because I am being asked as a member representing my constituency here to approve this budget. Is it possible that we are just a watchdog through the Auditor-General’s report and through our Select Committee which examines the Auditor-General’s report? Are we just a watchdog to ensure that no malpractices occur? After having listened to the debate so far I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to the question of expansion and capital expenditure in the Railways, Parliament is just a rubber stamp. The only real role that we parliamentarians play is to sit on the Select Committee and examine the Auditor-General’s report. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister as a new Minister in this portfolio, that possibly the time has come for the role of the Select Committee to be extended. I know that the Administration may object to this suggestion because they may feel that we are sticking our noses into something that does not concern us. However, in the light of what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, which I agree with, and in the light of the many debates in which I have participated in the past on capital expenditure for the Railways, I wonder whether the Select Committee should not have its functions extended to the point where it examines these capital projects before they are brought to this House for approval. We would then know more about them. That is the point I want to put to the hon. the Minister in the interests of good government and in the interests of doing our job as members of Parliament correctly and properly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to devote too much time to the Brown Book because the hon. member for Orange Grove has already done so. However, just to give an example of the dilemma with which we are faced— and I want to put this to the hon. member for Witwatersberg as chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and a person who should know what is going on—I wish to draw attention to item 211 on page 22. This item refers to Beaconsfield. We are being asked here to approve a sum of R463 400 for a four-bay garage for the road transport services. I should like to know what sort of four-bay garage this is that it should cost in excess of R463 000. As the hon. member for Orange Grove has quite correctly said, the hon. the Minister is asking us here to approve an initial amount of R1 000 towards the cost of the construction of this four-bay garage and, by so doing, we are committing ourselves and the Railways and the people of South Africa to a four-bay garage which will eventually cost R463 400. I want to repeat, therefore, that when it comes to capital expenditure Parliament is a rubber stamp because the system does not allow us to have any real say in this as these matters are simply brought before us and we debate them in ignorance of any real worthwhile details. Hon. members on the other side express all their “dankies” to the Minister and tell us what a great organization the Railways is—and I will admit, that I am prepared to agree with them in many respects—but when it comes to control of the budget I regret to say that those hon. members opposite are just a bunch of “ja-broers”. They simply say: “Bring out the stamp and we will stamp it.”

I should like to come to the operating account. As the hon. the Minister has said, the variation is only 1,7% on a total budget of R4,4 billion. I think this is indicative of pretty good operating especially when one considers the 8% growth in our domestic product this year and when one considers inflation sky-rocketing especially during the latter part of this year, giving an average for the year of 15,8%. To have held the budget to a 1,7% variation was very good indeed.

Last year when the hon. the then Minister delivered his introductory speech on the main budget he estimated that the general traffic prospects would increase by some 5%. This is all to be found in Hansard, 1980, col. 2013. He then went on to commuter traffic and said that that could increase by between 6% and 7%; harbour traffic, by 10%; and air traffic, by between 7,5% and 10%. He went on to say that based on these factors, the revenue for 1980-’81 is estimated at R4 028 million which was an increase of 10,4% over that of the 1979-’80 year. On the very next column he went on to say that expenditure, on the other hand, including appropriations, was estimated at R4 385,45 million which would be an increase of about 15,9% on that of the previous year.

If one looks at these two figures, one finds that the hon. the Minister at the time said that there would be a shortfall of something like R357 million. Earlier this session I asked the hon. the Minister a number of questions about the revenue and expenditure for the first nine months of this year. I asked for the actual and the budgeted figures. The revenue for that period of nine months amounted to R3 360 million which was up something like 2% on the budgeted amount and in money terms it was R67,7 million. The expenditure for that period of nine months was R3 297 million which was up R14,8 million or just about 0,5% which was indicative of how tight the Administration was holding its budget. I think on this they ought to be complimented.

I should like to say, however, that because of this the Railways should be heading towards a lower shortfall than the hon. the Minister’s predecessor had budgeted for. I think this would be good for the Railways, and I sincerely hope that because of this, he would be able to prevent having a major increase in tariffs introduced in his coming budget.

Despite this improvement, what concerns me is that while the inflation rate is running at 15,8% and the domestic product is growing at a net rate of 8%, the Railways original revenue estimates for 1980-’81 was budgeted to increase by only 10,4%. If we add to this the improvement which we now find occurring in the Railway accounts during the current year—I estimate it as a further 2% improvement—it means that the Railways’ revenue for this year has risen by only 12,5% over that of the previous year. Bear in mind that, as I said, the inflation rate has been 15,8% and the growth rate in the economy has been 8%.

I therefore should like to ask the hon. the Minister in respect of this year’s operating accounts whether he is satisfied that the Railways Administration is getting its fair share of the present economic growth in South Africa. After all, the Railways Administration with its road transport and its running of the harbours and the airways is the major transporter in South Africa today. One would like to think that they could keep pace with the general growth in the economy. I believe it has to compete and I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Is the Railways Administration, as far as revenue is concerned, losing out to other operators; and, if so, why? Can it compete; and if not, why not?

In conclusion I should just like to say that we have had a debate this afternoon about the hon. the Minister bringing accounts to us for approval, and we are supposed to approve them. However, when I am asked to sign on the dotted line, I like to know what I am signing. Turning to the White Book, there is an additional working expenditure totalling R74 550 000 for which the hon. the Minister is asking Parliament’s approval. In general we are happy to support this. I have looked at the reasons why the hon. the Minister is asking for the 74½ million and I am happy with what I have read. There is, however, one query I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. On page 5 of the White Book we come to the schedule of the various heads and at the bottom of each schedule there is a footnote that gives hon. members the reasons why, for example, in the case of motive power operating expenses, the hon. the Minister is asking for an additional R13,240 million. One of the reasons is larger payments for electricity and an increase in labour costs. That we understand. This happens in the case of every head.

However, the total amount that the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve is not merely R74 550 000. He is actually asking us to approve R101 260 000 of excess expenditure. The difference between these two figures is R26 710 000 as is clearly shown on page 4. In accordance with the Select Committee’s resolution etc., the hon. the Minister defrays this excess expenditure against savings. In this particular year the Administration under various heads has been able to bring about certain savings amounting to R26 710 000 and the hon. the Minister correctly says: “We can defray the excess expenditure up to that amount,” and that is what he does. But when one looks at page 1, one finds that there are two sets of figures that the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve. There are bold print figures that are explained under the different headings later in the estimates, but in the third column there are figures under the heading “Excesses on Original Estimates to be defrayed from Savings”. For example, under “Subsidiary Services—Grain Elevators”, on page 1 the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve an extra R620 000 of excess expenditure, not additional sums to the budget. This R620 000 of excess expenditure is going to be paid for out of the savings he has made. As a member of Parliament I would like to know why it has cost an extra R620 000 to run grain elevators in South Africa? This is a question I ask. After all, he gives us the reasons for all the other figures that appear in bold print, but not for that expenditure to which I have referred. Hon. members may say that the Select Committee has approved the method of defraying certain excess expenditure against savings. I agree, but I should like to know why certain items are now costing more.

Going through the estimates one finds that under some heads the increases are of the order of 50% and yet no reason has been given as to why this excess expenditure has occurred. Here again I just want to ask the hon. the Minister what the role of Parliament is in this regard. We get figures thrown at us, and in due course we approve the relevant amounts, but in most instances I am sure that even the chairman of the Select Committee does not really know the details as to why there was an increase. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to some of these questions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who have welcomed me to this new job. Throughout the years, in every budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance, in that bulky White Book of his, there have been amounts of R1 000. So this is nothing new. It does not involve any new principle.

That was the main budget.

Provision has always been made for something unforeseen which may happen or for the planning of a new project. Suppose we said, for example, that we wanted to build a new railway line from Durban to Amanzimtoti or to Durban North. Hon. members must then give us the right to investigate such a project, to place R1 000 on the budget and to submit the planning. I can assure hon. members that each nominal amount of R1 000 in this budget is not intended for this year’s capital expenditure. It will be approved by hon. members in the next budget. In this bulky book in my hand, I have the replies to some of the questions put to me by hon. members. I cannot even begin to indicate how many of these aspects are being investigated at the moment. The hon. member asked a question about the amount of R50 million for a new hostel.

†Is the hon. member opposed to our planning a new hostel to the tune of R50 million for Black boys?

Give us the motivation.

I can motivate each of these items, but how can we come along with the proposal for building a new hostel without first having given any architect or quantity surveyor instructions about giving us the necessary estimates that we can put before Parliament?

Tell us why you need this in addition to the amount you have.

It is customary for provision to be made in the budget for the fact that certain projects have to be undertaken.

How old are the boys?

I know that hon. member would be concerned about the boys. We could build this hostel in Houghton. We must, however, plan the project. We must, for example, decide where we are going to build the hostel.

The point I am making is that you must call them “men” and not “boys” unless they are not of age yet.

Oh, I did not follow that.

No, I thought you had not.

Well, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a matter of disrespect.

It is insulting.

Right, then I withdraw the word “boys”. It was not, however, meant to be disrespectful.

Order!

I should like the hon. member for Houghton to do me a favour one day. I should like her to stand up in this House and address me in my own mother tongue, Afrikaans. I address her in English, and in doing so now I happen, by a slip of the tongue, to say “boys”, and she criticizes me.

Ah, no, that is not a slip of the tongue.

I have been here for 15 years, and to this day the hon. member for Houghton has not had the courage to speak in Afrikaans in this House, not one single word! Yet if I have a slip of the tongue, she criticizes me.

That was not a slip of the tongue.

I am not one for fighting. I like to be reasonable, but I made a mistake in saying “boys” and the hon. member criticizes me.

You always call them “boys”.

The hon. member says I regard the Blacks with disrespect.

You always call them “boys”.

Would she, however, stand up and speak to me in Afrikaans? Then we would see some slips of the tongue.

That is a red herring.

I did not want to get angry, Mr. Speaker, but I feel indignant. Out of respect for that hon. member, I address her in English.

It is not a question of respect.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, a joke is a joke, but really!

†The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me a number of questions and I referred to the impossibility of replying in respect of all items on the estimates. The hon. member asked me about cost increases, about additional money that we need. Let me say that fuel prices on overseas flights over the last four years increased by over 200%. We might have full aeroplanes but fuel prices on overseas flights increased by more than 200%. The hon. member, among other things, also asked me about the commission on seats. The people concerned work on a commission of 7%, 8% or 9%, and since some of the seats were sold at a higher price, more commission had to be paid. Next to the Paul Kruger building, as the hon. member said, we are busy with a new building, and we have ample vacant space in Johannesburg.

Is this the time to embark on a project costing R57 million?

Does the hon. member know that we are leasing over 25 different buildings in Johannesburg, and also various buildings in Pretoria? We want to have greater concentration so that they can be more effectively employed. That is why we envisage building our own buildings instead of leasing accommodation. I can give the hon. member all those details. Next week we shall be discussing the main budget and then I can go into those matters.

*The hon. member for Witwatersberg criticized me a short while ago because I was not listening. Therefore I should be glad if he would listen to me for once. I shall thank the hon. member for his questions during the Committee Stage. The hon. member is the chairman of the Railway Committee, and I think the committee and I will cooperate in a positive spirit, as I was never able to co-operate with the hon. member for Orange Grove about the price of meat and so on. However, we shall see eye to eye as far as this Vote is concerned.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked another question and referred to Bapsfontein. Sir, the hon. member once admitted to me how well he was treated by the Railway Administration when they took him to Bapsfontein and what an admirable project Bapsfontein was. Many other capital expenditures arise from the Bapsfontein project. The hon. member saw the Bapsfontein project for himself. It is a unique enterprise; nowhere else in the world is there a similar undertaking where trains are shunted under electronic control. If an additional line now has to be built from Bapsfontein to Witbank, is it wrong to include R1 000 in the budget in the meanwhile and to instruct our people to start planning the building of that line?

†That is the reason why R1 000 is being asked for in the budget.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me to assist farmers in respect of the cost of transport. I have said all along I cannot see why a farmer must get a low price for his cattle or his maize if the price of fertilizer, the cost of electricity and the cost of labour as well as the cost of transport have been increased. Why did the cost of transport increase? Why do tariffs have to be increased? They have to increase because the cost of electricity, steel, labour and fuel—things which are beyond my control— have increased. I also want to pay bigger salaries to my people.

You had a surplus last year.

I might go to the farmers and say: “I will help the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and his Deputy Minister to increase your price, but help me to make this undertaking profitable.” The Railways is not a charitable institution. It must be a viable business undertaking; we must make ends meet, and that is the reason why hon. members must not be upset if I should come with increases in tariffs in respect of farm products.

I shall be very upset.

How much?

I am simply warning hon. members.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know whether we are not a board of directors. Of course we are a board of directors, Sir. But I want to ask the hon. member whether he would serve with me on a board of directors while not trusting the officials. Never. We have very efficient officials in the Department. If I tell them to put R1 000 on the budget and in the meantime plan and scheme and develop . . .

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I know the hon. the Minister is a director or the chairman of many companies. Does he allow all his managers and officials to plan the development and growth of those companies without his approval?

The directors meet, say, once a month, and one of them says: “Gentlemen, I have employed someone to investigate a certain matter. I shall come back to you within three months, before I spend more than R1 000.” That is the way things are done.

Finally, the hon. member for Orange Grove says we cannot run this business without apartheid. Sir, the hon. member must tell me: If there are 100 Whites and 10 000 Blacks on a station in Durban North and the 100 Whites feel they have no chance of getting near a train, would they not want protection? If for instance those 100 Whites are ladies and they ask for a separate gate by which to enter the station . . .

What about the Black people who also want protection?

We give protection to all of them. I do not want racialism. I am not a racist. The hon. member for Houghton once called me a racist, but I wish that hon. member would visit me one day and see how I mix with the Black labourers on my farm.

You made a racist speech!

I am not a racist. I want peace. While I am the Minister of Transport, I want peace and protection for the minority groups in this country, and that is the reason why we cannot abolish apartheid completely. I am not talking about apartheid; it is separate development. Leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, as we really got no answers to any of the questions posed during the Second Reading debate, perhaps I can now pin the hon. the Minister down and ask him to explain some of the astronomical amounts we are expected to approve of. Firstly, I should like to refer to page 8 of the Brown Book which concerns “New works on open lines”. I refer specifically to the new programme scheduled for the Cape Western System, the Cape Northern System, the Cape Midland System, the Natal System, the Western Transvaal System, the Eastern Transvaal System and the South West Africa System. According to the Brown Book what is involved here is “the insertion of additional sleepers and/or bal-last, and the partial or complete re-railing, re-sleepering and/or reballasting of track”. Why has it become necessary to plan a programme costing R86,5 million in this respect?

What item is that?

I am referring to page 8, item Nos. 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 69 and 71. They are all new programmes for the relaying and strengthening of track. Is this because we are using a different sort of rolling stock, is it just normal renewal or what is it all about?

Then, on page 6, still under “New works on open lines”, we find item No. 34, “Berea Road-Cato Creek: Suburban passenger service.” Could the hon. the Minister explain that item as well?

Mr. Chairman, as regards item No. 34, the suburban passenger service between Berea Road and Cato Creek is to serve commuters destined for the Durban Central Business District from and to the new Durban station. As the hon. member will realize, a new station was built there.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has never been there before.

Probably not. Has he been to Durban station? [Interjections.]

As regards items Nos. 57, 59, etc., they concern the renewal and improvement of existing track. That covers them all.

At a cost of R86,5 million?

As the hon. member will realize, this is over a long period. That amount of money is not spent in one year. Certain tracks must be renewed.

Sir, the hon. member can ask me questions about these items, but I think no person in South Africa would have an answer if one asked him what is going on in the garden of the station foreman at Koekenaap. One cannot know that. It is a big business, and if I am not able to reply to all questions now, I shall furnish the hon. member with a reply in writing or I shall reply to him during the budget debate. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance gets a bigger salary than I do, because after he has heard all the speeches, he goes home and prepares himself to answer later on. I am expected to get up and answer every question off the cuff. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I see that we are going to have a great deal of difficulty in getting any answers at all from the hon. the Minister. I realize that he is an inexperienced Minister in this portfolio, so I am going to use the second of my three chances to speak on these schedules now. Firstly, I should like to refer to item 40, which relates to the alteration of a yard to serve a private siding. It would be interesting to know whose private siding this is. Then, Sir, I refer to a major item, namely item No. 133. This relates to the installation of computer equipment, the provision of air-conditioning and alterations to a building in Durban. The eventual sum envisaged is a figure of R25 million. I should like to know something about those computer operations.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister referred to item No. 156, which relates to a new computer centre, computer equipment and an office building in Johannesburg. The estimated total cost for this item is R57 125 800. When one bears this in mind, one realizes that this must be one tremendous building. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us about this building, how many storeys it will have, what it is going to house, and so on. I know that a number of offices are being hired by the Railways Administration in Johannesburg at the present time. I also know that they own buildings which they do not totally inhabit themselves. There is at least one building which has been bought by the Railways Administration and which is not fully utilized by the Administration itself.

With reference to item 200, the hon. the Minister took exception to my asking about the hostel for non-Whites at New Canada at a cost of R55 million. I can only presume that hostel accommodation to date has been totally inadequate—perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us—or that there will be a large influx of new staff which will be housed at New Canada. This may well be the case, but we should very much like to have the motivation for this.

Then, Sir, going back to the previous item I raised, namely item 156, I would say that the hon. the Minister should really reconsider spending R57 million on a building and the computer equipment to be housed in it. I know computer equipment is expensive, but it is vitally necessary that at this stage, in the midst of a very serious inflation spiral, we inhibit capital spending in the public sector. It is the job of the Railways Administration to ask Parliament for their requirements. They will go for the 100%, Rolls Royce item on every occasion if they possibly can, because they are railwaymen and they want what is best for the Railways. That is logical. However, when there is limited capital available for expenditure and it is necessary for the Government to exercise control over that spending, I believe that it is up to this House to finally make a decision as to whether that money should be spent, or whether other arrangements should not be made in the meantime so that we do not at this stage spend that capital.

In the time still available to me I wish to deal with the whole question of aeroplanes. In answer to a question of mine a few days ago—I do not have the exact answer in front of me—the hon. the Minister gave me the figures on the occupancy of seats on the two main internal routes in South Africa, i.e. the Durban-Johannesburg run and the Cape Town-Johannesburg run. I think I am right in saying that the percentage occupancy was in the region of just over 60% in each case. I was very depressed to hear this figure because that means that in the region of 30% to 40% of the seats are not filled and yet the Government is ordering new aeroplanes although 40% of the seats in our aeroplanes on our major routes are unoccupied. I assume that item No. 348 on page 42—Two Boeing 747 Aircraft—is going to be for external flights, and I do not have the figures for seat occupancy on external flights. As far as item No. 347 is concerned, it is just “Purchase of aircraft”, and I do not know what those aircraft are. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain.

Mr. Chairman, many questions have been asked. I do want to reply to them. But I first of all want to make a suggestion. The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me some very intelligent and involved questions. I have to reply to them, but we only have two hours to discuss millions and millions of rands. It is not fair, and I think we must alter the whole system. We cannot keep on like this; it is a serious matter. I think I ought to talk to the Select Committee and to the people giving me advice to see whether we should in fact have this kind of discussion. I want to show hon. members why I say this. Firstly, in reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, he must not look at the 60% occupancy rate. In the case of the direct flight from Bloemfontein to Durban or from Bloemfontein to D.F. Malan Airport, Cape Town, there is a 90% occupancy, but if one takes the average, according to the question which the hon. member asked me, on for example, the flight from Jan Smuts Airport, Johannesburg, to Kimberley, from Kimberley to Bloemfontein and from Bloemfontein to George, where people are picked up and offloaded, the occupancy rate will fluctuate and can be found to be lower.

That does not apply between Durban and Johannesburg.

The first question that the hon. member asked me was about the private siding at Delmas Station.

*As far back as ten years ago I asked here for a new station at Delmas. The present station is very dilapidated. This matter had been included in this book before I knew that I was to become Minister of Transport Affairs. Delmas Milling Company—it is a subsidiary of Jacob Frankel, first-class people and my neighbours—asked for expansion, and that private siding is the result of appeals made by that company which produces Meadow concentrated feeds, etc. That is why this siding is being built. I did not even look up these facts; I know them by heart.

Now I should like to come to the replies to the questions put to me by the hon. member. He has the right to ask me why we envisage a new building. I have already shown hon. members that thick book. I have simply torn these few pages from it so as to enable me to reply to the hon. member, but if I were to read these replies in full, we would need a week for this debate. That is why I have asked whether I could not give this stuff to the hon. member in writing. It is not only a new building for the staff; computers also have to be installed.

†In reply to the next question I wish to say the following: Signal depot, garages, mess and ablution facilities for Black people.

In regard to the R25 million for the building about which the hon. member asked me a question, the reply is as follows—

I have now read only one page of the explanation, giving the reasons for this one estimate. Let us look now at the explanation given in respect of the building. The hon. member put a question to me in respect of the R57 million. I quote again—

It has already been approved by Parliament. I continue—

Must I carry on, Mr. Chairman? There are eight pages. I have only read the first page now. Must I carry on?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question too.

You see, Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. The hon. member for Orange Grove must not say that because I am a newcomer to this portfolio I do not know the answers.

You cannot give them all in this debate. That is not possible within the space of only two hours.

That is why I say we have to carry on with the job. We have to have approval for the investigation of certain schemes we have in mind. I shall approach the hon. member for Orange Grove with proposals on how we can handle this in future.

*It is not necessary to continue working forever in the same way as people in the old days did.

Mr. Chairman, the question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister, has a bearing on item No. 388, on page 48 of the Brown Book. I notice here that the additional amount to be voted for the Home ownership Scheme amounts to R20 million. How is this money spent and what methods of financing are made available to people—staff in particular—in order to procure their own homes? Then I should also like to know what is being done with regard to the accommodation of pensioners. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give me an answer to this.

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister has said about the method that is used in an additional appropriation such as this. Only a few days ago we debated here a measure dealing with a railway line on the Natal south coast. Then we all said the method was wrong. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to item 34, on page 6 of the Brown Book. This has to do with a suburban passenger service between Berea Road and Cato Creek. The amount estimated as the total cost for this scheme is given as R805 100, together with the R1 000 allocated for the current financial year. This is a matter which is receiving a tremendous amount of attention and publicity in Durban. People will naturally be concerned at what the Administration is doing. I think it is of paramount importance that the hon. the Minister tells us here today what his intention is in respect of this. Is this amount of money for a new line or will it be used on the existing line?

Item number?

Item No. 34, page 6. This is of tremendous importance and therefore we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he intends any intermediary stations between the stations at Berea Road and Cato Creek. Cato Creek is the old goods yard in Durban which almost forms part of the dockyard area. I think all hon. members are acquainted with Berea Road station. I should like to have an answer particularly in respect of the planning regarding the possibility of intermediary stations between Berea Road and Cato Creek.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to item No. 171, page 18 of the Brown Book.

This project in Capital Park in my constituency has already received a great deal of attention in the Press in the past and I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the extentions that are in progress there. These are large projects that are being undertaken in my constituency and are annoying my voters considerably because they are being undertaken within a residential area. We settled the matter with the former the hon. the Minister. The voters are satisfied with the fact that the container sheds and the goods sheds are being constructed there. We should like to learn from the hon. the Minister what progress is being made, what the programme will entail in future and how much progress has also been made with regard to the dividing wall between the two sheds, the goods-shed and the container-shed, and the residential area. This is something that we settled with the department. We feel it is important that we should be kept up to date with regard to progress in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Umhlanga, the reason why we have the item to which he has referred, is that we want to serve commuters destined for the Durban Central Business District from and to the new Durban station. We must have such an item if we want to render those services.

Yes, but where will the stations be?

I shall give the details later on.

*The hon. member for Gezina has just put questions regarding the extensions in Capital Park. I can tell him that moving the goods-shed to Capital Park is a matter that was already decided upon years ago because the existing facilities at Pretoria West became inadequate and there was no room for expansion. In order to serve the public effectively, it is essential for the shed to be in fairly central position. The ground at Capital Park already belonged to the Railways and only a few houses had to be expropriated on the south side of Francina Street. The city council was consulted throughout and joint arrangements were made to develop the road systems to carry additional traffic. As far as noise and smoke pollution is concerned, there is a very limited amount of shunting at a goods-shed and usually this takes place during the day only. Therefore, in total the local residents can look forward to a decrease and not an increase in activities. A high wall with an attractive appearance will conceal any unsightliness and contribute towards cutting out noise.

The provision of a container depot to the south of Roseville is necessary for the same basic reasons as in case of the goods-shed, viz. the necessity of being fairly central and the lack of space elsewhere. Here too, the road connections are being planned in consultation with the city council and the same type of dividing wall is being envisaged. The extent of the depot is being kept as small as possible by providing a large satellite depot at Rosslyn.

The anticipated date of completion of the first section of the goods facilities is 1982, whilst the final stage should be completed in 1985.

I visited the area together with the systems manager and I can point out that the wall that is going to be erected there, is not only an attractive one but it is also a rather expensive one. If the hon. member should have further problems in this regard, he knows that he can discuss them with me at any time.

The hon. member for Langlaagte put a question in regard to housing loans for the Railway staff from the pension fund and from building societies. The Railways Administration provides 100% loans to Railway staff in order to buy or build their own homes. 10% loans are granted to enable staff to obtain a building society loan, and home loans for Whites are available from the pension fund. For the 1980-’81 financial year the following sums were spent on home-ownership schemes for Railway staff: According to the Brown Book the original estimate was an amount of R65 650 100, the additional amount to be voted, i.e. R20 million and capital redemption to R14 million,—total of R99 650 000. During the first nine months of the 1980 financial year, houses were purchased for 2 811 members of staff, including Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, at a cost of more than R78 million. A further 650 houses are expected to be purchased up till 31 March 1981 at a cost of R20,8 million. The financing of the 10% scheme also comes from the 100% scheme funds.

As far as the pension fund scheme is concerned, the loan fund totals R86 million, with an additional sum of R13 million and capital redemption of R20 million, which brings the total available amount to R119 million.

During the first nine months of the financial year, 2 459 houses were purchased at a cost of R85 million, whilst the anticipated purchase of houses for the period 1 June 1980 to 31 March 1981, will be 820 houses at a cost of R33,6 million.

I hope I have replied to the questions of the hon. member for Langlaagte because I know that he is very interested in the housing and benefits of the Railway employees of Langlaagte.

Mr. Chairman, I want to sympathize with the hon. the Minister when he says that it is unfair of us to ask him intelligent questions and expect him to answer them immediately. But the hon. the Minister must also concede that it is equally unfair of him to ask us to vote sums of money while we do not know the full story. Clearly, there is something wrong with the system. It is almost like the hon. the Minister asking us to get on one of his trains although we do not know what its destination is. This is not a realistic situation.

Having said that, I want to raise a few items with the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to refer to item No. 35, which relates to additional staging tracks for suburban train sets at Clairwood, Reunion and Isipingo, and to item 39, which deals with the same situation at Umlazi. For the first time we are making an amount of R1 000 available, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to what the projected time factor is for completing these works, which are obviously important for the transport of urban industrial employees and others to and from Durban.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has already referred to item No. 133 on page 15. The estimated total cost involved here is R25 million, and we are now for the first time voting R1 000 for it. It deals with a variety of items in terms of the description here, such as computer equipment, air-conditioning and alterations to a building. Could the hon. the Minister give us some sort of breakdown as to how this amount of R25 million is eventually going to be divided between providing computer equipment, air-conditioning and alterations to a building in Durban?

Further, I should like to refer to item No. 137—Ticket office for non-Whites—in the town of Isipingo. Eventually an amount of R89 000 is going to be asked for this purpose. I wish the Railways would stop using the term “non-White” because it is not appreciated by the people concerned, but if one must use the term, let me say that the hon. the Minister will know that the Isipingo community is what the Government would term a non-White community. What is the position at the present time? There must be a ticket office for the people of that community who use the railway services and the Isipingo station. Is this a new ticket office? Has there never been a ticket office there? Perhaps the hon. the Minister could enlighten us on that score.

Finally I should like to switch to another item completely. I want to refer to item No. 368 under Airways. This item relates to buildings outside the Republic, more specifically a house for the S.A. Airways Manager in New York. What we are now being asked to do is to vote an amount of R300 000. I know that property prices in America are exceedingly high. It seems to me an amount of R300 000 would be equivalent to almost $400 000. Even by American standards this would seem to be high for a house for an Airways official. I saw recently that the Reagan administration was providing homes for members of the Reagan Cabinet in Washington at a figure of $400 000 each. Perhaps there is a very considerable difference in prices between properties in Washington and New York, but this does seem a very large amount to vote for a house for the S.A. Airways Manager in New York. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us something about the necessity for that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave’s last question is a good indication of the rent increases in America as compared with those in South Africa. It is advisable that a house be purchased, since rental amounts to R1 444 per month and is increasing by between 17% and 30% per annum. Those are the kinds of increases taking place in America, the land of plenty. Then hon. members still complain about our inflation rate. The question is whether it is preferable to buy a house now for R300 000, or continue to pay a rental of R1 444 per month, increasing by between 17% and 30% per annum.

Do you think you can still get a R300 000 house?

It is a very good investment indeed.

The other question related to item 35 on page 6. This deals with: “Clairwood, Reunion, Isipingo: Additional staging tracks for suburban train sets.” The relevant amount is being asked for to provide sufficient staging at strategic points in the suburbs in order to cope with early morning passengers. Is the hon. member in a great hurry to have this done?

Well, yes.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, however, complains about our placing R1 000 in the estimates for this, but the hon. member for Musgrave is keen to have this service. I am not complaining.

*However, he was getting to grips with me here all the time because I want to help the hon. member for Musgrave, because the hon. member for Musgrave says he is in a great hurry.

†The next question relates to item 133 on page 15. This is for the provision of an alternative computer site and facilities, should the existing installations be rendered inoperative. This brings me to item 137 involving the Isipingo ticket office, about which the hon. member also asked a question. This is necessary to cope with the increased passenger traffic.

Is it a new office?

Yes. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will reply to all his questions in writing. I am just giving very brief replies because, as I stated earlier, it is impossible to give detailed answers in the short time available.

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information from the hon. the Minister regarding Item No. 170 on page 18. An estimated total cost of R202 600 is indicated for a museum at Salvokop in Pretoria. I should like to ask him what is being envisaged with the museum. I also want to know which objects will be exhibited at the new museum. I think it is important to know at this moment that the S.A. Railway Museum in the old Johannesburg station already has in its possession historic objects that date back to before 1910, even before the S.A. Railways existed. That museum has various collections. One would like to know whether the new museum is going to accommodate scale models and whether it is not perhaps simply going to be a duplication of the museum in Johannesburg. There are also the two Pierneef panels. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the panels are going to remain in Johannesburg. There are already more than 3 000 items in the Johannesburg Railway Museum and the museum is visited by 55 000 people annually. Therefore one would like to know what else is being envisaged there.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister a question regarding the old locomotives in stations. Is it perhaps being envisaged to accommodate those old locomotives, that are rusting away, at Salvokop? Then of course there is also the roof of the old Johannesburg station at Essenlen Park. These items are widespread, and we should like to know what is going to happen to them.

I should also like to ask whether there is no way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove can make a thorough study of the additional appropriation. I know how all of us together with the hon. the Minister have been fighting for the two or three years that I have been in the House for a new station at Delmas. I myself said as early as two years ago that the surface was very uneven there. I do not know why the hon. member for Orange Grove does not read those speeches, because how can he accuse the hon. the Minister of granting preference to Delmas? Does he not know how an additional appropriation works? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not establish a museum for antiques of this House, after 29 April, for those who will no longer be here.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 15, Item No. 128, viz. “Natal System: Improve existing and provide additional facilities for passengers at various stations.” The estimated total cost for this addition and improvement will be R195 500. I should like to have some details on this but I do not expect the hon. the Minister to give them to me now. I shall be quite happy to receive the details in writing.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to give the hon. the Minister my opinion on this particular item, and that is that I do not believe that R195 500 is sufficient to correct a problem which exists on the south coast line which feeds commuter traffic into Durban. The System Manager in Durban is well aware of many of the problems being experienced there. I can sympathize with the hon. the Minister’s problem when, in a reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, he said that there had to be a special ticket office for Blacks, as I call them. The System Manager tells me that approximately 97% of the traffic on these lines is Black, because large Black townships are served by these lines. This is the problem I wish to put to the hon. the Minister and I want to ask him whether he is going to provide a larger amount than this. I believe that if something is not done, the White people using the line at present will find alternative methods of transport into Durban because of the overcrowding at certain stations. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the System Manager in Durban, who is well aware of this problem. I should like to have this matter investigated as I do not believe that this amount will be sufficient.

Sir, I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 16 where there are two items that I should like to discuss. The first is Item No. 150: “Purchase of Lena van Velden Primary School,” for which an amount of R448 500 is to be voted. I should like to know the reason why this is being done. The second item I wish to mention is Item No. 153: “Purchase and installation of television equipment, Paul Kruger Building,” for which an amount of R445 000 is to be voted.

That must be because Pik is getting so much television coverage.

Sir, I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 22, Item No. 211, which is a question I raised during the Second Reading debate. I should like to know what sort of four-bay garage is built for R463 400. I then come to the Item which the hon. member for Musgrave raised, Item No. 368 on page 44, which concerns an amount of R300 000 for a house. I am not quite sure whether I heard the hon. the Minister correctly when he said the department was paying a rental of R1 400 a month for a house in New York. At an annual rate that amounts to approximately R17 000, and at 10% I would capitalize that house out at R170 000.

It is increasing at between 17% and 30% annually. We had better buy now!

But you have discounted it for 10 years at that rate.

Sir, R300 000 at an interest rate of 12%, and might I say that in the United States interest rates are closer to 20%, that is an awful lot of money. I wonder whether the purchase of the house is such a good deal. If the hon. the Minister assures me that it is I will take his word for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to Item No. 153 in the Brown Book and ask the hon. the Minister for what purpose the television equipment is being purchased and whether the hon. the Minister can perhaps tell us what the general policy and aim with regard to television in the railways is. Will it also be extended to include other centres?

Mr. Chairman, on page 39 of the Brown Book under the subheading “Lighthouses” there are six items, from Item No. 329 to Item No. 334, which deal with the replacement of radio beacons or aerial towers of radio beacons at various spots around the coast. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether this is a straightforward replacement of equipment that is presently perhaps just run down or whether the new radio beacons are anticipated to improve the navigational system at those points?

Mr. Chairman, to reply to the hon. member for Berea first, the object is to improve the performance of the beacons and to ensure their reliability as navigational aids. The reply I therefore give the hon. member for Berea is that the aim is to improve the existing facilities there.

†The hon. member for Newton Park asked me a question in connection with the Railways’ television equipment. The Railways has for a considerable time now been fitting out a television studio and acquiring television equipment. These latest items are principally for modern television cameras and related equipment. The necessary key personell have already been recruited, for the most part from outside the Railways, and a considerable number of video programmes have already been made. In the main, three different roles are foreseen for television at the Railways.

Firstly there is a great need for material with which the Railways can be presented in these programmes to various kinds of audiences from new employees to overseas visitors, including local influential groups of all races.

Secondly, there is a great need for advertising material which can be used for marketing purposes. This publicity covers everything from television and radio spots to sophisticated films of the “See what we can do” type.

The third and probably the most important use is that of staff training. Good instructers are scarce. In addition the Railways covers the whole country geographically. To get instructer and pupils together is a difficult and expensive process, and refresher courses are becoming difficult and for the most part impossible. If a good full-length lecture is recorded once on video tape it can easily be duplicated and used throughout the service at a low cost. The films can be shown as often as necessary and are easily brought up to date to keep abreast of changing techniques. That is my reply to the hon. member’s question.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said with reference to Item No. 128 on page 15 that the amount is insufficient and that 97% of the passengers concerned are Black. The object of that item is to revise and add facilities at various stations south of Durban to coincide with the outlay of the new station. The hon. member also asked a question about Item No. 150 on page 16: ‘Purchase of Lena van Velden Primary School.” A centre is required for training non-White staff in various careers. At present staff are trained at Braamfontein and Kaserne in dilapidated buildings. I have seen those buildings, and I am convinced that we have to have better facilities.

The hon. member also referred to Item No. 211 on page 22. Existing servicing and repairing facilities are inadequate due to the increase in non-revenue vehicles and road transport service vehicles.

The hon. member also referred to the house in New York. One has to compare the rent we have to pay with the capital outlay in order to judge whether this is a good business undertaking. One has to take into consideration that there is a rate of depreciation of 17% to 30%, and a further point is that one cannot get accommodation. Mr. Chairman, I nearly said that accommodation in New York is as scarce as PFPs in heaven, but I shall not say that! [Interjections.]

I think I have covered most of the questions which have been asked. I was pleased, however, that the hon. member is prepared to receive written replies. I shall furnish more details in the written replies.

*I come now to the hon. member for Rosettenville. I want to thank him for his constantly supporting me during all the years I have been asking for a new station. I shall invite him to the opening of this station. He asked me about the museum. We intend to develop an open-air museum at Salvokop in Pretoria, where larger items of our rolling stock, aircraft, road vehicles, etc. will be exhibited. Inter alia, 37 locomotives, 35 coaches, 20 goods trucks and four aircraft will be exhibited, as well as the corrugated-iron buildings which were in service at Modderpoort Station for many years. I am pleased that the hon. member wishes to protect these antiques. In places such as the Johannesburg Station, Heidelberg and various other places there are items which are being preserved for posterity. This applies particularly to old steam locomotives and various other items which were in use on the Railways. Such items will be preserved at Salvokop.

Mr. Chairman, since the main budget is only going to be introduced in the second half of the year, the items for new amounts are very nominal. I should like to refer to items 125 and 132, viz. the provision of waiting-rooms, shelters and toilets for non-Whites at Ficksburg and the provision of mess and ablution facilities for non-Whites at Danskraal. It seems to me as if item 132(a): Ladysmith/ Glencoe/Estcourt—additional waiting-room facilities for non-Whites, has been omitted by the Government Printer. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he will ensure that that item is in fact included in the Brown Book that is to be printed for the main budget.

Mr. Chairman, from item No. 377 on page 45 of the Brown Book it is apparent that the head office of the pipeline department is going to be moved to Isando. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why it became necessary to bring about this move, and why the new head office has to be moved to Isando in particular.

Mr. Chairman, item 323 on page 38 of the Brown Book refers to the replacement of a timber wharf by concrete at the basin for small craft at the Point in Durban. I should like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether it is intended that some of this expenditure of just over R1 million is to be recovered from the owners of small craft in the form of raised fees for the occupying of places in that basin, or whether they will continue to enjoy the same structure of fees presently applicable to them. In other words, are they going to contribute in the form of raised fees to the capital cost of this new wharf?

Mr. Chairman, in the White Book under “Working expenditure”, on page 10, account No. 3101— Administrative and general charges: Administrative expenses—I notice that this amount will mean that the original budget is going to be overspent by something like 34%. I should like to know the reason why.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last question I want to point out that for practical reasons detailed provision could not be made for the salary increase of April 1980 and the service bonus when drawing up the original budget for 1980-’81. Consequently, we worked on averages, and although it was realized in total, the influence of the salary increase and the service bonus on these particular accounts is greater than usual. This is the reason for this increase.

The hon. member for Vryheid put a question to me in connection with item No. 377. When the first pipeline was built between Durban and Johannesburg in 1964-’65, it was considered essential for a control centre to be situated close to the main point of input and consequently erect the facilities at Fynnland near the refineries.

Mr. Speaker, I can give you that assurance that all members of the Police Force are watching the progress of this Bill through the various stages in this House with the greatest interest and will be very grateful when the Bill has eventually been disposed of, because this is one of the most important Bills for the Police Force that has been before this House for many years.

†The Bill does not provide for a debate on the salary scales and service conditions of members of the Force, but because you allowed the hon. member for Musgrave to make brief reference to this matter, Sir, I very briefly wish to inform the hon. member that although we did quite well last year, we have some very interesting, and in some cases substantial increases, to look forward to. I know that the men will be happy with what is in store for them. I hope that replies to the hon. member’s concern about this matter. I wish to thank the hon. member and also other hon. members on both sides of the House who expressed their support for the Bill.

*The hon. member for Yeoville asked me why dependants of Black pensioners and members who have died are not covered by medical benefits just like those of Whites, Coloureds and Asians, and only an allowance is paid to them by the Treasury. He asks why there is a difference and why only allowances? There are hon. members who are concerned about that, as if there was a colour factor involved. The hon. member for Houghton also expressed her concern about this. This is not so. This matter has a long history. I do not want to go into the details now, because it concerns the various facets of the course of history in South Africa, which is at any event not at issue now. Therefore we shall rather leave it at that. Previously, however, medical benefits were only provided to serving Black members of the Force until they retired on pension. Therefore they did not enjoy these benefits after retirement. Now the scheme provides that Black members will also enjoy medical benefits after retirement. It is due to practical reasons which I do not wish to go into now that it was decided in the past that only admission to lawful dependents would be paid until the members retired. However, we ourselves know what the family circumstances of many of these people have been in the past and still are today. I therefore content myself with the provision relating to legal dependants until the members retire.

Under the new dispensation this allowance is still paid to Black members of the Force, just as it was in the past. However, it is also being paid to them after retirement. They therefore also enjoy the benefits after retirement. This allowance is determined by the Treasury in consultation with the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions. What the amount will be in the future I cannot say at this point. What is important, however, is that they will also enjoy these medical benefits after retirement.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to the proposed new section 33 of the Act, which deals with the establishment, through this medical aid scheme, of dispensaries for the provision of medicine to members of the scheme. He wanted to know whether it was my intention to allow members to go with their prescriptions to the pharmacy of their choice. I do not intend to establish dispensaries for the provision of medicine to members of the S.A. Police Force. I do not think we should do that.

Good.

A member of the scheme will be allowed to obtain medicine from the chemist of his own choice, if such a chemist is available. In places where there are no pharmacies a medical practitioner may supply the prescribed medicine.

*The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know from me what the intention was with regard to private hospitals and whether members of the scheme would also be fully covered in respect of their expenses relating to private hospitals. If this was indeed the case, the hon. member wanted to know whether this included all medical expenses or whether there were medical services the cost of which would be excluded. Under the new provision relating to this new medical scheme which comes into operation on 1 April this year, a member can be treated in any public, military or private hospital, nursing institution or maternity institution without any expense having to be paid by the member himself. I made quite sure of this aspect. A member of this medical scheme will not need to settle any expense whatsoever in either a public or a private hospital. This includes all medical treatment in the institutions in question. This was not formerly the case, and therefore represents a very notable improvement on the previous situation.

This is not the occasion to go into the details of the benefits of the new scheme. I have only referred to a few benefits in reply to questions put to me. I can assure hon. members that this is a fine scheme. It is a scheme that was worked out in close cooperation with the Minister of Health, the Department of Health and other Government departments to ensure that in the future the police will have a medical scheme which will entail admirable benefits for them and in respect of which they will only have to make the small contribution—as I said in my Second Reading speech—of 10% with regard to the doctor’s and/or specialist’s fee. Similar legislation is to be introduced shortly with regard to members of the prison service. We are all very happy with this scheme. It is an outstanding scheme and I can assure hon. members that all members of the Police Force, as well as retired members who did not enjoy these facilities previously, are looking forward very much and with sincere gratitude to the eventual date of inception of this scheme on 1 April this year.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill at present before the House is to regulate the situation as regards the registration of certain persons who have their home in regions of the Republic which become part of independent States on a date after the date on which such States have achieved independence.

Section 11 of the Electoral Act, 1979, specifies the division in which a voter is to be registered. Subsection (4) provides at present that any person who has, on or after the date of independence of an independent State, his home in the said State, shall be registered in the division in which is situated the magistrate’s office in the Republic which is the nearest to his home as the crow flies.

The existing provision in the Electoral Act, therefore, only makes provision for the situation of voters who, at the date of independence of an independent State, have their home on land which at that specific period ceases to be part of the Republic and becomes part of the territory of the new independent State, or voters who, after the date of independence of the independent State in question, go to live in that State.

†With regard to the provisions of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980 (Act No. 2 of 1980), as well as similar legislation that may possibly be adopted in future, the situation arises that after a particular State gains independence and is granted a certain territory when becoming independent, additional territory forming part of the Republic may at a later stage be added to the territory of such a State.

In order, therefore, to prevent voters of the Republic living in such territory being disfranchised and a particular province losing voters to such an extent that it may have a detrimental effect on the provincial quota, it is proposed in the Bill that such voters be included in the electoral division in which the magistrate’s office in the province of which such land previously formed part is situated which is nearest to his home as the crow flies.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no objection to what is envisaged by way of the Bill. Indeed, it is probably the only way out of a dilemma which the Government has created for itself. We in the PFP would not like to see voters who have always enjoyed the franchise within the political system of the Republic now being deprived of their voting or political rights purely due to the fact that their residential area will from now on be included in the territory of a Black State. Under the circumstances it is only right that they should not lose their vote after having in fact been deprived of their inhabitantship—if one could use such a word—of South Africa, often against their will.

The standpoint of this side of the House with regard to the whole issue relating to the creation of sovereign Black States is of course well known and therefore it is often irritating for members on this side of the House to have to give our support to a measure that is passed to deal with the consequences of NP policy. It is ironical that Whites who are to be dealt with in terms of the Bill will now find themselves in a State in which they will enjoy no political rights. There can of course be exceptions—indeed, there have already been indications in this regard—but it is all the more ironic that such people will now enjoy a vote and will be able to exercise it in a country, namely the Republic, which can have no further influence on the circumstances of their daily lives, a Government, therefore, whose legislation can have no influence on those people. This state of affairs reflects, of course, on the position of the urban Black man, of whom the Government also expects that he should be satisfied with political rights in a homeland. One can only hope that this situation that has been created and that is to be rectified by way of this legislation will give hon. members on the other side of the House food for thought.

†Mr. Speaker, while a special arrangement is being made for voters registered in an area now falling within an independent Black state, or in a Black state to become independent, while a special arrangement is being made to preserve their political rights and also for circumstances in which they can cast their votes, I want to make a plea for people in a somewhat similar position. I refer to South African citizens and permanent residents in this country . . .

What does that have to do with this legislation?

I wish that hon. member would shut up. He has no idea what I am talking about. In fact, most of the time he has no idea what he himself is talking about.

I want to make a plea for South Africans who happen to be abroad at the time of an election. Some may be on business trips, some may be on a tour and others may be overseas for study purposes. I am not referring to people who have emigrated. Obviously, once one cuts one’s ties with one’s own country, one has no moral claim to political rights. Certain people are, however, overseas temporarily, particularly those who are travelling, and some arrangements should be made so that these people can cast their votes, perhaps by way of the diplomatic bag or through embassies and consulates in other countries.

I am sure hon. members here have in the past encountered difficulties at election time in regard to some of their supporters who may have been abroad at that time. This is technically not an election matter but hon. members will readily recall how the Minister of Finance had to come back posthaste at the time when the last premiership elections were taking place in the caucus of the NP.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall. This is, however, an illustration of the kind of dilemma in which South Africans who are abroad at election times may find themselves. I do not believe that there is any moral or even practical reason why there should not be a system to make it a little easier for these people to cast a special vote at a South African embassy in another country. I want to put this idea to the hon. the Minister and I ask him to keep this in mind and try to make some arrangement to accommodate them too.

We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to tell the hon. the Minister that we support the Bill and before I sit down I want to say that I sincerely hope that not much more land is going to be allocated to the homelands. The hon. the Minister probably knows what our view in that regard is. However, we do realize that there is still some land to be added in terms of the Land Act of 1926 and therefore we accept the provisions he is making here for people who live on land that has been added to the homelands to vote in the Republic.

I want to put one question to the hon. the Minister: When subsection (4)(c) was added in 1980, the hon. the Deputy Minister who was at that time dealing with the matter was asked what arrangements had been made with the Governments of the independent States in relation to voting by the people in those States in terms of section 11(4), 11(4)(a) and 11(4)(b). I believe that we should know this, because certainly we are going to be facing a problem up my way in regard to what these people are going to do about voting. There are certain difficulties that do arise. It is very difficult to cater for the voting problems in those areas. People living at trading stations in the independent Black states have some difficulty in getting to the local magistrates who sometimes do not even know that there is an election going on in South Africa. So this is a practical problem that we face.

We shall make arrangements for our people to go there and then those people can vote.

This is the sort of answer I want, and I want it on record because we want to know what is going to happen. I know that in the 1977 election the arrangements that were made were not too successful, and I do sincerely hope that our Government has made arrangements with the Governments of the independent States so that our people living there will have the right to vote and will be able to vote with great ease.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that hon. members opposite who have participated in the discussion thus far, have no objection to this Bill. At this stage I do not think there can be any uncertainty as to what the Bill is about. I feel there are two aspects of the Electoral Act that are clearly being brought to the fore here. Firstly, the names of people will not be able to be included on voters’ rolls indiscriminately and secondly, people may not be disfranchised as a result of circumstances beyond their control. Section 11 of the Electoral Act, as the hon. the Minister explained, provides where an enfranchised voter must be registered, and in the section concerned one finds that provision is being made for practically every conceivable situation except, as the hon. the Minister explained, in the case of voters who are resident in a territory that is added to an independent State after the date of independence. However, it is obvious that if a shortcoming is discovered in the Act, it must be put right. It is also obvious that if one cannot make provision for the voters in this category, one is in fact disfranchising them. I feel this would also be contrary to the whole spirit of the Electoral Act, viz. that it should not be made difficult for a voter to exercise his franchise. I am also of the opinion that the arrangement whereby the persons concerned will remain as registered voters in the same province of which the territory was formerly a part, is a good one. One can imagine what confusion one would be creating if, for instance, one were suddenly to make the voters of Mafeking, whose schools, hospitals and local authorities have always fallen under the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Administration, voters of a Transvaal constituency. I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. I want to say here and now that I do not intend replying to the general remarks by the hon. member for Green Point concerning the Government’s policy, because with all respect I maintain that that is not at issue in a discussion of this Bill. However, I must make one general remark in this connection. We can contrast our policies from time to time and debate with one another in that regard. However, if we had followed the policy for South Africa advocated by that hon. member’s party, then we should quite probably have had no reason to worry about the franchise for Whites. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

The hon. member will clearly recall the history of the founding of his party. The founding of his party was the result of a quarrel between his party and the old United Party concerning land purchases for national States. I find that standpoint very difficult to reconcile with his standpoint today. [Interjec-tions.] The hon. member put his standpoint to me with regard to those who are absent during a polling period and are abroad for study or other purposes. I am quite prepared to take another look at the situation of people who find themselves in these circumstances, without committing myself to a positive answer at this stage.

†I want to refer to the hon. member for East London North who will be saying goodbye to us in his capacity as the member for that particular constituency.

You hope!

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he is not going to stand for re-election in East London North, but in another constituency. But then the hon. member is not coming back in any event. [Interjections.] Sir, I am being kind to the hon. member. Of course, I hoped he would be seeking pastures new and increasing the possibility of his coming back. Now I understand he is reducing it.

I want to tell the hon. member that official arrangements have been made in the case of Mafikeng, where one of our own officials will be handling the special votes. In regard to the other independent States, it has been arranged with those governments that members of the legal fraternity will be appointed, people who know the Act and who can assist voters in the casting of special votes in those areas.

[Inaudible.]

By their officials, not ours. The problem is to find people who are properly qualified to handle the administration of this involved Act. We have, however, made these arrangements and I hope they will be successful. Should the hon. member want any further details from me at a later stage, I shall be prepared to give them to him.

*I also want to thank the hon. member Mr. Kritzinger for his contribution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to the hon. the Minister’s reply concerning the arrangements to be made in areas other than Mafikeng. In terms of the law, only a magistrate can be a presiding officer for special votes. During the by-election in the South Coast constituency the year before last we had the same problem, to the extent that the hon. the Minister’s party had to falsify applications for postal votes. The court case arising from this matter, is pending at present. Their organizer, who was also their candidate in Newcastle who has now been withdrawn from that position . . .

He was not withdrawn, he was kicked out.

. . . completed forms which have been handed to the police and a case is pending before the Attorney-General. My point is that there were difficulties because magistrates did not have forms, despite frequent telephone calls to Pretoria, to the hon. the Minister’s department, and this had to go through the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Transkei gave assurances that the documents would be available but when the people went there to vote, they could not do so. Therefore, firstly, it is a question of ensuring that the magistrate will have the documents; secondly, that he will know how to handle them. I also cannot understand the reference to legally trained people other than the magistrate. I think that would require an amendment of the Act because a legally trained person is not a presiding officer for special votes in terms of the Act as it stands. There will be considerable difficulty unless we can tie up these arrangements properly.

Another difficulty concerns people living a long way from the magisterial seat who cannot get there during the normal office hours. Can any provision be made for them? I think this whole matter must be looked at very carefully otherwise we will once again experience problems which may in turn land other people in difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, I shall naturally not react to the hon. member’s emphatic statement that a man did in fact falsify documentation.

I am sorry. I should have said “alleged to have”.

Fine. Let me complete what I was saying. Surely, the reason why there is a court case about this is to determine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation.

Sir, I am conversant with the problems that have been encountered previously. Therefore special arrangements are being made to accommodate those voters and to eliminate the problems or at least reduce them. I am, however, quite prepared to discuss with hon. members the problems as they see them and see whether I can accommodate even those as well. The hon. members will understand that it is a question of administrative arrangements with Governments on the other side.

That has to be done through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

That is right. My responsibility is to ensure that those people not only have a vote but are also in practice in a position to cast their vote. I undertake to do my utmost to ensure that that objective will be attained.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the light of the declaration by the hon. the Prime Minister of a general election to be held on 29 April 1981, the House of Assembly will shortly be dissolved by the State President. The result of such a dissolution is that the present members of Parliament will have to vacate their seats on the day before the polling day for the general election. Section 37(4) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Act, 1980, also provides that the members of the House of Assembly nominated or elected by an electoral college in terms of section 40(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution must also vacate their seats on the day before polling day. In terms of the present statutory provisions, therefore, all members of the House of Assembly will have to vacate their seats with effect from that date due to the general election on 29 April 1981. In practice, therefore, what this amounts to is that in the case of members of the House of Assembly who are re-elected on polling day or who are declared elected unopposed on the official nomination day, there will be no break in their membership of the House of Assembly, while their status as members of the House of Assembly is not affected either.

†The position of the persons who were nominated or elected as members of the House of Assembly in terms of section 40(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution prior to the forthcoming dissolution of the House of Assembly and who are not elected as members of the House of Assembly on polling day is, however, due to circumstances beyond their control, such that not only their continuity as members of the House of Assembly but also their status will be in jeopardy. This is due to the fact that persons nominated or elected as members of the House of Assembly in terms of section 40(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution shall only hold office with effect from the date of their nomination or election, and for practical reasons such a nomination or election by an electoral college cannot take place simultaneously with or immediately after polling day. It was never the intention that the nominated or indirectly elected members, who must vacate their seats with effect from the polling day after a dissolution of the House of Assembly and who might again be nominated or elected by an electoral college, should, unlike other re-elected members on polling day, either lose their continuity of membership of the House of Assembly or their status due to a general election.

*Last year Parliament consented to a reconstitution of the House of Assembly and therefore the House must now see to it that the additional members of the House of Assembly who become members again after the dissolution of the House of Assembly will not be worse off due to the reconstitution than those members who again become members of the House of Assembly on polling day.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for supper, I was explaining that Parliament agreed last year to the reconstitution of the House of Assembly and that the House should now, therefore, see to it that the additional members of the House of Assembly should not be worse off than the members who will be elected on 29 April. In view of this an amendment to the constitution is being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill in terms of which the members of the House of Assembly who are nominated or elected in terms of section 40(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution and who do not become members of the House of Assembly on polling day in terms of section 40(1)(a), will not vacate their seats before the expiry of 180 days after the date on which the House of Assembly is dissolved or on the day before the first nomination or election of members in terms of section 40(1)(b) or (c) after the polling day of a general election held in terms of the dissolution of the House of Assembly.

It follows from this that the present nominated and indirectly elected members of the House of Assembly may retain their seats for a maximum of 180 days after dissolution of the House of Assembly or until the day before the first nomination or election by an electoral college after polling i day, whichever is the sooner. If any of the nominated or indirectly elected members were to participate in the general election as candidates and not be elected, that would not affect their continued membership of the House of Assembly for the limited times proposed. This is not a new principle since in the past, the nominated Senators were also able to participate in elections as candidates and were still able to take their seats in the Senate despite the fact that they had been defeated in those elections.

With a view to the proposed amendments to the Constitution as explained, the provisions of section 37(4) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Amendment Bill, 1980, will have no further validity and consequently it is proposed that the subsection in question be deleted.

†Mr. Speaker, another proposal to i amend the Constitution is contained in clause 2 of the Bill. This proposed amendment is of major importance due to a bona fide discrepancy in the description of the boundaries of two electoral divisions in the 14th delimitation which will come into force on 27 February 1981. The two electoral divisions affected by the discrepancy are Claremont and Wynberg. At present the Constitution provides that whenever there is a discrepancy between the description of the electoral divisions and the map or maps certified by the Delimitation Commission, the description shall prevail. However, due to a faulty description of the boundaries of the aforementioned electoral divisions, the number of voters in Claremont exceeds the allowed quota as prescribed in section 43 of the Constitution. In order to rectify this anomaly it is proposed that the Delimitation Commission be given the opportunity to correct the error. I may say, at this stage, that I referred the proposed amendments to the chairman of the Delimitation Commission and that he assented to these proposals. Such a correction can, however, not be effected after the new delimitation comes into force—in this case it will be 27 February 1981, the date of proclamation of the general election. Hon. members will no doubt appreciate that time is of the essence for the Delimitation Commission to rectify the error, and I trust therefore that there will be no undue delay in passing this Bill through all its stages.

*Mr. Speaker, I believe that the State President should have the right to change the names of constituencies as determined by the Delimitation Commission, and consequently it is proposed that the Constitution be amended to vest such a right in the State President. Then, too, it is proposed that in cases where the State President has changed the names of a constituency, such new name will remain the name of the constituency until a new redistribution has taken place in terms of a new delimitation.

Mr. Speaker, everything contained in this Bill, indeed, every clause of it, reflects the shortsightedness and lack of care displayed by the Government when it comes to their approach to democracy in general in South Africa, and more specifically the constitution of South Africa. I say this because every legal amendment we have before us at present would have been unnecessary if the constitutional amendments submitted to this House last year had been carefully worked out, and if the coming election had not been announced precipitately, before the bodies in question and the responsible departments were ready for it. Clause 1 of the Bill envisages the extension of the periods of service of members of Parliament elected in terms of section 40(1)(c), and also those nominated in terms of section 40(1)(b), for a period after the date of a general election. The question can now be asked, and let us test my earlier statement against this question: Did the Government really not foresee this situation when they submitted this new department to the House last year? What has taken place since we discussed this matter in this House last year which makes these amendments necessary now, when last year they were not necessary? I think the generally accepted answer is that nothing has happened. Quite simply, one can infer and reach the conclusion that the constitutional jugglers of the National Party never thought of this situation. Unfortunately, that is the kind of approach they display with all constitutional planning. However, this House has now been confronted with the legal situation as it stands at present, the fact that the terms of section 40(1)(c) members are terminated at the time of the election and that those of them who are again available for election and will be re-elected will have interrupted terms, which causes them a certain degree of personal inconvenience. I want to concede at once that the PFP is sympathetic as regards that dilemma, and that sympathy was conveyed to the hon. the Minister when prior discussions and negotiations were held concerning these matters. The hon. the Minister was informed of this. Our standpoint is that as far as we are concerned with the practical dilemma, we are prepared to grant our assistance to solve the situation.

†We feel, however, that we are faced here with a lot more than merely the solution of a practical problem. We are actually faced with an invasion of democratic principle. This party has made its objection to the concept of nominated and indirectly elected members very clear, but at the time Nationalist members argued, and argued convincingly, that members elected in terms of section 40(1)(c) will reflect the composition of Parliament. They will be proportionately elected and as such will reflect the composition of Parliament, more particularly the elected members of Parliament, and that this system would therefore be a democratic one. This argument has some validity, although a direct election of members of Parliament is obviously the only correct one and remains the only correct one. However, the moment the term of such a member is extended beyond the life of the Parliament that elected such a member, we are faced with a departure from democracy, and I think we must face this situation. We must face the fact that there is a very definite departure from democracy. We are all aware of the fact that the NP has never hesitated to depart from democracy in South Africa and that the PFP has equally consistently resisted the Government’s attempts to violate and mutilate the constitution of this country. It is argued by hon. members that in the case of members who are indirectly elected in terms of section 40(1)(c), the effect of this amendment will be minimal and that the extension of their terms will not affect democratic government in any substantial way. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that many of the citizens of this country will not take kindly to this amendment and that they will see this as yet another step in the insidious move towards totalitarian government in South Africa. The public will feel, and we on this side of the House agree with them, that their democratic rights should not have to bow before the convenience of a particular politician or a certain number of them. If we were talking about extending the terms of office of members for a week or two, possibly three or four weeks even, we could have been more sympathetic in this regard. To extend the term of office of these members, however, for a maximum of four months beyond the date of the election goes far beyond what could be considered reasonable. The South African taxpayer cannot be expected to pay the salary of a member of Parliament for four months while that member cannot claim to represent anybody or anything in South Africa. This creates a situation which violates the traditions of this House and the traditions of democracy in South Africa.

Hon. members opposite will argue of course that there can be no practical manifestation of this departure from democracy and that our arguments are therefore merely of academic or theoretic value.

No, it is merely a lot of nonsense.

I should like the hon. member for Mossel Bay to tell me where I am talking nonsense.

I shall do just that.

I can assure him he will fail miserably. With this in mind I want to deal with the possibility that a session of Parliament can in fact be called while the four nominated or the eight indirectly elected members, elected by a previous Parliament, are still in office. In that way an undemocratic imbalance can be created in this House. In other words, because their terms of office are extended, people who have been elected by this Parliament could possibly serve in the next Parliament without being renominated or reelected in a proper manner. In our view this is a very definite possibility.

We have had a very close look at the legislation affecting this situation. One thing is absolutely clear to us. That is that there is no specific prohibition in legislation against this taking place. There is no specific stipulation prohibiting the summoning of Parliament by the State President while these people are still in office. In other words, people who are technically part of the old Parliament can sit in the new Parliament. There is no specific prohibition against this.

Another matter that we have considered is the question of whether the term “Parliament”, as defined in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, could possibly exclude members of a previous Parliament, where it refers to the composition of Parliament comprising 165 elected members, eight indirectly elected members and four nominated members. If we look at the measure now before us, however, we see that it is made very clear here that the term of office of the elected and of the four nominated members are not merely being extended, but that they are in fact deemed to have been elected on election day. In other words, in terms of the wording of the measure before us now they are considered to be new members, and therefore members of the new Parliament. Therefore I believe that there is validity in the argument that a new Parliament can in fact be summoned with 12 members from a previous Parliament still sitting in that new Parliament, in that way creating an undemocratic imbalance.

Then one can also argue that because there are no specific legal prohibitions in this regard, one could possibly consider the effect of constitutional precedent and constitutional convention. Obviously one should look closely at this. I must state very frankly that as far as I am aware there is no constitutional precedent or constitutional convention in South African constitutional law regarding the question of nominated or indirectly elected members of Parliament, because we have never before had such a system. One can argue to some extent that a similar system existed in the now defunct Other Place and that one can compare the present situation with the one that existed there. I believe, however, that there is no direct constitutional convention on which we can fall back. Even if there were, I must state quite frankly that hon. members on this side of the House are suspicious of the Government’s intentions in regard to constitutional matters. Frankly, we do not trust their handling of South Africa’s constitution. We have a very good reason for that. They have created and murdered constitutional institutions at an unbelievable rate over the past number of years. Let me refer to some recent events. Last year, they established the new Coloured council and within two months that institution was destroyed by this very same Government. Because of that kind of short-sightedness and lack of forward planning hon. members on the other side of the House must not blame the Opposition if they are suspicious in this regard and if they not only demand assurances, dependence upon constitutional precepts but insist that if the Government wishes them to support this kind of legislation that they write specifically into that legislation the fact that it is not possible for a nominated member, an indirectly elected member at present to serve in the new Parliament after 29 April. We believe it is possible for such an eventuality to occur and we believe that it would be a gross violation of democracy.

Sir, the question must be asked: Why is this Bill necessary? I think it is, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, that it has to do with the fact that members find that their periods of service are interrupted and that this fact has certain consequences in relation to salary and pension rights and other related matters. Obviously, however, one has to weigh this against the value of democracy and against the value that we attach to democratic principles and the proper constitutional procedure in South Africa. We know that there are costs involved in bringing all these members of Parliament down to Cape Town from Pretoria and elsewhere for the purpose of electing the eight extra members in terms of the proposed new section 40(1C). However, I believe that all these matters should very definitely bow before the value of democracy and before the necessity to maintain a constitution sensibly.

In respect of clause 2 of this Bill I may just repeat what I said at the outset—that this amending Bill would not have been necessary had the Government not called an election before the responsible Government departments were ready for it. It is very clear from what has been written into clause 2 of this Bill and it is also very clear from what we heard from the hon. the Minister that certain mistakes have crept in, that certain things have gone wrong. Instead of going through the normal procedures to rectify these mistakes we find ourselves in a position where we have in fact to frame shabby legislation and to write shabby clauses and shabby sections into our legislation.

What is shabby about it?

It is very shabby, very shabby indeed. As I say, it is sad that we have to write shabby legislation into the constitution of our country to rectify the defects that have been brought about by the Government’s haste to call a general election.

Sir, we on this side of the House have little sympathy with the mistakes of the Delimitation Commission. We have very little sympathy with their mistakes. However, this should have been rectified through the normal procedures, as hon. members on that side of the House know very well. They know very well what the proper procedures are for doing so.

What is the normal procedure? The hon. member has just said that these mistakes should have been rectified through the normal procedure. What is that procedure?

The hon. the Minister described it himself in his speech. In his speech the hon. the Minister told us that it could be done and that the only reason why it cannot be done is because the hon. the Prime Minister has called a general election. He said that himself. He himself said that this amending clause is necessary because the hon. the Prime Minister has called a general election and so the necessary adaptations cannot be effected after 27 February. Sir, the hon. the Minister must not expect this side of the House to have any sympathy with that argument.

Sir, in conclusion, and more specifically in connection with the position of indirectly elected members and nominated members in terms of section 40(1B) and the proposed new section 40(1C) I must say, Sir, that it ill-befits this Government to seek the support of the Opposition to regularize the position of the indirectly elected members and the nominated members when their own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, acted with the utmost cynicism in allowing the election of these eight members on Thursday, the 22nd, and called a general election on the following Wednesday. That was six days later. Sir, is there anybody in this House who wishes to tell me that the hon. the Prime Minister did not know that he was going to call a general election? I say it is a waste of time and a waste of money. I say again it is an act of cynicism. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has acted in contempt of the constitutional gimmick that he himself has hatched. Under the circumstances, hon. members opposite must really not expect the Opposition to assist in remedying these defects that have been brought about by the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude to democracy in South Africa. Therefore, Sir, we shall oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact we are not dealing with a complicated Bill here and apparently the position for some hon. members of the Opposition is more complicated than it is in reality. Tonight, and last year too, we were repeatedly told that the principle of nominating members to the House of Assembly, is allegedly undemocratic. Any one with the least knowledge of constitutional law in South Africa, however, will be aware of the fact that before the changes that took place last year when the Senate was abolished, the South African Parliament consisted of three sections, i.e. the House of Assembly, the Senate and the State President. It is also true that Senators were not elected by the voters of South Africa in a general election. Until such time as the Senate was disbanded last year, Senators were elected according to prescribed procedures by the provincial councillors of the various provinces and by members of the House of Assembly, and there were a number of nominated Senators besides. This was the position in South Africa until the end of last year, i.e. from 1910 to the end of 1980, seven decades. And not once in those seven decades did we hear the argument that the composition of the Senate and the South African constitutional law was undemocratic.

What about the Coloured vote?

Something which the hon. member for Green Point apparently does not know, is that in spite of the fact that until the end of last year we had a bicameral system, i.e. the House of Assembly and the Senate, we also had a unicameral system for special circumstances. The constitution of the Republic made special provision for this so that the House of Assembly could operate not by means of a bicameral system but by means of a unicameral system, i.e. a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly, and this applied to measures that we considered to be of the greatest importance, including the amendment of the constitution with regard to the official languages. When the House of Assembly and the Senate met in a joint sitting on language rights or on the franchise, they met as a specially composed chamber of Parliament. If the hon. members of the Opposition now find it so Strange that after abolishing the Senate last year we amended the composition of the House of Assembly by introducing an element that applied to the previous constitutional dispensation, then I cannot understand their argument. I cannot understand how they can suggest that we are now suddenly dealing with an undemocratic dispensation. I am saying this because for this important matter the constitution requires that one Chamber, consisting of elected members of the House of Assembly and nominated Senators and indirectly elected Senators, had to make a decision at a joint sitting. Today we have an analogous system: a vast majority of elected members of the House of Assembly and a very limited number of nominated and indirectly elected members of the House of Assembly. Therefore, it is in fact a perpetuation, on a smaller scale, of the constitutional dispensation to which South Africa has already become accustomed in the past. That is why this whole argument, that violence is being done to democracy, does not hold any water at all.

The hon. member for Green Point has another argument. He says it will be undemocratic if a new House of Assembly is compiled after the election on 29 April and the four nominated and eight indirectly elected members of the House of Assembly were to remain on until a later date. According to him this would be undemocratic. However, the argument does not end there. After all, in the former dispensation that we had in South Africa, the Senate was not automatically disbanded when there was an election in the House of Assembly. Surely this did not happen. After all, there was a choice. Either the old Senate continued to exist until its normal term had expired, or a new Senate could be compiled. The hon. member argues that it is allegedly undemocratic if the House of Assembly meets before there has been an opportunity to nominate new nominated and indirectly elected members for the new House of Assembly. Surely this does not hold water either, because in terms of the constitutional dispensation that we had in South Africa, the Senate was not disbanded each time we had an election in the House of Assembly. Surely this is history. After all, new sessions of Parliament are called with a newly elected House of Assembly and a Senate that was compiled a short while before, and never did we hear the argument in South Africa that it was an undemocratic dispensation.

He is still in kindergarten and does not know anything about it.

Oh no, I think all these arguments are neither here nor there. We are dealing with a practical situation here. The fact that the coming election has been called, does not detract from the fact that this essential amendment had to be made to the constitution, no matter when an election may be declared.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this evening the hon. member for Barberton had the very difficult task of having to defend the indefensible. [Interjections.] When he tried to relate what is going to happen in terms of this Bill to what happened in the past, as far as the Senate was concerned, he forgot two very vital factors. The first one was that the Senate was basically elected for a period of five years, which is certainly not in the existing Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, certainly not in relation to the hon. members we are dealing with. Secondly he forgot that the Senate was elected on a provincial basis, which is also a completely different concept to the one we have at the moment in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. So he cannot relate what happened in the past, in relation to the Senate, to what is going to happen in regard to our nominated members and the members elected by the electoral college. He tried his best, but he certainly did not convince me. I should like to be convinced by the hon. member. I know him well, and although I am sure that he tries hard, he did not convince me, and I doubt very much whether he convinced my party.

One cannot convince the inconvincible.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, right from the word go, that we are going to oppose this Bill, particularly clauses 1 and 3. We do agree with the principles in clause 2, but shall be discussing with him, in the Committee Stage, the detail of clause 2. At this stage I think it is only right for me to ask him a few questions about clause 2, which seems to me to be quite an interesting clause. We agree with him in principle because on looking at the Republic of South Africa’s Constitution Act, one finds that it deals with the difference between discrepancies in the description of a division and the map itself. If there is a discrepancy the description will prevail. A difficulty would of course arise if the description was basically wrong. This is something we could not accept. This is what, I believe, happened here. It is also interesting to note from the speech made by the hon. the Minister that the two constituencies involved at the moment are constituencies which are of great interest to the hon. members of the official Opposition, namely Claremont and Wynberg. I would like to know from the hon. members of the official Opposition whether they would be happy to let either Claremont or Wynberg have more voters than it is entitled to. As a matter of fact, Sir, I am not surprised that they are not really opposing this particular clause.

Sir, I should like now to deal with the questions that I mentioned just now. The first one is: It seems to me that, somehow or other, there is a discrepancy in the existing Act, namely in section 45, which deals with the question as to when the new delimitation comes into effect. In section 45 it is stated that the delimitation will come into effect at the next general election. These are very wide terms, Sir. I do not think that any hon. member here, reading those words can tell me the exact date on which the delimitation comes into effect. Is it the date on which the general election is proclaimed, is it the date on which candidates are nominated or is it the date on which the election takes place? I believe these terms are too broad and the hon. the Minister should give some attention to this.

In regard to the new subsection (6)(a), it is interesting to see that the State President has now taken over the functions of the commission and will be able to alter the name of a division at any time, regardless as to whether there has been a discrepancy. This provision is not related to a discrepancy at all. It is simply a bald statement that the State President may now, at any time, declare the name of a constituency to be changed. I do not believe this is right; I do not believe this is correct law and I do not believe it is fair to the people. The commission that was established in terms of the Constitution Act should, after investigating the desires of the people in the particular area and when they are fully knowledgeable about it, have the right to give the constituency a name. The commission will obviously conduct a very careful investigation. But in this subsection we are now granting the State President the power to declare or alter the name of a division by proclamation.

That does not detract from the function of the commission.

Sir, with respect to the hon. the Minister I maintain that it does. When one reads this one realizes that it is a provision that stands entirely on its own and it gives the State President the absolute power at any time to alter the name of any division which the commission might already have declared had a name.

Change East London North to East London City.

Yes, one could possibly do that, or one could change Yeoville to Orange Grove, which is a far more interesting situation. I want to ask the hon. members of the official Opposition: Did they influence the Government to bring about this amendment in the Constitution Act?

They didn’t, but Harry did!

I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville did not have a say in this. Did he and the hon. the Minister get together on this? [Interjections.] This is a very interesting point, Sir. I wonder what has been happening. The hon. member for Orange Grove is not here but I bet that wherever he is, his ears are burning. [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not believe it is good law to allow the State President to alter the name of a constituency because, with respect, Sir, I think you know as well as I do that the people in a particular constituency become emotionally attached to the name of their constituency. They are proud of their constituency, particularly when their candidate wins it, as I am going to. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is smiling at me, because he prophesied earlier on, in the debate on another Bill, that I would not be coming back to this House, but I can tell him here and now that I am going to come back to the House and that the hon. the Minister and I will face each other across the floor of the House on many a future occasion. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with clauses 1 and 3, which I believe are the essence of the whole Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Minister straight out that we do not agree with the principles incorporated in these particular clauses. I must confess, with respect, that it took me a great deal of time to wade through the legal jargon I found in this Bill. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about it. I went through it and I am quite sure that hon. members on the other side of the House also had a fair amount of difficulty in coping with the legal jargon. It is clear that the members who have been nominated by the State President and those who have been elected by the electoral college can, ostensibly, continue in office for a further period not exceeding six months after the dissolution of Parliament and any general election at any future time.

Clause 3 deletes the provision that was incorporated in the Constitution Act only last year, that clearly delineated the period for which those members would sit in the House. There is no doubt about it that it was clearly delineated. It was set out in absolutely clear terms, and there was no equivocation about it whatsoever, that immediately a dissolution of the House took place those members would have to vacate their seats and would no longer be members of the House. I believe it was the clear intention of the Government at that stage that that was what should happen. The members nominated by the State President and the members elected by the electoral college would cease to be members of Parliament on the same day that the other members of the House ceased to be members. This is logical because after an election the rights of political parties concerning the method of election in terms of the electoral college system might well change.

They will change this year.

Yes, there is no doubt about it that they are going to change this year. [Interjections.] The PFP are not going to have the right to nominate a member in terms of this legislation. It is going to be this party. [Interjections.] I want to speak about it in broad terms because I believe that in the future constitutional dispensation in this country it is quite possible that there will be other parties involved. We must provide for the situation where other parties may possibly also be in a position where they will be entitled to nominate members in terms of the electoral college system.

Are you in favour of nomination?

I shall speak to that in a moment. The first reason why we do not believe that this is good law is that we do not consider it to be fair, just, or, as the hon. member for Green Point said just now—and I do not agree with much of what he said—democratic. It is not democratic.

The Government has changed its mind this year. We wonder what the reasons are for its changing its mind. It cannot be that the Government does not want to have another electoral college election because, if one reads the amendments that were effected last year, one finds that, if a casual vacancy occurs at any time among either the nominated members or those elected by the electoral college, the State President “shall” fill that vacancy. It is not permissive, it is obligatory. He has to fill that vacancy. The reason cannot be either that the Government says it does not want to call an electoral college election because this could happen at any time if unfortunately any of the members who have been elected in that manner fall away. It must therefore take place. Therefore, that cannot be the reason.

It cannot be on account of the expense of calling an electoral college election. When one really adds it up—I will be kind to the hon. the Minister and tell him that it will be for a period of only four months that these members will remain members of Parliament —one realizes that the salaries that they will draw will never be less than the cost to the country of calling a meeting of the electoral college. In fact, if one works it out over the full six month period and these members are still here—it might go into the next sitting of this Parliament—if one then has an electoral college election after this Parliament has been sitting for some time it is going to cost the country R96 000 for those nominated and electoral college members. But, Sir, it cannot be by virtue of the disruption of government. There is in fact really little disruption of Government if Parliament is called together as an electoral college to elect new members. There must be some other reason behind it. I leave that to the imagination of hon. members. I am not attacking the hon. members personally who have been appointed. I do not, with respect, want them to accept that I am attacking them personally at all. I believe that the hon. the Minister was completely wrong when he referred to the Senate. This is what the hon. the Minister had to say in this regard—

We can understand that, Sir, because the Senate was appointed for a period of five years. Any Senator could stand in any seat and he could lose the seat but he still remained a Senator.

We cannot support this, Sir, because from the very inception of this new constitutional situation we objected to it. We objected to the system of members being elected by an electoral college and of members being nominated to this House. I do not want to repeat our arguments here because they were repeated time and again in the debate last year. We objected to it solidly and did not agree with it. We reluctantly involved ourselves in the system because of the fact that the majority in this House had agreed that this system should be adopted. The people in this party are, with respect, realists. We are not boycotters.

Hear, hear!

We are prepared to accept that if the majority opinion prevails, we will abide by it. We will object again and again as we are doing today. We have already stated that we believe that the spirit of the system of nomination of these members to this House, which in the main consists of members elected from the people, is that such nominees should be experts in their field. This was said and emphasized time and again by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Bill. He emphasized time and again that the Government would make sure that the nominated members would be experts in their field.

Like Boshoff.

What we envisage is that if these two clauses of the Bill are not passed we shall have another electoral college election possibly a week after the general election. I am available. We can have that election a week after the general election and we shall then be able to appoint, hopefully, people who are experts in their particular field. With due respect to the members who have been nominated, the members who are here, I am not sure that they are experts in their field. I have listened with interest to the speeches made by those particular members and I cannot find any area in which they are declared experts in a particular field. I want to say that we realize that, financially speaking, when a member loses his seat he loses his remuneration. However, I do believe, and I really truly do believe this, that a great number of those elected and nominated members are people who could quite easily and comfortably, perhaps even within the very short period of a week, take up remunerative employment with their erstwhile employers. Therefore it does not concern me overmuch that if this Bill is not passed, those members will not be able to draw the normal remuneration of a member of Parliament.

We believe that this Bill is wrong and we believe that it should be scrapped. Hon. members on the other side must adopt independent attitudes to this Bill. One day they may find themselves in a situation where they wish to object to this sort of operation and I believe therefore that they should vote against this Bill. Our party certainly will. We shall not vote against the whole Bill because we believe that clause 2 is fair, but we are certainly going to object in the most strenuous manner that we can to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Ever since the hon. member for East London North returned to this hon. House . . .

He has done very well.

… he has proved himself to be one of the most active questioners that we have ever had in this House. He has again seen fit to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister, the answers to which he could have ascertained if he had only referred to the Bill and to the relevant regulations. However, I am sure that the hon. the Minister will in due course effectively answer the questions put by this hon. member.

The hon. member for East London North also referred to the comparison drawn by the hon. member for Barberton between the position of the indirectly elected and nominated members of this House and the members of the Senate. The hon. member for East London North said that there were certain differences as far as the indirectly elected and nominated members of this House were concerned vis-à-vis the members of the Senate. Obviously there are many differences but the important point is that on the matter of the principle that is being attacked by the official Opposition and also by the members of the NRP there is basically no difference. One can obviously mention many other differences but the argument of the hon. member for Barberton still stands unchallenged, namely, that the same principle which is basic to the position of the indirectly elected and nominated members of this House was already embodied in the Senate. That argument was never refuted by the hon. member for East London North.

The hon. member for East London North also stated that the original intention was supposed to have been that the terms of office of the nominated and the indirectly elected members of this House should terminate simultaneously with the termination of the terms of office of the directly elected members of this House. He merely made a bland statement without producing a shred of evidence to substantiate his allegation. I submit that that argument was sucked out of his thumb. He does not have a shred of evidence with which to substantiate that statement of his. [Interjections.]

As I have said, the hon. member for East London North has developed into a quite formidable questioner. I should suggest to him that after 29 April he should apply to the SABC for possible appointment as understudy to John Pank the questionmaster.

What about Cliff Saunders? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North has to some extent reiterated the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Green Point, also expressing the belief that this Bill is undemocratic. My response to the hon. member for Green Point in that respect will also apply to the hon. member for East London North. I shall therefore now turn to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Green Point saw fit to brand this Bill as a gross violation of democracy. I understand democracy to be government of the people by the people for the people.

Depending on the people.

If that concept is correct I submit that it is the ultimate in cynicism that the official Opposition in this House should charge the Government with being undemocratic, because the Government and hon. members of the NP in this House are the personification of the will of the people of this country. [Interjections.] We are the personification of the will of the electorate of this country. [Interjections.] Therefore I have every right and every reason to charge the official Opposition, being the obstructionists they are, with obstructing the very will of the people of this country. Therefore they are the last people who should talk about democracy in this House. They are per se as well as in their actions the biggest obstruction in the way of the implementation of the will of the people of this country. [Interjections.] Therefore it ill becomes them to talk about democracy in this House.

What about Nic Olivier?

The hon. member for Green Point, whom we shall probably have not with us for much longer, spoke glibly this evening. I should like to give him the advice which one of his Bar colleagues gave a client of mine on one occasion. When I accompanied the client to consult an advocate and call for a legal opinion, and the client was also very glib, the advocate said to him: “Sir, the judges do not take much notice of glib talk.” I must point out to the hon. member that the voters of South Africa also do not allow themselves to be misled by glib talk; they, too, take no notice of glib talk. The kind of glib talk that the hon. member for Green Point came up with this evening will therefore not help him. He will again be disgraced, as when he and the hon. member for Johannesburg North held a PFP meeting at Ladysmith a year or two ago and found that there was not a single vote for a motion of confidence in them. I say that the voters of South Africa do not let themselves be misled by glib talk.

The hon. member also very obviously let the cat out of the bag, when he said: “We are suspicious of the Government.”

For very good reasons.

There is no justification for that, but they are always suspicious. I want to tell the hon. member that they are suspicious of us because they themselves justify suspicion. The hon. member should have a clean conscience, because then he will not always be suspicious about the motives of the Government and of this side of the House. If he treads the straight and narrow path, he will not always be suspecting other people of not doing so.

The hon. member says that he understands the practical problem we are now facing and that if that had been the only issue, they might well have been inclined to support the Bill. I can understand why the hon. member understands the practical problem, because they, too, elected an hon. member indirectly. After all, they elected the hon. member prof. Olivier in that indirect way. If, then, they were so opposed to this method of indirect election, why then did they make use of it? They made full use of that opportunity to getting another member here. This side of the House does not need to get members into the House in this way; the voters of South Africa bring them here and we sit here in overwhelming numbers, but they need to get people here in this way. That is why they made full use of the opportunity.

Sir, through you I want to put a question to the hon. member for Green Point: Is the hon. member Prof. Olivier going to resign on 29 April or is he also, if this Bill is passed, as it undoubtedly will be passed, going to make use of the benefits the Bill entails? If there is any integrity, any morality in that party, then after the standpoint they have adopted this evening they will see to it that the hon. member Prof. Olivier resigns on 29 April. [Interjections.] If they do not do so, then the standpoint they have adopted this evening will only stand as another proof of their opportunism and of the exploitation of every problem situation in this country for political gain.

I repeat the charge I have levelled before, viz. that the official Opposition is a party of obstruction. In addition they are political opportunists who do not see their role as being part of the structure of Government in order to govern this country in the interests of its people, but instead concentrate on exploiting every problem situation to their own benefit.

I shall be content with the single statement that the Bill is purely a practical measure to rectify an existing deficiency and to ensure just treatment to those who were duly elected to this House in terms of legislation passed by this House. They are being justly treated so that their period of service will not be interrupted due to the election that lies ahead and so that, in all fairness towards them, they will not be deprived of benefits which they are fully entitled to claim. I am referring not only to hon. members on this side of the House but also to the hon. member whom the official Opposition itself elected to this House.

Mr. Speaker, if vituperation and invective are good substitutes for sound argument, then the hon. member for Mossel Bay succeeded in that respect tonight, because in that he was excellent. His whole address consisted of seeking, firstly, to abuse both the representative of the NRP, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. members on this side of the House who spoke on the subject. But when it actually came to arguments the hon. member almost descended to the farcical.

For the hon. member for Mossel Bay to get up and say that he typifies democracy, that he is the symbol of government by the people, for the people, of the people in South Africa in this situation in which we live, is ludicrous because no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said this afternoon that he conceded that in South Africa the White people had power over other people and that the Government was trying to do away with this situation. Yet the hon. member for Mossel Bay has the audacity to get up and speak as the champion of democracy. He makes himself ridiculous in the eyes of South Africa and the world. It is the most laughable thing that has ever been said, and that is what really makes the double talk that goes on here so ridiculous. People who use methods that are anything but democratic, pose as democrats. People who take away rights talk about extension of rights. It is really all gobbledegook which one cannot see anywhere except if one is Alice in Wonderland and one happens to look through the wrong side of the mirror. I would suggest that the hon. member, in fact, looks through the wrong side of the mirror when he speaks in this House.

The hon. member said that he thought that the hon. member Prof. Olivier should resign because we oppose the law. In other words, because we think this is so, he says that hon. member should resign. But, Sir, may I put a very simple point to the hon. member? If one resigns, one is a boycotter; if one does not resign, one is immoral. The arguments that the hon. members on the other side of the House use are so transparently idiotic. It is quite remarkable that any hon. member, when he gets up in this House and claims legal qualifications, should come with such nonsense.

The hon. member for Barberton who, I think, is a gentler, kinder person and who comes from the Eastern Transvaal, a lovely part of the world, put his argument very pleasantly. I am, however, about to give him the kiss of death in that area because what I am going to say about him is going to be quoted by the HNP against him in the election.

Are you trying to help them?

No, I would not, and the hon. member knows it.

The argument of seeking to compare the Senate with the nominated and electoral college elected members in this House is again quite ludicrous because the reality is—I am going to demonstrate this in a moment—that the Senate could never actually stop a government being formed by those who constituted the majority party in this House. That was the constitutional situation, enshrined in our law, and they could never stop it. I am going to demonstrate, however, that this piece of legislation is a piece of gerrymandering. It is a gerrymandering mechanism in terms of which, in reality, one could actually retain political control in South Africa, even if one were elected with a minority. That is what this legislation is. It is a mechanism for gerrymandering. Let me demonstrate how it can be done. We only have to go back to 1948 and the kind of majority the NP came to be elected with. Let us not say that this is a minute possibility. Let us assume for a moment that in future years the NP is returned to this House with a minority of one. What does one do with a minority of one? One then uses the ability to appoint four appointed members of Parliament in order to convert the minority of one into a majority of three. So even if one only gets three of the eight members, one’s party still remains the majority party which continues to rule this country, even though the country has rejected it.

That is democracy.

In other words, this is a constitutional gerrymandering mechanism to provide for the possibility of things being different in South Africa one day, and they will be different in South Africa, let there be no doubt about that. Let us deal with the issue very clearly. There are some things that are absolutely beyond question. The appointment of the nominated MPs is done by the State President, and in accordance with statute, the State President acts on the advice of the executive, and the executive is the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government, in other words the leader of the NP at the present moment. He decides that. The power to do that lies entirely in his hands and that power, together with the power to play with the constitution, which I have just demonstrated, clearly reveals how one can entrench oneself in government.

There are, however, other things one can do in terms of this measure, because one now has elasticity. One now has two choices. Firstly, in terms of sections 25 and 26 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act one can decide when one is going to convene Parliament. In other words, one only needs to convene Parliament at intervals of one year. One needs to sit once a year and there must not be more than a year between sittings. So again the executive has the discretion in deciding when to convene Parliament. Secondly, the power afforded in terms of this Bill for the convening of the electoral college, for the purpose of electing MPs on a proportional basis, is also a discretionary mechanism. As a result one can juggle the situation. On the basis of vacancies existing in the House, in respect of which by-elections are pending, one can juggle the position in such a manner as to get the maximum number of seats from such an electoral college.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to argue the principle embodied in the original legislation again without his confining himself to the amendments?

Order! I am in the very act of consulting the Bill. As has been said by the hon. member for East London North, one has to study it closely in order to understand it. I was on the point of interrupting the hon. member for Yeoville to tell him that he was arguing a matter which had been disposed of in this House last year.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you . . .

Order! This provision deals with nothing but continued membership for certain hon. members in the event of a general election.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you and point out that what I have just said is that in terms of this Bill it is possible to juggle with the date upon which the electoral college is convened. I agree with the hon. member for East London North that the wording of this Bill is very obscure; so I do not blame anybody—least of all the hon. the Minister who took the point of order—for not understanding it. In reality there is a time limit set, and the executive may convene the electoral college at any time during that period. I have just said that they can juggle with that period of time in order to get the most advantageous day for convening the electoral college, depending on any vacancies that may occur. I am talking about this Bill; I am not talking about anything else. I am talking about the juggling in this Bill, when read in conjunction with the Constitution Act of the Republic and with the existing statutes. It is this Bill that gives one the power to indulge in this kind of constitutional gerrymandering.

That is why we are opposing it.

That is why we are talking about it. This is a Bill which provides a mechanism for gerrymandering— that is what it is all about, and nothing else.

Having dealt with that point, I now wish to deal . . .

Order! As far as I can see, the Bill lays down a time limit of 180 days. The hon. member may proceed, but I shall call him to order when I think he is speaking about matters outside the ambit of the Bill, as I think he has already done.

Thank you, Sir. I do, however, believe that I was within the limits. I made that point and I illustrated how the period of time can be juggled. But let me now . . .

You are better at mercantile law.

What is the hon. the Minister’s problem?

You are better at mercantile law.

Well, at least I am good at something. I do not think the hon. the Minister is good at any kind of law. I am always grateful for small mercies, but this happens to be a correct constitutional argument. I think there is no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I have given a ruling on this matter. Yet he keeps on saying that what he says is correct. The hon. member must proceed.

I will do so, Sir. I am trying very hard to get to the next point. The next point . . . [Interjections.]

Order!

If you would care to look at the Bill, Sir, you will see that the next point which is directly related to the provisions of this Bill, is that in terms of the Bill it is possible for a nominated member or a member elected by the House to have a longer term of office than a member of the House elected by the people. The hon. member for Mossel Bay waxed lyrical about democracy, but the ordinary member, the member chosen by the people, can have a shorter term of office than a member who has not been elected by the people. In other words, somebody whom the Government decides to appoint can have a longer term of office than a member chosen by the people. This point also becomes quite interesting in minor respects, as I will illustrate. There are members of the House who are going to fight the election who have been members of the House for, let us say, seven years and a few months. They may perhaps lose their seats. They run the risk of facing the people, of possibly jeopardizing their pensions, but that is not the case if one comes here on a free ride, if one has been appointed by the Government. They can then play with this period of 180 days and make sure that provision has been made for those people. I am asking the hon. the Minister in all fairness: Is that equitable vis-à-vis the man who goes to the people, who is prepared to go to the hustings and is prepared to fight for his seat, as against the man who comes here with no constituency and no risk involved and who is nevertheless better off in those circumstances? If that is fair and just, there is—and I say this in all fairness—no substance in what is being suggested here. Sir, I know you will correct me if I try to debate the principle of electing members or of proportional representation. What I can say, however, is that in this Bill a mechanism is being created which enables minority Governments to perpetuate themselves. This opens the door to constitutional abuse and is contrary to the basic principles of democracy. That is why we cannot go along with this measure.

Mr. Speaker, after the tirade by the hon. member for Yeoville I shall try to restore calm in the debate. I cannot help trying to find an explanation for the change of emphasis by the hon. member for Yeoville. It seems to me as if it was far easier for him to stand a little to the right of the hon. member for Houghton as his constituency was delimited before, whereas after the new delimitation he will have to move a little to the left of her. That may explain why he has changed his emphasis in certain respects.

I want to begin at once with that hon. member’s argument. It is perhaps as well that I should do so. He maintains that if they do not co-operate in terms of legislation of this Parliament, they are accused of being boycotters. He goes on to say that if, on the other hand, they co-operate, their actions are regarded as immoral. I have a very reasonable question for him: Who manoeuvred him into that position, if it was not the hon. members of his own party?

You are merely insulting. That is all.

After all, it is so easy to have the best of both worlds. When it suits them, they boycott, and when it does not suit them, then they do not do so. But now he complains when people accuse him of one or the other. I think that the standpoint of the hon. member for Mossel Bay is a very clearcut one. The hon. member for Yeoville also has legal training, but by way of a precedent set by no one other than his own party, surely the appropriate thing would have been, in all fairness, to do what the hon. member for Mossel Bay asks. The hon. members opposite adopted a standpoint on principle which led to their boycotting an institution of Parliament. Now the hon. member has adopted a standpoint on principle concerning the legal provision in question and I expected of him, as a man of principle, to say on behalf of his party that they were going to act according to their principles. However, he is trying to escape his own dilemma by drawing a lot of subtle distinctions. Surely he cannot expect me to take much notice of him in these circumstances.

I now come to a second consideration. Look what the hon. member is doing, Sir. He maintains that the legislation we are now considering creates a mechanism for manoeuvring. He maintains that it is a mechanism to evade the verdict of the voters. Let us analyse this argument. He says that it could result in a Government with a minority of one converting itself into a majority at an election. Surely that is not true.

Of course it is true.

Give me a chance, please. After all, I did not interrupt the hon. member. Surely his statement is untrue. What is the convention that applies in that situation? I challenge the hon. member . . .

How many conventions have you broken already?

You know, Sir, if that hon. member open his mouth, only air comes out.

You can only be insulting.

Please give me a chance.

The hon. member is uncivilized (“onbeskaafd”).

Order!

What is the appropriate convention? The convention is—and this is how a Government is appointed . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the word “onbeskaafd” parliamentary?

Order! Did the hon. member say “onbeskaafd” or “onbe-skaamd”?

I said the hon. member for Yeoville should not be uncivilized.

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Minister may proceed. I want to request hon. members to afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity to reply to the debate.

What is the convention that has always been followed in this country? It is that the party that obtains the majority at the general election is asked to form a Government. That is the convention. If what the hon. member alleges were to happen, exactly the same would occur. It would then be in the hands of the new Government to convene the House of Assembly and then to elect these members. It would be the prerogative of that Government to nominate the four members. Now I ask with great respect . . .

And if it becomes law, what then?

Even if it becomes law, the same will apply, because these people were not elected in a general election. What amazes me is that members are prepared to come to this House and, by means of misleading arguments, create the impression that this Government is seeking to manipulate elections. I reject that with the greatest contempt.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. It is well known by now that the hon. member is in flight, and if hon. members do not want to accept what I say, they can ask the hon. member for Groote Schuur. He is the best witness we could have with regard to the mobility of the hon. member for Green Point. It is a fact, too, that the hon. member for East London North is also not yet certain where he is going to fall.

Nonsense. He knows exactly where he is going to stand.

The hon. member maintains that I am wrong and that that hon. member knows where he is going to fall. Then we at least agree on one matter, except that they know where he is going to fall but as yet I do not.

But let us now come to the legislation. I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point that I do not think that a standpoint is more true simply because it is crassly put. Let us just take a look at his introductory remarks. He maintains that this legislation is essential due to the shortsightedness of the Government and the fact that we are entering an election precipitately. I do not quite understand. I had always thought that a party which believes that there is a reason why a Government should be rejected, should grasp at the opportunity to have that Government rejected. What I cannot understand is that the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members are angry with us for giving them the opportunity to prove their worth. Honestly, that is the oddest argument I ever heard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here and said that the country did not have confidence in the Government. He is nodding in agreement; he did say so. Now we should like to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to prove his statement, but they are angry when we do so. What kind of Opposition have we? But let us go further. The hon. member for Green Point is expressing himself in extreme language. He maintains that this step is undemocratic. He says it is symbolic of totalitarian government. I should like to analyse that, because if his statement is true, then it also applies to the institution of nominated and indirectly elected members. Does the hon. member agree with me?

Go back in history.

No, the hon. member cannot go back in history; there is no chance to go back.

He is afraid, too.

Yes, he is afraid too. If this argument were to be true, then why did the hon. member’s party take part in the consequences of such an undemocratic action? Why? The answer is very simple: When it suits them, then the hon. members go along with it, and when it does not suit them, then they boycott. That is their own way of action and their own choice. I now go further. In his reference to how one can fill a vacancy if some member were to disappear, the hon. member for East London North conveniently forgot that that provision relates to a chance vacancy and not a vacancy for all members. The hon. member for East London North and I belong to the same profession, and might as well differ with one another. I am not prepared to doubt the right of that hon. member to differ, but then let us do so on legal grounds and on the basis of the correct interpretation of the legislation before us.

I used it as an argument in another context altogether.

Just a moment. What is the practice involved? If we strip the whole debate of these “pretexts”, what are the facts? The fact is that this House of Assembly passed legislation determining the composition of this Parliament. Parliament laid down that this Parliament consists of 165 elected members, four nominated members and eight indirectly elected members. What happened—and the hon. member for Barberton stated the matter correctly—was that there was a loophole in the legislation, and not one of the hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Green Point, spotted it. Hon. members can look at Hansard, but not one of them argued the point that under specific circumstances the House of Assembly would not be at full strength. It is very easy to argue ex post facto that this is due to the short-sightedness of the Government. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North says he was not present. That is so. He was not present, and when we come together again, he will again not be present. The hon. member thinks he is playing “now you see me, now you don’t”. In all fairness, hon. members must really agree with me now. Hon. members must agree with me that as it is now constituted in terms of the Constitution, the House of Assembly comprises 165 members, plus 12.

For the purposes of debate.

Very well, only for the purposes of the debate. I concede the hon. member that point. However, the fact remains that this House of Assembly, to be properly constituted, consists of 177 members. The second point on which we agree is how those hon. members come here. 165 have the opportunity to be elected on 29 April. Four of the others can be nominated on the same date. It is very easy. It is simply an act of the executive to nominate the four.

[Inaudible.]

No, just wait a moment. Just give me a chance. Allow me to take the argument further. Eight vacancies still remain, which can under no circumstances be filled on the election date because not all the election results are necessarily known on that date. The hon. member will pardon me the lighthearted remark. Many hon. members will have cause for headaches on 29 April because they fared well, whereas others, again, will have reason for headaches because of having fared badly. Indeed, I think it would be unfair to try to bring them together on 29 April. In the first place it is impracticable. Although theoretically it is possible to bring them together a day after the election, in practice it is not possible.

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

Just a moment. Just allow me to complete the argument, then I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question. Nor can we get them together on the second day after the election. Although the constitution provides that Parliament consists of a certain number of members, I cannot achieve that in practice. Very well. What have we done? What we have done, we have done for the sake of hon. members. What have we done? The hon. member for East London North is now arguing the issue of what it is going to cost in terms of the salaries of 12 hon. members.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a moment. Please give me a chance now. That argument does not hold water. It does not apply in respect of a third member, because we can nominate four members on that day. In that case, therefore, the hon. member’s argument is invalid. Therefore only eight remain. So now it is no longer R96 000 but R60 000. On the other hand, the hon. member expects of me that we should convene the House of Assembly as an electoral college immediately. This means that we shall have to bring 165 people here. However, that is one calculation the hon. member omitted to make. He did not work out what that would cost. I want to know from him what it will cost.

Far less than . . .

Multiply the number of members of the Parliament with the price of an airline ticket and it is evident that it will be far more than the R60 000 which the hon. member spoke about.

No, that is not correct. [Interjections.]

You are the Minister of Transport Affairs; you should know.

Oh, please just give me a chance now. In any event, that is not the point at issue. I believe that if the constitution provides that the House of Assembly consists of a specific number of members, we must constitute it accordingly. Excluding fortuitous circumstances, for example the death of members and other reasons, I believe we should constitute the House of Assembly so that it is at full strength.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Minister tell me what, in terms of his argument, he believes happened between 1 January 1981 and 25 January 1981 when we had not yet appointed the eight hon. members?

There is a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker.

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance. It is a very simple question. That was the first occasion that we constituted the House of Assembly in this way. We are not dealing with that now. We are dealing with the reconstitution of the House of Assembly. That is the point at issue now.

The country did not fall to pieces.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the country is also not going to fall to pieces if the hon. member is candidate in the election in East London North. I should like to give him the opportunity to be a candidate there.

[Inaudible.]

Please. I am busy replying to the hon. member’s question. Let us take it further now. I put it to the hon. member in all earnestness that in my opinion he should show more respect towards his colleagues in this House. [Interjections.] After all, the hon. member cannot differ with me when I say that his references to and remarks concerning the elected and nominated hon. members are at the least— and I am moderating my language— inappropriate. That is so. He speaks about “experts” in a specific field.

[Inaudible.]

Just a moment, please. The hon. member is confusing two concepts. He is confusing ability and expertise. There are many hon. members in this House whose ability, without expertise, is greater than that of experts who make themselves out to be experts. The hon. member ought to go and learn the difference between clever people and wise people. Clever people sit on the opposite side of the House and the wise people on this side. It is time the hon. member learnt that. [Interjections.]

Let us take a further look at the hon. member’s argument. The issue here is the question of the right vested in the State President to change the names of the constituencies. I should like to deal with this because the point at issue here is that the State President is not being afforded the power to give the constituencies their names in the first place; that remains the right of the commission. The State President is being given the right to change the names. However, the hon. member maintains that this is an undemocratic step that I am now taking. He maintains that the people who are used to the name of the constituency are fully entitled to tell the committee what they think the name of the constituency should be.

Ask the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member must give me the opportunity to continue. If the hon. member’s argument were true, then surely in practice it would happen every time a delimitation took place, that people would submit evidence on what the name of the constituency ought to be.

But that is possible.

No, not possible; it must be shown to be so in practice, because after all, the hon. member maintains that we are depriving the people of a right. I am now telling the hon. member that no one, apart from representatives of political parties, has ever submitted evidence concerning what the name of the constituency ought to be.

That is true.

Of course it is true, and why does the hon. member come forward with such nonsense in a debate such as this? He is an insult to my profession. [Interjections.]

However, I want to take the matter further. The fact is that there are specific circumstances in which it is essential that the State President must have that power. I should like to put a practical example to the hon. member. At present there is a constituency called Griqualand East, whereas Griqualand East is no longer geographically within the Cape; it has been incorporated in Natal. Surely this is nothing more than a practical step we are taking to vest in the State President the power to change a name in specific circumstances.

The commission can do it later.

Unfortunately the commission cannot do it later, except when it is reconstituted.

I should like to put an example to the hon. member. It is not possible for me to draw up a list of the situations in which the State President ought to have the power, but if the hon. member wants to display his ingenuity and tell me how we can limit the power of the State President—I concede, of course, that he represents the executive—to change names, on the basis of a reasonable description, I shall accept it, because I am not seeking the absolute power to change names; I am merely seeking a practical measure and specific circumstances. The hon. member must really concede that that is a reasonable standpoint.

Are you going to change George into JR?

Unfortunately I cannot mention the name I should like to call the hon. member here, because it would not be parliamentary.

I want to conclude. There are no sinister motives behind the legislation we are considering now. After the legislation has been passed, the official Opposition will make use of it and retain for itself the benefit of its elected member. If the party of the hon. member for East London North were in the position of the official Opposition, they would have done exactly the same. What I am saying now does not consist of inferences or suspicions. Indeed, the hon. member for East London North said so in his reply to certain remarks by the hon. member for Barberton, because he said that the difference between the Senate and the nominated members was that the Senate was constituted on a provincial basis and not on a national basis. All the hon. member really wanted to say was that if it had been on that basis, Natal would have designated him and not the official Opposition. [Interjections.] I hear an hon. member saying no, but surely he does not serve on the Select Committee; I do serve on it.

Let us call it a day now.

If you concede the point, I shall do that.

*I still just want to say this: The aim of the legislation is to keep the House of Assembly at full strength. I should have thought that those who made themselves out to be democrats would have the same wish as I.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised the question of negotiability of participations. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not, however, deal with the matter in his reply, so I wonder if he would be so kind as to deal with the issue now. Could he tell us whether he is prepared to consider lifting the restrictions on the negotiability of participation in participation bonds, so that it would be possible, in a much shorter time, to cede a participation? These restrictions have a slowing-down effect on the whole of the industry, and if things could be speeded up this would make mortgage participation much more attractive. Why I am raising this issue is that in the United States they do trade in these mortgage certificates. There consequently seems to be no logical reason why we should not do it here. The argument raised in the past was that this would mean competition with bank certificates of deposits and, in particular, negotiable certificates. I do not, however, believe that that is a sound argument in existing circumstances, because the money is being attracted to the banking institutions whereas, in fact, it should be attracted to mortgage participation schemes. I say this because in reality it is those schemes that make money available for blocks of flats and industrial buildings. So we should have more money attracted to such schemes. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to say why this is not being done and to indicate whether he would perhaps consider changing the situation.

Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a matter which the hon. member raised in his Second Reading speech. It is true that I did not react to it, because I do not think it is really at issue at the moment in a discussion of this Bill. However, it is an aspect which we shall consider. This is certainly an important matter that he raised. It will definitely be considered and if we want to move an amendment that they be made negotiable, then we shall amend this specific provision.

Mr. Chairman, the matter is relevant because if the hon. the Minister looks at clause 20(b) and in particular at the new paragraph (b) and the amendments to it, he will see that the restrictions are referred to there. I appreciate that the hon. the Minister will look at this matter again. Seeing that similar legislation is introduced annually, we could perhaps look at this matter again later this year or next year.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to confirm that we shall not continue with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his decision not to proceed with the clause. I think this is a good approach to this type of legislation, legislation which is not political and which is in the interests of the people. The fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has been prepared to listen to our plea is something we obviously appreciate and if this is the spirit in which he will be approaching future legislation of this nature, we will obviously work together very well.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced here in the Second Reading debate by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti have been duly reconsidered. However, other factors have also been considered, for example the fact that there are other ways of dealing with the issue of the availability of funds at higher interest rates than by manipulating the contracts already entered into by way of interest. I think that was the factor which was eventually decisive in causing us to take this decision.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we in this party welcome the fact that he has seen his way clear not to proceed with this clause. I should also like to remind him that my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, was not guilty of making the Second Reading speech.

We accept the reason why the hon. the Deputy Minister has withdrawn the clause and we thank him for considering the matter in this light. I am sure there will be many bondholders outside who will be most grateful for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s approach. We would, however, also like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should look very carefully at the number of mortgage bonds involved in this. In the course of my speech during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he had the figures available for us. I do not believe that the numbers are very significant and with the passage of time we will find that the principle of the clause will fall away. We should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for withdrawing this clause.

Clause negatived.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendments printed in my name, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in the 28th line, after “property,” to insert “and”;
2. (2) on page 2, in the 32nd line, to omit all the words after “purposes” up to and including “them” in the 34th line.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill deals mainly with two aspects, namely the conditional discharge of a mentally ill prisoner on the expiry of his sentence and the detention of a person referred for examination and report by a court of law of a State which previously formed part of the Republic.

Patients who should continue with treatment, but are otherwise fit for discharge, are discharged conditionally. These conditions usually require that they must periodically attend out-patient clinics and continue with medication. Provision exists for the conditional discharge of patients detained under reception orders, President’s patients and mentally ill prisoners, but the law is silent as far as mentally ill prisoners whose sentences have expired are concerned. In order to provide for the after-care of such patients, the amendments in clauses 3 and 5 are proposed.

Clause 4 makes provision for the detention of persons accused of committing serious crimes and referred for examination and report by a court of law of a State which previously formed part of the Republic. This provision is introduced in order to assist such States if they do not possess the necessary facilities to perform the function. No provision exists at present in terms of which such assistance can be rendered.

The remaining clauses deal with the amendment of definitions and designations in the text of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, having consulted the hon. member for Parktown, I want to say that we on this side of the House have no objection to the principle of this Bill. Certain amendments to the principal Act, particularly those in clause 1, are really questions of nomenclature, providing for new designations. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the law is silent as regards after-care for certain mentally ill prisoners while the necessary provisions do exist for President’s patients. That obviously is something that must be provided for and we have no problem with that either.

The Bill as such introduces amendments to the Mental Health Act and, generally speaking, it deals mainly with people who are to be committed because they are mentally ill. There are functions and procedures which are of effect in terms of the Act and an amendment is introduced to these procedures in clause 5 of the Bill which deals with the question of non-compliance with the conditions as laid down. In terms of clause 3 a subsection (3) is added to section 37 of the Act and that subsection provides that—

So there can be a conditional discharge of the mentally ill patient as well as an unconditional discharge. We have no problem with clause 4 which provides for patients from other States.

The one problem we have got is in connection with clause 5(b). This concerns people who were committed under sections 29 and 37(1) and who are receiving a conditional discharge. If such a person fails to comply with the conditions laid down, the Minister may in terms of clause 5(b)—

Repeatedly there is reference in the Act to other “places”. Here we are talking about a person being “taken into custody”. This is where the whole problem comes in, and I think we must point out to this House the dangers of taking a mental patient into custody pending transfer to an institution. “Taken into custody” means being taken to a prison, and I think that is wrong. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is wrong in principle, although it has been the practice, to take a mentally ill patient and put him into a cell prior to being removed to an institution and being properly examined. I say it is dangerous, because there are two cases I can mention to the House. The first is the case of a lady called Doris Dora Madolwana. The facts, very simply, were the following: She lived at C28, Africa Street, in Walmer Location. Her daughter took her to live with her in New Brighton early in October 1980. As she was mentally deranged, it was agreed that she would be sent to a mental hospital. With this aim the police called for the old lady and took her to the police cells. There she was so badly beaten up that she had to be admitted to the Livingstone Hospital. Her daughter was obviously most distraught and wanted to take action, but did not have the funds to do so. This matter was to be investigated. The hon. the Minister of Health, and the hon. the Minister of Police were informed, and the Minister of Health was kind enough to draw my attention to the fact . . .

What clause are you referring to?

I am referring to the question of a person being taken into custody. This is referred to in clause 5. The hon. the Minister was good enough to say that in those cases where a person has to be certified, legal procedures have to be followed. That is understood. It has happened in general hospitals in the Transvaal that staff did not send patients to a cell, and that fellow patients died because the restless patient interfered with an intravenous drip of the deceased. The matter was then to be investigated. The hon. the Minister himself says that since the inception of such committees under the provisions of the Health Act this topic has been discussed, and that they are attempting to find a solution to the problem.

Are you referring to section 5 of the principal Act?

No, I am referring to clause 5 of the Bill, which deals with a patient being “taken into custody”. I am going to ask for these words to be deleted, and I am now motivating my case. There is another case, Sir, of a certain Daniel Muller. The facts relating to this person are as follows: Daniel Muller was suspected of being mentally deranged. He was taken to a hospital, and the hospital staff said they could not keep him. He was then removed to a police cell. As a result of an investigation, I have obtained the following from the Minister of Police: On the morning of 29 November Mr. Muller was found beaten up and unconscious in his cell. He was immediately removed to the hospital, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit. The whole matter surrounding Mr. Muller’s injuries is being investigated, and from preliminary inquiries it would appear that the two male suspects inadvertently placed in the cell with him at about 03h56 on 29 November may have been responsible. The matter is being investigated. In other words, Sir, these patients who are brought in for mental observation are being placed in cells with other prisoners. I am sorry to have to tell this House that Daniel Muller is now dead. The removal of patients to institutions mentioned in the Act itself, such as State psychiatric hospitals or provincial hospitals, is one matter, but in clause 5 of this Bill reference is being made to “any person referred to in section 37 . . .”

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to deduce what clause the hon. member is discussing. I do not know whether he is referring to the principal Act. He speaks of clause 5. Clause 5 has nothing to do with a person who is taken into custody. I am not trying to corner the hon. member; I am simply trying to follow him but I find it virtually impossible.

We are dealing firstly with clause 5 which amends section 74A of the principal Act and the proposed words to be inserted state, inter alia—

Then on page 6 of the Bill, paragraph (b) states—

Section 37 is the section that is being amended by clause 3 of the Bill—

I do not want to deal with that; I want to deal with paragraph (b) which states—

It is the words “taken into custody” that I submit mean taken into a prison. To be taken to prison or placed in a police cell is the most dangerous thing for a mental patient pending investigation, pending being recommitted or pending the conditions which will apply in terms of the proposed section 37(3). I am objecting to these conditions and in the Committee Stage I intend moving an amendment to delete the words “taken into custody and” in line 7 on page 6 of the Bill. In other words, I want the paragraph to read “direct that such person be removed to an institution”. I have no objection to a person being removed to an institution but I take the strongest objection to a person being taken into custody. Since we are dealing with this matter now this is the time for us to make a start so that the type of case that I have mentioned and will not recur so that many other cases which may have come about will not occur. Apart from this danger we see no harm in the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, since there are two hospitals for mentally ill people in my constituency, I am very pleased that I have the opportunity of participating in the discussion of this legislation. I should just like to stray from the subject for a moment. I am not going to try your patience, Sir, but I just want to point out that following my request last year, the hon. the Minister visited these two hospitals and spent a whole day there. Therefore I should like to express my particular thanks and appreciation towards him here in public for having done so. It made a very great impression upon the morale of the staff working in those hospitals.

This is not a contentious Bill and that is why I can understand why the official Opposition is supporting it, and we thank them for this. At the moment, when mentally ill people are treated, a procedure is followed which aims at confining them to hospitals for as short a period as possible and rather placing the emphasis on after care and out-patient treatment. This is the procedure that is being put into effect with a great deal of success, and the amendments contained in the Bill reflect this spirit. The idea is also to release the mentally ill prisoner from prison as soon as possible, but nevertheless in his own interest to continue to make provision for his being able to receive further after care and further treatment. However, in his own interest, strict conditions must be laid down. At the moment the Act provides that he can be conditionally released only for the period of his term of imprisonment that has not yet elapsed, and the idea is now to extend that provision to beyond that time. It may perhaps be said that it is a mistake to provide for a person being admitted once again after his ordinary sentence of imprisonment has expired, but provision has already been made for this in the legislation in principle. I am referring to section 34 of the principal Act, which regulates this specific matter, and according to which it is possible to detain a prisoner after he has served his complete prison sentence.

We have no problems with clause 4 of the Bill, which contains the insertion in the principal Act of the proposed new section 42A. It is simply reflecting the spirit and disposition of the Government and of hon. members on this side of the House to support the independent National States and the States that have been given their freedom in word and deed. This proposed insertion in the Act simply contains the enlargement of that principle. I do have sympathy with the hon. member for Hillbrow with regard to the problem to which he referred, but I do, however, think that he has overlooked one important aspect. This is that this particular clause refers specifically to a mentally ill prisoner. Therefore, he is a person who is in fact being detained in a prison, who is discharged and then may be admitted to prison once again after that. In the spirit of the legislation, I believe, it is not specifically being envisaged that such a mentally ill person has to be detained in a prison in particular, if he does in fact have to be detained. Should the worst happen and should he have to be detained in a prison. I simply refer once again to the fact that he has in fact been released from prison on a conditional basis in the first place. Under the circumstances, therefore, it should not make much difference.

I feel that we can support this legislation with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me, as you did the hon. member for Albany, to make a couple of brief general comments on the Bill before I discuss the clauses specifically. As the hon. member for Albany, I have also taken more than just a passing interest in the institutions to which he referred. I have also taken an interest in the fact that at the Addington Hospital, in Durban, there is what I consider to be a move towards a much better facility for the treatment of people who can at times not gain access to the proper institutions. There is a facility there in the form of a psychiatric ward, where people who are in need of urgent or after-hour attention, can go. I should like to leave a suggestion with the hon. the Minister. That is that we need more of this sort of approach in respect of people who are suffering from mental break-down which can lead to mental illness and mental diseases, which is in general what we are discussing in terms of this legislation.

Whether one likes it or not, there is a stigma attached to mental hospitals. I think the move to make available facilities at general hospitals in a ward attached to and part of a general hospital, where people who are undergoing a crisis can receive treatment, is a move that should be welcomed, something which must in fact be extended in South Africa. I should like to see the hon. the Minister give attention to crisis care clinics at some of our larger hospitals. In a case like this it often happens that someone who is showing the first signs of mental breakdown and excessive stress can receive some careful counselling by a sympathetic medical person. Very often the sort of problems that we are discussing here in some detail can be obviated. I should just like to leave that general thought with the hon. the Minister. We should make more use of psychiatric wards in our general hospitals instead of relying purely on institutions for the treatment of people who have perhaps gone over the brink.

Referring to the Bill before us, I believe I should comment on clause 4 and refer to an aspect which has not yet been dealt with by previous speakers. Naturally we are not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and we are also not going to oppose this specific clause. I do think, however, that the clause, as it stands, is deserving of some comment at this stage of the debate. What we are offering here is a facility in institutions paid for by taxpayers of the Republic of South Africa to citizens of other countries, countries made independent by South Africa and who have no institutions of their own to which they can turn in times of the circumstances envisaged in this clause.

I do not want to play politics with this point, but I think it must be brought home to the Government that it is the passing of clauses such as this that militates against the credibility of its homeland policy. I say this because if a homeland is truly independent, having separate, full freedom, one would anticipate their being able to deal with conditions like this themselves. One cannot always go back to father once one has turned 21. One must realize that it destroys the credibility of the separate homeland policy when people overseas see that we have to incorporate legislation such as this, whatever the intention is, and I accept that the intention is a good one, i.e. to provide a service to people who really need it. I think the hon. the Minister must accept that it detracts significantly from the credibility of a policy that maintains that the homeland is separate, independent and viable and that it has everything that the Republic has. It is a clause such as this that gives the lie to such a claim. I therefore feel that it is incumbent upon us, when we are debating a clause such as this, to point out that this is a very serious shortcoming.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Berea whether the fact that heads of State like Sir Seretse Khama, King Sabusa and others from recognized independent countries come here for medical treatment detracts from their international sovereignty?

That is a very good question. To answer it briefly, let me say that this is an indication of the very high esteem in which our specialized medical facilities are held. This is also borne out by the fact that we get people from Italy and other parts of Europe, countries that also have hospitals of a very high standard. I do not, however, think that that detracts in any way from my argument or is in any way incompatible with my argument. We are talking now in terms of a general facility. It does not only extend to this case. It extends far beyond this, and the hon. member for Benoni must know that Natal alone spends millions of rands treating citizens of the Transkei every year because they cannot get the sort of medical treatment they need in their homeland. The point I am trying to make is that the facilities do not exist there, and that is not true, separate freedom. I have now made my point, and so I am going to leave the matter there.

I tried very hard to follow the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think that ultimately he has a point about the wording “taken into custody”. When one is reading that phrase in the clause, I think one must also realize that there is generally a lack of sympathy for people who are suffering from any form of mental illness. With that in mind, let me say that perhaps those words are harsh. Possibly the hon. the Minister can explain to us what his intention was in having the amendment phrased in that way. I am sure that he is sympathetic to the fact that mental patients are very often not understood when in police custody, and one can understand this. On my part this is not a criticism of the Police.

It is not a question of the Police, but of fellow-detainees.

It is a question, in fact, of the wrong people dealing with a particular circumstance.

The term “taken into custody” is a legal term.

I accept that, and the custody of a minor can be a very desirable thing in that sense, but “taken into custody” in the context in which the hon. member raised it, can mean what the hon. member envisaged. We know that this is the case. Possibly the hon. the Minister could just enlarge a little on that. If it is sympathetic custody, and if the people involved know what they are about, that is fine. I think that virtually sums up our attitude on the Bill and we shall be supporting the Second Reading. Possibly, however, we may have something to say about clause 5 in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I think that when we reach the Committee Stage, there will be an opportunity to look at clauses 4 and 5 in more detail, being the clauses to which the hon. members for Hillbrow and Berea referred. To begin with I want to say that it is striking that, in the evaluation of the whole set-up that is specifically at issue in this Bill and in the clauses concerned, both hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Hillbrow, overlooked the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the treatment of ordinary neurotic patients who are treatable, but that it deals with extremely serious matters. The clause concerned is a very long one, and I find it rather strange that the hon. members are rushing through it quickly to reach the question of “custody”. To my mind this is not the most important thing in the clause. What is basically at issue—and I shall come back to this later in my speech—is that someone who is charged with murder, attempted murder, rape or assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm in such a State, may be detained in a institution. This changes the picture completely. We are not dealing here with an “open community system”. We are dealing here with a situation where an agreement exists between two sovereign States that under certain circumstances patients may be transferred from one State to the other for treatment with a view to after-care, detention or whatever may be at issue.

In my modest opinion, we are dealing here with an amendment of cardinal importance. Hon. members of the Opposition have already conceded this. I think it is important that in the first place we should try to decide for ourselves what the two clauses that have been referred to are essentially about, as well as what the amending Bill in its entirety is about. It is extremely important for hon. members to take note of the fact that the issue here is the well-being of people who have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment. It is not simply the penal provisions for those people that are at issue; it is their well-being that is at issue too. The chief reason why this amending Bill is being introduced by the hon. the Minister, is that after such a patient has been discharged, no provision is made in the Act for follow-up treatment which may be required.

By means of this Bill, certain mechanisms are now being built into the Act in order to make certain things possible. In the first place, the State President can now lay down conditions with which a mentally ill person must comply under certain circumstances. I want to put it very clearly that the people to whom this Bill refers are prisoners. When a person is discharged conditionally from any institution after his sentence of imprisonment has expired, he must comply with the conditions laid down by the State President. It is not only the State President who is receiving certain powers here. If the person concerned does not comply with the conditions of the State President, the Minister can do three things. Hon. members must bear in mind now that this concerns prisoners and the transfer of long-term prisoners from one State to another if they do not comply with the requirements laid down by the State President and the Minister. In the first place those conditions may be amended or revoked and in the second place the Minister may direct that such person be taken into custody in a specified place or removed to an institution. In the third place the Minister can also review the conditions according to each individual case, when requested to do so, as provided by the Act, and make recommendations as he thinks fit. I shall come back to this again in a moment.

In the third place provision is being made for agreements between the Republic and the national States which have been referred to. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that people who have been charged with murder—and hon. members must not rush past this simply to reach “custody” because this is the type of people that it is about—attempted murder, rape and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm may be admitted to these prescribed institutions for the purpose of examination and the compilation of a report by the therapists and medical practitioners, the entire medical team that operates there. It is important that we should take note of the fact that certain procedures are laid down by the Act in this regard. It is not simply a case of a man being picked up in Bophuthatswana and put down somewhere in Pretoria. I also just want to tell the hon. member for Berea in passing that he should pay a visit to the hospital in Mmabatho. There is a section in that hospital containing hundreds of psychiatric patients. He should also take a look at the Temba hospital in Bophuthatswana, or at the hospitals in any of the other national States. The hon. member will see that those services are not being neglected. I think that if the Government of Bophuthatswana were to read in Hansard or in the newspaper tomorrow that the hon. member is casting a reflection upon their integrity, as if they were allegedly not in a position to provide these services, he would really not be able to talk to them on an equal basis in the future. I think it is an insult to those States that the hon. member for Berea has made an implied accusation of this kind. [Interjections.]

As I have already said, certain procedures in this regard are now being laid down in the Act. The superintendent—and this is very important, because hon. members must bear in mind that he is a professional person; he is a medical practitioner and is an important figure in these hospital institutions—is appointed by the Director-General and he plays a cardinal role in this whole situation. In terms of the provisions of clause 5, which reads that “if a President’s patient or a mentally ill prisoner (who) has been discharged conditionally”, he can nevertheless request that the Minister “review the conditions of his discharge or the conditions with which he shall comply after the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment, as the case may be”. We are entitled to ask, after what I have just said, what is actually on the Table before us. I think there are three very important aspects of which the House must take note. In the first place it must be borne in mind that we are dealing here with patients or long-term prisoners who have committed serious crimes and in the second place we are dealing with the fact that specialized institutions have been created for these people where diagnostic examinations can be carried out, where anamnesis can be carried out on those people and where psychometric tests and many other tests can also be carried out on these people. The people who carry out this type of examination are experts, highly trained people. As an example of these specially created institutions, I should like to refer to the prison hospital for psychopaths in Pretoria. This is a model specialized hospital, one of the best in the world and it was erected after an in-depth study was made into the treatment of this type of patient that has committed a crime and has now been admitted to a specialized hospital. It is obvious that in this set-up recommendations will be made that are based on specialized examinations and treatment.