as Chairman, presented a Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

J. J. LOOTS,
Speaker.

Committee Rooms,
House of Assembly,
16 February 1981.

stated that unless notice of objection to the Report was given at the next sitting of the House, the Report would be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Unauthorized Expenditure), as follows:

UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE (1979-’80)

G. J. KOTZÉ,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms,
House of Assembly.
17 February 1981.

Report to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks at once to all the hon. members who conveyed such kind and encouraging words to me on the part appropriation which I introduced the other day. I want to assure them that I appreciate those sentiments sincerely.

Listening to the debate, particularly to the speeches of the hon. members of the Opposition, one really began to doubt whether there would be much to discuss by way of a reply. I began to think that perhaps I should also discuss politics for a while today and leave financial and political matters to one side, for it seems to me these are very sound. [Interjections.] As is customary, however, I shall have a few things to say about financial matters. Just before I do so, though, there are one or two political matters I wish to refer to. The hon. members of the NRP in particular became very excited. The hon. member for Klipriver really got their danders up and we have not even started the election campaign yet. It seems to me as though they may even become a little hysterical once we have really begun to fight.

There is a new fashion in Natal now. I am referring to the NRP and to the newspapers that support them, although I am not always sure whether those newspapers support them as much as they support the PFP. I think they simply support both when they see their way clear to doing so. Now it has been said, of course, that if we, the NP, were to take over Natal, we would interfere in many traditions which have become a way of life in Natal over the years.

A Natal Stand.

Yes, it is a kind of Natal Stand, but it will be as futile as the other Natal Stand.

†One is surprised at a man like Mr. Frank Martin, who is an MEC. The hon. member for Durban Point should talk to him. He is becoming obsessed with this thing, and I do not think he is doing extremely well . . .

He is doing very well indeed.

What Mr. Martin says is that if we take over Natal we are going to interfere with Natal’s traditional participation in Sunday sport, something which we have not done. If we were going to do that, why would we not have thought of ways and means of doing it?

You have done it before. Why should you not do it again?

The hon. member for Umhlanga is going to have his hands really full in this coming election. He should conserve his energy.

Good. Are you going to stand against me?

Order!

He must conserve his energy. He is going to need it. [Interjections.] As was said in one newspaper report, we were apparently going to axe parallel-medium schools. There are a whole number of parallel-medium schools in Natal, and we have never tried to touch them. It was also said that we would cut subsidies paid to private schools. That is complete nonsense. It was also said that we would apparently transfer the control of the Natal Parks Board to Pretoria.

That is what you are trying to do right now.

I want to state here once and for all that we have no intention of doing these things. That is a statement of fact in regard to our policy. I would suggest to my hon. friends opposite, as I would suggest to these newspapers in Natal that are constantly harping on this, that if this is the best they can do in the opening sallies of this election campaign then our party is going to do remarkably well in Natal. [Interjections.] We even have leading articles now on these subjects. In The Daily News of yesterday, we again have Mr. Martin saying—

That’s right!

It would appear as if Mr. Martin is a very worried man indeed. That is the only conclusion I can draw. In addition to this, we also, of course, have our friend, Mr. Webber, who was referred to by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Klip River. Mr. Webber is certainly not helping his party, if that is what he is trying to do because, Sir, he has made some remarkable statements. The following report appeared in The Daily News of 10 February—

Both parties, Sir; that is, his own party as well as the PFP—

[Interjections.] This report goes on to say—

Thus, one draws a distinction between the provincial level and the parliamentary level and then one apparently retains one’s credibility among the voters! The report goes on to say—

The report goes on to state that Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert turned down the offer because—

The report then goes on to quote Mr. Webber as saying—

In saying these things, Sir, I want to say too that we are not in the slightest concerned about the attitude of The Daily News and The Natal Mercury in these matters because we have long since realized that if there is in fact anything in Natal that really assists us in an election it is the antics of those two newspapers! As I have said before, let them continue to do what they have done in this particular case; let them continue with their negative and, at times, completely un-South African approach and we shall gain all along the line. [Interjections.] I just want to make it clear to my hon. friends opposite that we are in this election to fight and that we intend to fight. Nobody must come to us and try to make a deal with us. I hope that that is well understood.

Will the hon. the Minister answer a question?

No, Sir, the hon. member had his chance to speak. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned last night that one of my biggest problems in listening to this debate was to know where the hon. Opposition really stood in these matters that have been raised. [Interjections.] On the one hand, Sir, one finds some of them complaining bitterly that we have not done enough in improving salaries and conditions of service. On the other hand, we are attacked and we are told that we are responsible for the high inflation rate in South Africa. For example, we find the hon. member for Yeoville, who has for a long time said that interest rates were too low and that the poor were suffering so much that we should set up a special fund with guaranteed interest rates for pensioners. The hon. member will remember that he said it about three times year after year because interest rates were too low. He said that we should help the poor. Now he says that interest rates are too high . . .

24%.

. . . and again the poor are suffering.

24%.

The hon. member knows just as well as I do that that 24% is an absolute maximum; it is in fact the rate of usury. It is the topmost rate. One should bear in mind that it is not a rate of interest . . .

It is a finance charge.

Yes, it is a finance charge. Why did the hon. member not say that in rushing to the Press last night?

I said “finance charge”; can you not read?

I have it here—

Read what I said.

But that is what I am reading. [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, the finance charges legislation which we amended . . . [Interjections.]

Order! I am trying to be fair to all hon. members of the House and especially to the Opposition at this moment, but we cannot have a running commentary by way of interjections all the time. The hon. the Minister must proceed.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that all along we have had those rates which I say are the upper maximum. It is really a theoretical maximum; that is to say, it is the usury limit and abuse of it cannot be allowed. The hon. member, however, now swings right round and says that the interest rates are too high. This is how he is reported—

The debate is still in progress—there will be a Third Reading debate tomorrow—but the hon. member thought fit to run to the Press last night. The next portion I am going to read appears in quotes—

As these words appear in quotes, I must assume that they are the hon. member’s own words. Where are finance charges mentioned here? I have twice read that he said interest rates.

We have to be consistent. If there is one thing I think we ought to be, it is that we ought to be consistent. I am suggesting to the hon. member for Yeoville that when it suits him, he says the poor are suffering because they are the people who have saved money to invest. The pensioners invest what they save. When interest rates were low, he said that they were too low, and he blamed the Government. He said that the Government should establish a fund with guaranteed minimum interest rates for these good people. Today, however, he says the poor are going to suffer because interest rates are too high.

We have not set these as interest rates. I repeat that we have not set these as interest rates at all. I regard this as a very important matter and I want to reiterate that I pointed out in my speech a couple of days ago that the market rates for finance charges were rising and that new maximums would have to be fixed to allow credit extension also to the smaller borrower who might otherwise be unable to obtain loan moneys at all. My colleague the hon. the Deputy Minister during his intervention in the debate stressed again that these rates represented maximum usury limits—they were limits—and that obviously effective rates would not and should not move up to those levels.

I am sorry indeed that this completely misleading impression is now being given and published in the papers because it is not correct. All that happens is that financial institutions will now be able to spread their rate pattern better according to the risks involved, but strong competition will obviously limit their manoeuvrability. In any case the underlent positions of many of the financial institutions ensure that in the competitive market today creditworthy business cannot be secured at any rate near the proposed maximum usury rates. In the case of credit-card holders, for example, interest is in any case only charged after the normal period of four to five weeks allowed for settlement of the account outstanding. No interest at all is normally payable in the meantime.

So I can go on, but all I want to say at this stage is that I immediately got in touch with the president of the Clearing Bankers’ Association and the president of the Association of Merchant Banks and we had assurances from them that the new rate structure will not be abused, and that they do not intend to push up rates purely as a result of this measure. In this regard I should like to issue a very stern warning that if any abuse does become apparent, also in the durable goods trade, including the furniture and motor trades, a very serious view will be taken of this from our side and we will certainly take the appropriate measures to protect the well-being of the public.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No. Allow me at this stage to continue. I have to answer a few points. I am in any case trying to answer points raised by the hon. member.

I am confident that the wider range now permitted to credit institutions will also allow them to attend to the needs of the smaller and the less creditworthy users at reasonable rates. That is one of the main points underlying this where now, because of the unrealistically low rates for higher risk cases, they simply could not be accommodated. I point this out to the House.

*I should now like to refer to salaries and pensions. I should like to ask members of the hon. Opposition, of whatever party, whether or not the amount of R720 million for which provision is being made for the improvement of conditions of service and the raising of salaries is the right amount, for I have heard no other figure. In general I have heard a great deal of comment, but I have heard nothing at all about what that figure ought to be, although hon. members on the opposite side have the same information on the economy and all these matters at their disposal as I do. Consequently I must accept that R720 million, under all these circumstances, is a reasonably accurate figure.

We have heard from several hon. members in this debate that the dispensation received by teachers and others was definitely an improvement; with the exception of the hon. member for Pinelands who said that the 20% was not enough, they could find no fault with it. But if one takes other things into consideration that is not, after all, the total increase. They say we have only woken up now; that in the past we did nothing in this connection and were only now doing something about it. Sir, have you ever heard the likes of that before? What are the facts? In the 1979-’80 financial year State expenditure on salaries and wages for the central Government, provinces, statutory institutions and the self-governing National States was approximately R3 200 000 million. During the present financial year this figure rose to R3 760 million, by approximately 17,5%, and I shall explain this. I cannot say precisely what the figure will be in the next budget, but in view of the present figure it will approximately amount to an estimated R4 500. If this figure is more or less correct it represents an increase of almost 20% within one year. Why is this so? The fact of the matter is that it is not only basic salaries which are being increased, it is not only the structural adjustments that are being made for certain groups, nor is it only professional differentiation which is being applied to certain groups, there are also salary increments which are constantly being effected. Not once did the hon. Opposition raise this aspect, and it is very important. Besides the basic salary increases, increments are being effected annually. There are also annual promotions and merit assessments, and if one takes all these facts into consideration the annual increases which the State has had to make available, have averaged between 18 and 19% over the past two years. But the hon. member for Pinelands claims that the increases are inadequate.

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

No, I am trying to give the hon. member some facts.

*ln the present budget we are making provision for R720 million for improved conditions of service. However, there are hon. members who say that this is the first time we are doing something in this connection. Last year—actually for the financial year, because this was in the last budget—it was more than R500 million, and the previous year it was in the region of R300 million.

What do the teachers say?

Consequently there was an increase from more than R300 million to more than R500 million, and then to more than R700 million, between 1979-’80 and the year which lies ahead. So I say this Government discharged its obligations and no one can maintain . . .

I can.

. . . that we could have done better, for to have done so would have been extremely irresponsible. Of what use is for anyone to advocate the kind of licentiousness and permissiveness which the hon. member for Pinelands is advocating? What would it avail one to grant an increase of 15% if the inflation then, as a result of such a policy, rose to perhaps 17%, 18% or even 20%? Who benefits? The hon. member must tell us that.

Well, let me ask you a question.

That is the kind of argument we get.

We find precisely the same thing with pensions. The Government’s track record in this sphere is something to be proud of. We need only see what the position was when the Opposition still formed the Government, and that was almost 100 years ago! Do hon. members know what amount was then paid out monthly to social pensioners? The amount was R10 precisely, and that amount remained constant for quite a few years. In 1948 it was still only R10. Then the NP came into power, and what happened then? Social pensions have increased 12½-fold between 1948 and the present time. I am not taking about 12½%, but about 12½-fold!

What about the value of money?

I should like to know what other country can compare with us in this sphere. Of course that hon. member was speaking in haste again when he said: “What about the value of money?” I am still coming to that. Of course the hon. member for Umhlanga always speaks in haste. He is a man who speaks very quickly and he usually has to swallow his words.

Let us look at the consumer price index. From 1948 to the present day the consumer price index rose 6,7-fold, while pensions paid out rose 12½-fold, in other words at almost double the rate. Surely that is unprecedented.

Yes, but what was the base upon which it started?

Do you still drive home in an ox wagon?

I am taking the amount of R10 in 1948. Then the amount was R10 per month; today it is R124,50 per month. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. From R10 per month to R124,50 today is a 12½-fold increase, and I say that that is an achievement of which this Government can be proud, whatever else there may be to be proud of as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us examine the figures a little further, for there is an inclination here to generalize about everything. One simply cannot pin those hon. members down. My question to them today is: What should the monthly amount be which is paid out in social pensions if it should not be R122 plus the bonus?

R200.

And if we succeed in paying that bonus again later in the year, a further R2,50 must still be added. Then the pensioners will receive R127, and not only R124,50. That will then be the monthly amount they receive. That is of course the Whites. The other groups receive comparable amounts, but in fact they are, relatively speaking, receiving more. I think it was the hon. member for Hillbrow who raised this question yesterday.

†Was it not the hon. member for Hillbrow who complained yesterday about the deterioration in the ratios for the various racial groups?

Yes, about the gaps.

Until very recently—in fact, just a few years ago—the ratio of Whites to Coloureds and Indians and to Blacks was 1:½: ¼, or 100:50:25. Today, however, the ratio is 100:60:33. That is a matter of three years. What Government can do better? Must we simply forget about all principles of sound finance and say: “Have it, and face the consequences”? These people will then have to contend with a higher inflation rate, instead of being better off than they are now.

Sir, I want to go further and say that when one looks at the total expenditure on social pensions, we find that the total paid out in 1975-’76 amounted to R271 million.

*I want to repeat:

In 1975-’76 the budgeted expenditure on social pensions was R271 million. In 1976-’77 R323 million was spent on social pensions. In 1977-’78 social pensions amounted to a total of R367 million. In 1978-’79 an amount of R437 million was paid out; in 1979-’80, R516 million and in 1980-’81, R603 million. I cannot tell hon. members precisely how much will be spent on social pensions during the present financial year because the main budget has not yet been introduced, but on the basis of what I have already announced, I can make my own estimate, and I am quite certain that the amount which will be paid out during next financial year will exceed R700 million. Sir, in what country does one find better figures than these if one takes the entire economic situation into consideration? That is what we have to deal with, and these are the figures which are being completely disregarded.

Sir, I should also like to refer to a few figures as far as education is concerned. I am referring now to the budgeted expenditure of the State in respect of education, and that includes salaries, buildings, books and all facilities. I am furnishing the aggregate amount which the State spent on education during the past six years, and I am furnishing only a few figures. In 1975-’76 a total of R953 million was spent; two years later, during the 1977-’78 financial year, R1 269 million was spent; a further two years later, in 1979-’80, an amount of R1 687 million, and in the present financial year, R2 143 million. This represents an increase of 27% over the previous year. Where is the hon. member for Pinelands now, I am now replying to what he said. I should like the hon. member to tell us what these figures look like. Are they inadequate? Sir, I come now to the total estimated expenditure of the State during those years. In 1975-’76 the estimated expenditure of the State was R6 774 million; two years later, R8 985 million; in 1979-’80 the estimated expenditure was R11 219 million and in the present financial year, R13 142 million. In spite of these increases in the total budget, what was spent on education comprised the following percentage of the aggregate State expenditure: In 1975-’76 14%; two years later, again 14%; last year, 15%; and in the present financial year, R16,3%. I ask once again: Is this something to be reproached for, or is it something of which the Government may under the circumstances be really proud? In the same period the defence budget—I am referring only to the Defence Force now and I am not including the Police and other Security Forces—rose from just over R600 million to R2 300 million, and the Government had to find the necessary funds for that. During the past two to three years we have been doing this, as well as many other things, and have nevertheless reduced income tax substantially. The Opposition, of course, will admit this either.

The grant for education is far too low.

I come next to inflation. This is between 15% and 16%, as I stated very clearly. It is too high. The Opposition asked what we were actually doing to combat inflation. I explained fully in my speech what the policy of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank is, what the fiscal policy is, what the budget policy is and how we have time and again insisted on constraint so that salaries and wages do not go into orbit. Now we are being asked what we have done. I also pointed out the new techniques. I am not going to do so again, because it is in my Hansard.

If there are people in our society who would be very quick to criticize us if they were not satisfied with this policy, then it is the businessmen of this country. But what do the top businessmen of the country have to say about our budgeting policy and our inflation policy? I have here the Star of 17 February 1981, two days ago. There one reads: “Horwood’s strategies to counter inflation create enthusiasm”. Of course they do not refer to the Opposition, for there one will not find any “enthusiasm” for anything at all, except for what they are able to publish in the New York Times and for what a person like the hon. member for Sea Point can go and tell Mr. McHenry. Then their enthusiasm goes through the ceiling.

At least we did not write To The Point.

Do you expect us to write to The Citizen?

Let me read what The Star had to say—

†They reacted to the strategies “with enthusiasm”. There was a very positive report on this. They quote the Federated Chamber of Industries, the chief executive of Assocom and also others whose opinion I should imagine means something to the economy and to the people of this country. Therefore I do not want to say more about inflation. With the new measures we are adopting to handle the very difficult issue of the quantity of money, with our insistence on eliminating all forms of unnecessary Government spending and with our general disciplined approach, I believe we have every chance of handling this problem as well.

One cannot increase productivity without improving education.

I just wish to refer to a few other aspects. I shall be as brief as possible. Quite a number of detailed points were raised. In the first place I wish to refer to lump sum payments from pension or providential funds upon retirement. This affects the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization. In the course of my Second Reading speech, when I discussed my request to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to review the formula for the calculation of the tax-free portion of a lump sum payment on a pension or providential fund upon retirement, time unfortunately did not allow me to mention the urgent plea addressed to me in this connection by the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization on behalf of employees in general who are members of pension or provident funds. Although we feel the same way about revising the formula which has been in operation for some time now, I shall only during the recess be able to give my attention to his additional request that any revision which may be decided on should be made with retrospective effect. All the implications must first be studied. I wish to give him the assurance that I am sympathetically disposed to this request, and if it is in any way feasible, I shall make the necessary concessions here.

Then, Sir, my old friend, the hon. member for Paarl, who made an excellent farewell speech, referred to the possible taxation of certain types of capital gains in the form of share sales. He pointed out that if a person, for example a pensioner, buys shares with his savings and then sells them at a profit, he may be taxed on the transaction. I think there is a measure of misunderstanding concerning the taxing of what I shall call here a capital gain, in the sense that it is a gain on a share purchased and then sold. Where a profit on the sale of shares is in fact of a capital nature it is not subject to income tax in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The taxing of capital gains does not follow automatically on the question from the Receiver of Revenue. In fact, every transaction has to be considered, because the Act does not classify people as share dealers, but requires that it should be determined whether a receipt was of a capital nature or not. The taxability, or otherwise, of the gain is in any case not something which is left to the discretion of the Receiver of Revenue. It is unfortunately the case that income is taxed regardless of the age of the person receiving it. I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member, but there are practical problems in the way. One of them is the fact that it is virtually impossible to establish when a person has retired. A person need not have a formal business undertaking in order to operate a profit-making enterprise. Some people never retire and remain active. To distinguish between them and people who are not active could in reality lead to a measure of discrimination in our tax administration, which could not always be defended. But, Sir, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will keep a very close watch on this matter. If there is anything we can do about it, we shall do so, but that is how we see it at present.

†During the debate there have been a number of requests from hon. members opposite that I should remove the general sales tax on foodstuffs. This is not the first time that this has been said. This is something which has been discussed ever since this tax was brought in. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this is a dangerous procedure, in the sense that where this has been done in other countries, they have run into enormous administrative problems. This is a transactions tax; you tax transactions, you do not tax commodities. If you give one exemption, for example on foodstuffs, today, tomorrow you have to give exemptions on clothing, and the next day on rent, and the next day on something else. This has been found in a number of countries. Great Britain is an excellent example. They started with a comparatively low rate. Then, under pressure, they started exempting foodstuffs. Then they exempted children’s clothing, which they have not been able to administer properly ever since they started that. They have been trying to exempt other things too, and their rate is now 15%. Germany, when I last heard, had made certain exemptions, and their rate was 13%—I think it might even be higher today. Ours is 4%. I say we have to be very careful before we start playing around with this. Indeed, in the world at large one finds many examples where there is a re-think going on. There are grave doubts as to the wisdom of making any exemptions at all from this kind of tax. It is not clear from the arguments of the Opposition whether in fact the proposed exemption of foodstuffs from the tax would be to the real benefit of the people for whom that is intended, i.e. those in the lower income groups. The sales tax system that we have is simple. It is designed to cause the least amount of administrative work to the businessmen who collect the tax. I say that exemptions on a commodity basis will be troublesome, and will result in increased administrative costs, which will have to be passed on to the consumers by way of price increases.

Supposing one saves 1% out of the 4%, who knows whether those administrative costs will not eventually become 2%? If hon. members opposite who raised this argument doubt this, I think they should consult with my departmental officials who are dealing with this matter every day to see just how complicated this tax would become if one starts making exemptions on the basis of commodities. Then, of course, I must tell hon. members, and I think it is fair to remind the House, that the Government does not simply tax people in a very modest way on foodstuffs without giving substantial relief in subsidies. Food subsidies this year, as I mentioned in my speech the other day, already amount to R250 million, and if we do not adjust the bread price soon these subsidies will go very much higher and will well exceed R300 million. In addition to the bread subsidy, I should again like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that if one talks about the poor, the people in the lower-income groups, the Government is providing for bus subsidies and rail subsidies as well. These are for the workers, many of them in the lower-income groups. This year already we have provided subsidies of R150 million. That amounts to R400 million under the headings of food and transport. Of course, one can still mention others. I say again, before we start tampering with this carefully devised tax, to make these exemptions we might find ourselves eventually, not with a 4% tax, but with a 10% or 15% tax, and we must realize what the implications can be.

I should also like to refer to what certain world authorities on this subject have had to say. Professor J. F. Due is a world authority on sales taxation, and after a very thorough study of the food exemptions applicable in the various states of America, under a similar kind of tax, he said—

That is our whole argument. If one says that this is to relieve the poor, I say that on balance one is not relieving the poor of any burden. One can in fact make it worse for them.

There is another authority, Dr. J. M. Shaefer, who writes in the National Tax Journal, and who says—

I have raised only a few of the issues. One could in fact say more about it. This is a very carefully taken decision in the first instance by the Government and, with the sort of argument that has been raised, I cannot possibly recommend to the Cabinet any change in a policy which I think is very well-founded.

I should like to raise one or two other points. The hon. member for Durban North had, as I have reminded hon. members before, the great benefit of a very good grounding at the University of Natal! In a refreshingly calm and objective speech, very unlike some we have heard, he raised some important matters. By the way, I do not know what came over the hon. member for Yeoville in this debate. What made the hon. member for Yeoville start off in such a very excitable way? He really did shout in this House. In fact he was almost as bad as the hon. member for Bryanston, except that nobody can compete with him. However, it was a refreshing contrast to listen to the hon. member for Durban North when he argued that interest payable on bonds should be exempt from tax, or that there should at least be a concession in that respect.

Last year, as the hon. member said—I thought I had answered very comprehensively in giving my view on this matter then—this matter was also raised here. After listening to him though, I must state that I cannot possibly be persuaded to admit that the attitude I have adopted is the wrong one. This whole question of the deductibility of bond interest on private homes for income tax purposes has been debated in this House, particularly in the last session. It is again one of those matters which are not quite as simple as they may appear on the surface, and although the matter was recently considered by the De Kock Commission in the course of its deliberations on monetary policy, particularly in regard to building societies—the outcome of which I have not yet been advised of—I decided to refer the matter to the Standing Commission on Taxation for thorough further investigation from a fiscal point of view, and also for an investigation of the possible inflationary effects, especially under present-day circumstances.

I do so advisedly as serious misgivings have been expressed here as well as overseas about the desirability of interest subsidies, either direct or through tax concessions, because of the possible inflationary effects on the price of housing. The hon. member may be interested to read what I think is a very interesting article on this subject. It appeared in the London Economist of 4 August 1979. There was also another article in the same publication in its issue of 1 March 1980. I believe the impression those articles clearly leave with one is that this is a matter with very wide-ranging implications, which needs to be very carefully looked at. I do not think the hon. member quoted my speech quite correctly in certain parts. I do not want to take up the time of the House with that, however. He did, for instance, question my explanation given last year, and said I had said it was a basic principle of the taxation of income that only expenditure incurred in the production of that income qualified for deduction and for the determination of taxable income, and that private or domestic expenses were not deductible. The hon. member said that was not a sacrosanct thing. In other words, it was something from which we could depart. There I must disagree with him. I think this is absolutely fundamental. If we depart from that we are in real trouble in administering any Income Tax Act. The hon. member also went on to say that we had rebates, abatements, that we deducted rebates for income tax purposes.

My word, Mr. Speaker, a rebate as a direct deduction from a tax is a very different thing from a subsidy on interest which arises in this form when housing is involved. These are two very, very different things.

Only when you want them to be different things.

Well, they are very different. They are completely different. Be it as it may, I have quite an extensive document here which I am prepared to show to the hon. member if he is interested. I shall try to put forward a few more arguments in that respect, should he want me to do so.

I do not want to take up the time of the House much longer. I have only one further point to put in detail albeit briefly. That relates to undistributed profits tax. Since the delivery of my speech this matter has arisen, and I think it is in the general interests of company management that I should make this point now instead of waiting for the next session of Parliament, when the appropriate amending legislation can be introduced.

The point is that as a result of the lowering of company income tax rates last year, the Income Tax Act was amended to grant a higher plough-back allowance in regard to trade income to compensate for this reduction to avoid what might be another rather irksome position for companies. The wording of the amendment, however, was such that the concession did not apply to companies whose years of assessment ended between 1 April 1980 and 31 December 1980, although the reduced rate of normal income tax will apply to them. It is intended to propose amending legislation during the next session of Parliament in order to correct this position. In the meantime the matter will be dealt with administratively to grant a plough-back allowance of 58% instead of 55% to the companies mentioned, in order to arrive at their distributable income for purposes of undistributed profits tax. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that that point has now been clarified.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I really regard ourselves in this country as being singularly fortunate to live in a country like South Africa. I can say this in relation to so many aspects of life in this country. However, in discussing the economy and financial policy in particular, I think we have a tremendous amount to be grateful for.

Except the Government!

As I said earlier, we have a growth rate second to none. We have a very powerful balance of payments position which reflects the state of our finances in relation to the outside world. This is a very important index of a country’s strength. We have employment running very strongly; in fact, in some important areas of the economy we have over-full employment, hence the shortage of skilled labour in many areas. However, as I said earlier, these are problems of prosperity. We have an inflation rate that is too high, but we are making great efforts to contain it, in fact, to bring it down. We do not intend to be satisfied simply to contain it. We must bring it down. I am not pessimistic on this score, Mr. Speaker. I am not complacent, but I am certainly not pessimistic. I also believe that we have a creditworthiness that goes far beyond our capacity to raise loans and finance abroad. I believe that our name abroad stands very high. I also believe that there is great respect for this country abroad, far greater respect than anybody would ever dream was the case if he read some of our newspapers and, unfortunately, if he listened to some of our members of Parliament belonging to Opposition parties.

In these circumstances, Sir, I think it is a very great pity that in all the speeches of members of the official Opposition—I heard them all and I listened to them very carefully—I think it would be correct to say that I do not think I heard a single good word said for the South African economy. I do not think I heard a single good word said for the South African economy or for our economic policies and for our financial policies under difficult circumstances. After all, Mr. Speaker, we need only look at the world around us. We are living in a greater world; we are not living in isolation. For its size, South Africa is trading on a very large scale with the rest of the world. Very large movements of capital in and out of the country are taking place all the time and we have all sorts of international contacts. I think that if one really wishes to be heartened and encouraged as to what is happening in South Africa, one need only go abroad and listen to so many people who know all about us and who have made a thorough study of our country. One need only talk to the important bankers. These are the people who study things in detail. There are also the financial people, the big industrialists who are interested in investing their money here. That is the test of confidence—when a man invests his money here.

But they talk to McHenry!

Yes, that is the point. Whom do they talk to? Talk to those people I have mentioned and one hears golden opinions about South Africa. These are the people who trade with us, who invest here and who are friends of ours. I can only say that I hope that one day, hopefully while I am still in this House—nobody knows where he will be for long—I shall live to see the day when hon. members of the Opposition say some good and justified and decent and constructive things about their own country. I think it is fair to say that. [Interjections.]

*We on this side, however, will carry on. We are engaged in the development of major initiatives which originated with the hon. the Prime Minister himself, this great scheme for the development of the country by means of co-operation. With this object in mind there are the Development Bank, the Small Business Development Corporation, and all the other instruments which will be created. There is also the great work which is being done in the constitutional sphere, and for which purpose we have established the President’s Council. In my opinion this is one of the most exciting and important steps we have ever taken in this country, but then we have an official Opposition which does not even want to participate in that great experiment. I say it is a pity. In any event I do not know how such a party can fight an election, for I do not think that the people in this country will want to have anything to do with a party which adopts such an attitude.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, when listening last night to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, I got the distinct impression that the hon. the Minister did not quite realize what potentially dangerous material was contained in this legislation.

I hope he has had time to study it.

The subject raised, by the hon. member for Yeoville in particular, was not dealt with properly by the hon. the Minister, and I am consequently not sure whether the hon. the Minister quite understood what the hon. member had in mind. Let me deal again with the specific point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. If the Government—or any Government, for that matter—were to lose an election by one vote, or if there were perhaps to be a realignment of political loyalties through splits, mergers or whatever else might occur, resulting in a minority of one for the Government, that Government could still retain a majority by way of the eight members indirectly elected in terms of the proposed new section 40(1C).

Again you did not listen to the hon. the Minister.

I listened very closely. I wish the hon. the Minister would listen to me now. The Government could retain a majority, albeit temporarily, through the eight indirectly elected members and the four appointed members. With this majority the Government could then go to the State President, as the majority party, and recommend to him the reappointment of four NP members for a new five-year term. After that the Government could convene an electoral college for the purpose of re-electing the eight indirectly elected members, and although the Government might then only be able to get three out of the eight, the Government would still end up with a majority of one. It is quite possible, if the Government were to lose by only one vote, that it might get four of the eight members through the electoral college, in which case the Government would end up with a majority of three. This means that the Bill before us enables the Government to frustrate the will of the people in a perfectly legal, if totally immoral, fashion.

I should like to challenge the hon. the Minister who spoke himself about constitutional conventions. Once again I want to assure the hon. the Minister, however, that we have gone into this matter thoroughly. I therefore confidently want to challenge the hon. the Minister to quote to us a single constitutional convention which compels the Prime Minister to resign if he loses the election involving the 165 ordinary members but retains his majority through the eight indirectly elected members or the four nominated ones.

You are really stupid.

There is no constitutional convention compelling the Government to resign in such an event. I further want to challenge the hon. the Minister to quote a single constitutional convention compelling the State President to demand the resignation of the Government which loses the election by one vote and yet retains its majority—although temporarily— by way of the eight indirectly elected members. I do not believe there are any such conventions. Therefore I believe that it is most definitely possible, in terms of constitutional law, for such an eventuality to arise.

I want to argue furthermore that it is not out of character for the Government to ignore the will of the people and the constitutional tradition in South Africa in this way, and the Coloured people in South Africa can bear witness to this. We all know that in the ’fifties Senators were appointed by the Government to obtain a two-thirds majority in order to disenfranchise the Coloured people. We also all know that later on the will of the Coloured people, as expressed in an electoral majority vote for the Labour Party, was rejected by the Government which appointed Federal Party and other members to put the Labour Party into opposition, and a number of members so appointed had been specifically rejected by the electorate in that Coloured election. Clause 1, then, gives the Government the power to ignore the citizens of this country and to stay in power even though it is in the minority—a small minority obviously. If this is not a departure from democracy, and is not offensive to any South African who cares for his basic democratic rights, I would be very surprised indeed.

Hear, hear!

I have also raised the prospect of convening a Parliament with the eight indirectly elected members and the four nominated members from the previous Parliament still taking their seats in the new Parliament, thus perverting the democratic expression of the will of the people, the electorate. This possibility was specifically raised by me and I want to point out that it was not denied. The hon. member for Barberton spoke as if he accepted that this was a possibility. I wish he would read his own Hansard. When he dealt with the matter, he actually accepted it. This possibility was never denied by any hon. member on the other side either. Sir, I believe that this is a distinct possibility, which means that after a new election, a government which does not enjoy the majority of public support—in other words, a government which has a minority of one or two properly elected members—can actually continue to pass legislation in the House, legislation which affects South Africans’ daily life and the administration of the country. I believe this is a totally unacceptable state of affairs. I would not even try to suggest what the Government had in mind in this regard—I do not care to deal with that at the moment—but I believe it is an extremely dangerous clause that we have before us because I regard it as a blow to democratic representation in the House. It devalues the vote of every South African who bothers to take the trouble to support a candidate of a particular political party. This clause also reflects on the status of all those members of the House who have subjected themselves to the ups and downs of democratic election in the proper and accepted way. We will therefore oppose this clause and we hope that when the voters of South Africa go to the polls on 29 April . . .

They will not be voting for you.

. . . they will know that the NP is devaluing their voting rights and their democratic rights and that, moreover, the NP expects them to continue to pay the salaries of members who cannot claim to represent anything for anybody in South Africa. We will therefore oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has once again taken up the time of this House in presenting us with a far-fetched hypothesis, viz. that this side of the House, according to him, would possibly poll a minority of the votes in the forthcoming election. Firstly that supposition is so far-fetched that it would in itself be enough to destroy the hon. member’s entire argument.

Why don’t you deal with the law?

I am coming to that. The hon. member must just give me a chance; I did not interrupt him. I am just trying to explain to the hon. member how ridiculous his entire supposition is. His whole premise is ridiculous.

He is ridiculous.

The hon. member went on to argue that, according to him, no convention exists for any specific conduct in this regard. But surely the hon. member knows as well as any of us that we are dealing here with an entirely new dispensation and in the nature of things there cannot be any conventions which can provide us with guidance in this regard. After all, we are working on a unique, new situation. Therefore, to come and kick up a fuss here that no conventions exist in this regard is simply mere rhetoric, and nothing else.

The hon. the Minister referred to it.

The hon. member said that if a government or a party—let us rather speak of “a” government or “a” party, for it is too far-fetched to refer in this regard to this Government or this side of the House—were to obtain a minority at an election, it would be possible for such a government or a party to sustain an artificial majority. Surely this is simply not contained in the Bill. I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point a question. It seems to me that we have here a blatantly incorrect reading of the Bill on the part of the official Opposition. Otherwise I cannot understand this argument at all, particularly in the light of the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave very clearly in this regard last night.

It was clear, but it was not logical.

Oh rubbish! We now have the opportunity of debating this matter and that is why I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point, with reference to the Bill, on what he bases the standpoint he put forward. Let him reply to that so that we can discuss it with one another. For me and any other hon. member on this side of the House to furnish repeated explanations while the hon. member repeatedly comes forward with his incorrect interpretation, surely does not get us anywhere. I should like the hon. member to explain to us where in the Bill he finds grounds for the standpoint he put forward that it was possible for a minority to create an artificial majority for itself in terms of this Bill. If the hon. member is able to explain that to me, we can proceed to debate the matter further with one another.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to clause 1, I should just like to reiterate that when we attack the system we are not necessarily attacking the individuals in the relevant positions. I should like hon. members to bear that in mind when it comes to the discussion of the clause. We in this party are in fact attacking the system and the changes proposed to the system in clause 1, but in no way are we reflecting on the incumbents in these positions.

In the first instance the effect of this clause is to extend the life of the nominated and indirectly elected members of the House for a further period beyond the general election date of 29 April. There are a number of very important principles involved in this particular clause which will have quite a serious and considerable effect on the form of democracy we have in South Africa.

Before coming to the hon. the Minister, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Normally he strikes one as quite an intelligent and fairly logical member, but I am afraid that yesterday he surpassed himself and quite surprised me as well. I am sure other hon. members of the House were also quite surprised at the lack of logic and insight on the part of the hon. member with regard to the effect of this clause. I should like to read from the member’s Second Reading speech as it appears in Hansard. He levelled an accusation at my colleague, the hon. member for East London North, who unfortunately could not be here today. Inter alia, the hon. member for Mossel Bay had the following to say (Hansard, 18 February)—

The hon. member for Mossel Bay, responding to that, continued—

Sir, this very debate begs the question. Surely, if that were not so, we would not be having this debate at all. Secondly, I should like to refer the hon. member for Mossel Bay to section 37(4) of the Constitution Fifth Amendment Act, 1980, where it is stated categorically that—

But read the proviso as well.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to point out to the hon. member for Mossel Bay that he is illogical in his approach to this clause.

Have you read section 53 of the Act?

I believe, Sir, that you will agree with me that the effect . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Yes, Sir. The effect of this clause is in fact to extend the period of membership of those members and that is why we are having this debate.

I should like to return to a second argument raised by the Government regarding the acceptance of the principle, and that is that a precedent was created when we had the Senate in that the period of office of the Senators was not necessarily cut short by an election being called or this House rising. However, there is an important difference here. That was a House of Review and this is a legislative assembly which produces legislation. I do not think that the functions of the two Houses are comparable and therefore the work of the members is not comparable either. Here, the nominated or indirectly elected members, whose political lives are to be extended by this clause, perform an inherent function within the Assembly. The Senate performed a review function outside the Assembly. I think therefore it is totally fallacious to argue that the Senate created a precedent for this Assembly.

More important than that, Mr. Chairman, we will totally oppose this clause because in terms of what the hon. Minister has put forward here we believe that he is creating a category of favoured sons in the House of Assembly. When an individual accepted nomination to be a nominated or indirectly elected member, he accepted that offer in terms of the constitution as it stands at the moment. He understood the risks and procedure and I believe that it is totally unfair to every single directly elected member of this House that we should now create a category of favoured sons. The principle which the hon. the Minister understands very well as a trained lawyer is that of mutatis mutandis and it should apply here. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that that is a very sound principle in legislation and in law. Why create favoured sons? The loss of the nominated members will be considerably less than that of elected members should their benefits discontinue on 29 April. Why are we creating this category of favoured sons in terms of this clause? We believe that the principle of nominated members, which was accepted by the majority of this House, should be pursued, but I do not think it is right to tinker further with the Constitution. It is also not appropriate. We cannot continue to tinker with the South African Constitution to help the National Party with its problems. This is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and if there is one principle that should apply, if we are going to have nominated and indirectly elected members, it is that of mutatis mutandis, equal for all. That is what we are talking about here today and we in this party will not agree to creating a category of favoured sons. If one comes into politics as a nominated or elected member one should share equally in the risks and the possibility that one may not come back. For those reasons alone I think we have sufficient justification to negate this clause completely.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Allow me to explain once again what I am trying to bring home to him.

You need not explain. Just indicate what you are basing it on.

If clause 1 of this Bill were to be passed, it would mean of course that the terms of office of the eight members referred to in section 40(1)(c) and the four members in section 40(1)(b) would be extended until after the election. In other words, the NP still has the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Constitutionally it is entitled to them. Now the Cabinet recommends to the State President that he should again nominate the four nominated members for a further term, for this must be done. The four members must again be nominated at some stage and the eight members must again be elected. Now the NP recommends that the four members should be nominated, and four NP supporters are nominated, i.e. whatever happens with the convening of the electoral college, if the NP receives, say, a minority of two of the eight indirectly elected members, or even if there is parity, if there are four for the NP and four for the other parties, that means that the NP still has a majority of at least one of the total number of members. If there is parity as regards the eight members, then the NP has a majority of three. In other words, it is possible for the NP to remain in power in that way, until such time as the next election is held. I mention this as a very definite constitutional possibility and I should like the hon. the Minister and hon. members to consider that position and then explain to us why that cannot be the case. We are convinced that this is absolutely correct and that such a possibility very definitely exists.

Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to argue this matter at length because the fundamental error of reasoning which the hon. member for Green Point is making is that he is putting the cart before the horse. He proceeds on the assumption that the indirectly elected members will form part of the electoral college which will elect the indirectly elected members, and surely that is not the case. The fact of the matter is that surely they will neither have a say in nor participate in their own election.

That is not our contention.

But this is an inherent part of the calculation the hon. member has just made.

He did not say that.

It is inherent in his calculation.

Surely we Van Rensburgs are not that stupid.

The fact of the matter is that theoretically or academically—whatever one wishes to call it—the terms of office of those members are to be extended, further than those of the directly elected members, and that the party will then theoretically and technically have a majority. But the fact of the matter is that the moment the re-election of indirectly elected members by the electoral college takes place, their term of office ends, and consequently they are no longer part of the electoral college at that stage. Consequently the calculations on which the hon. member is basing his argument, are incorrect.

[Inaudible.]

What the hon. member for Bryanston knows about these matters, is dangerous. He should rather keep out of it.

I am asking a simple question.

Simple people ask simple questions.

The hon. member for Green Point is making a fundamental error in his assumption that the indirectly elected members will participate in their own election. I say that that is not correct.

He did not say that. You were not listening.

Mr. Chairman, let us start all over again for the information of hon. members opposite. If hon. members are looking for the provision which determines how the House of Assembly is constituted, they can find it in section 17 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fifth Amendment Act, 1980. The House of Assembly consists of three components, three constituent categories of members. In the first place there are the 165 members who are elected by way of a general election; in the second place, the four members who are nominated and, in the third place, the eight members who are elected by the 165 members.

When, therefore, the House of Assembly is dissolved by the State President at the present stage, the House of Assembly in its entirety is dissolved, and then it must be re-constituted. It is possible to have the 165 members elected on a specific day, but it is not possible to have the other two elements elected or nominated on the same day.

But surely that goes without saying!

Yes, surely that goes without saying. In other words, after a general election the House of Assembly has not yet been properly constituted. That is what is contained in the Act. All we are now doing is to supply an obvious omission in the Act so that the House of Assembly may be properly constituted by the separate components as stipulated in the Act. Surely the House of Assembly accepted that it would consist of 177 members and surely it accepted that they would arrive here by different routes.

With all due respect to the hon. member for Durban North, for he knows that I have a high regard him, I must say that his argument was completely erroneous.

†The hon. member advanced a completely wrong argument. He said there were favourite boys in Parliament.

I said you would create favourite boys.

No, I am not creating them. If I did not do this, the members of Parliament who will be elected on 29 April would be the favourite boys.

Why?

Because other people will then not be in a position to be elected or nominated on the same date. If I am therefore creating favourite boys, I will only do it if I accept the argument put forward by the hon. member. It is a completely fallacious argument. I say this with great respect to the hon. member. He also made another mistake in his argument. He argues that because the Senate, which was the Upper House of Parliament, became a House of review, one cannot argue that because it was possible to extend the term of office of Senators after a general election it cannot be applied in this instance. That argument is wrong. It is wrong for the simple reason that at the stage when the Senate still constituted part of Parliament we had a bicameral Parliament, notwithstanding that fact the Senate was an intrinsic part of Parliament.

*With all due respect to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, his argument is unacceptable. We need not differ on it in an unpleasant way. As far as this matter is concerned, we have opposing standpoints. However, the hon. member will concede that I am right when I say that if these members were to be elected by an electoral college on a provincial basis, his party would have adopted a different standpoint. The hon. member is shaking his head. Surely he was not on the Select Committee. I was. The hon. member will surely concede that I am discussing this matter on the basis of firsthand knowledge.

Let us take the argument further. If we were to accept that my argument is correct— and no one can dispute that the House of Assembly has not yet been properly reconstituted before it consisted of 177 members, for that is what the Act stipulates—then 165 members of Parliament have the opportunity of being elected on a specific day. That is the day of the general election. The State President has the right to appoint the members he wishes to appoint on the same day on which the general election takes place. Consequently their position may be dealt with in a different way. However, this does not apply to the other eight members. In other words, I am depriving the other eight members of their right, a right which the hon. member himself has. On what grounds does the hon. member now want us to have to negotiate a favourable position in this legislation for him and other hon. members who are eligible for election? De facto, that is what the hon. member’s argument amounts to. All I am therefore trying to bring about in this legislation is to reconstitute the House of Assembly in a practical way as the Act stipulates it should be.

I come now to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member astonishes me. Nowhere in our constitution is it stated that a governing party which loses an election must resign. Does he agree with that? Very well then. The convention states that a governing party which receives fewer than half the number of seats in a general election or no longer has the majority of the elected seats after that election, must resign.

Will you?

Mr. Chairman, I am talking to an hon. member who participated meaningfully in a debate. [Interjections.] I have just been saying that in that case that Government must resign. Then the State President must ask the leader of the party that won the majority of seats to form a government. In other words, the determining element for the implementation of the convention lies in the party which wins the most seats. All of us know that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with nominated members or members who have been elected by elected members. Consequently I ask in all fairness: Where does the hon. member for Green Point find any precedent whatsoever for his standpoint? It runs contrary to every convention that exists.

I can prove it to you.

Why did the hon. member not do so yesterday?

I did, but the hon. the Minister did not reply.

Perhaps the hon. member can prove it, but I shall be pleased if he would just give me a chance to state my case. That is the convention. That is why I want to accuse the hon. members opposite of wanting to create an impression for political considerations that we supposedly wish to establish a mechanism which could negate the result of an election. If that were not so petty, it would be ridiculous, for there is no one in this country who thinks that in the foreseeable future those hon. members jointly or separately will be able to win so many constituencies that an operation of that nature will be necessitated. We must at least function factually. Their numbers are not increasing; they are dwindling. I venture to predict now that after 29 April those hon. members will once again return in smaller numbers. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather come back to the Bill.

I must argue the point, Sir, for last night the hon. member for Yeoville made a direct accusation. He said that this legislation was being manipulated through Parliament.

The constitution.

Yes, of course, but the Constitution creates Parliament. I want to tell the hon. member that that is a despicable argument. The hon. member knows as well as I do that his party will make use of the results of this legislation as soon as it is on the Statute Book. I challenge him to deny that. I challenge the hon. members for Yeoville and Green Point to deny that when this Bill has been passed, they will make use of its results. If they are not prepared to tell me now that the hon. member who is seated on their side and is involved in this, is going to resign on dissolution day, there is no argument here.

But then you will say that we are boycotters again.

I am coming to the boycotters in a moment. [Interjections.]

That is a stupid argument.

Order!

But if it is stupid, surely the hon. member will be able to understand it. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that it was a stupid member?

No, Sir. The hon. member said it was a stupid argument and in reply to that I said that in that case the hon. member ought to be able to understand it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Surely the fact is . . .

Oh please, leave the point. He is an unparliamentary fellow . . .

Sir, with all due respect, the hon. member for Yeoville should really give me a chance.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw those words.

Sir, I said he is an unparliamentary fellow and it does not matter if he uses unparliamentary expressions.

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

Order! That is a reflection on the Chair.

I withdraw the remark, Sir.

Sir, you will permit me to react to this. The hon. member for Yeoville always poses in this House as a person who upholds high morale codes and maintains codes of conduct. I now ask him: Who by implication accused people this afternoon of stupidity—he or I?

Your whole speech is that.

With all due respect, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville must not kick up a fuss when his party causes him to find himself in a dilemma, for that is what is at issue. Who but members among their number started to accuse the hon. member’s party of being, among other things, boycotters? Now he says we are responsible for that—we call them boycotters if they do not participate in certain things. But he is a boycotter, for the fact is that his party’s members say so; just ask Mr. Japie Basson or Mr. Wiese.

Order! The hon. the Minister must come back to the clause.

Yes, Sir.

He has no argument on the clause.

Order!

I do have an argument on the clause. [Interjections.] I am arguing in the first place—I say this in conclusion— that the convention stipulates that the party which wins the majority of seats in an election is asked by the State President in terms of existing conventions to constitute a Government. I am arguing in the second place that if it were to happen that a party other than the governing party of the day were to win the majority of the seats, they would then be entitled to constitute a government as well as to recommend to the State President the nominated members. Moreover they will also be entitled to convene the electoral college the next day so that the other members may be elected. That is all we are doing, and in my opinion all other arguments are merely a smokescreen behind which they hope to achieve political objectives.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have waited now quite patiently for the hon. the Minister to give a reply to what I raised yesterday, but there still is not an adequate reply. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that yesterday I raised two specific points with him. The first was that a member who was nominated or elected by the electoral college could in terms of the legislation be given certain privileges and benefits which would not apply to members who fought elections and who would therefore be in a more disadvantageous position. To that the hon. the Minister has at this moment in time still not replied.

I give the example again which I gave last night. Take the situation that there are for instance members who are going to fight elections now, some of them on that side of the House perhaps, who have been in the House for a period that is too short for them to qualify for a pension. They fight an election, lose it, and they get no pension. On the other hand, a man who becomes a nominated member and who has served for the same period of time, could as a result of this period of 180 days be protected in regard to the pension that would be awarded to him. I am not affected by it and neither are the majority of hon. members sitting here affected by it, but there are hon. members in the House who are affected by it and there may be people who in future will be affected by it. Therefore it is a legitimate argument to advance and I think the hon. the Minister owes us a reply in this regard.

I did not use the terminology but the hon. member for Durban North used it when he gave another example as to where there was a degree of advantage. We are not entitled to reflect upon the law of Parliament even though we might disagree with it, but we feel that in the very least an elected member must surely be as good as a nominated member or one who is elected by an electoral college. I think other examples have been mentioned. An elected member has certain obligations to his constituency. He has certain expenditure in regard to his constituency. There is a whole variety of things where, in fact, the elected member is disadvantaged vis-a-vis the nominated member, and everybody who cares to study the situation will realize this. In our view this is not a good principle because members who are elected by the people to speak for them in this House are to my mind at least to be treated as well as those who are appointed through the mechanism of the Government. I would like to hear the answer to that and I think the hon. the Minister owes me a reply on that point.

I come now to the second argument that I advanced last night and which has been taken further by the hon. member for Green Point. That is the argument that, in fact, this Bill, by reason of the ability to use the time limits and to adapt oneself to them, read together with the existing Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, the main statute which we are amending, can be used in such a manner so as to maintain a minority government in power. That is the argument and I am going to demonstrate that that is a valid argument with the very words that the hon. the Minister used. And I shall tell you why it is valid, Sir. The hon. the Minister made the point, not once but repeatedly—he can correct me if I am wrong—that in terms of the law now, Parliament as it is known, is Parliament as it is constituted with elected members, nominated members and persons elected by the electoral college.

Correct.

That is the very test, because the real convention in the constitutional system of democracies such as exist, is not merely that a party is in a minority after an election, but the test is whether after an election there is a motion of no confidence passed in the Government in Parliament. I am going to give you constitutional examples of it, Sir. The reason why, when a party is completely in a minority in a two party system, the members of that party resign immediately as the Government, is because they know there is going to be a motion of no confidence passed in them. That is why, in anticipation of that, so that there should not be a motion of no confidence, the party in fact resigns. However, the constitutional situation is that as a Government one is entitled to go to Parliament and then see whether a motion of no confidence will be passed in one, because in a party system where, in fact, there are smaller parties and where the governing party is not the party that has an overall majority, one may well get the smaller parties to vote with one.

A constitutional example that I can give immediately is the example of what happened in Canada. In Canada the Government was in the minority and, not having an absolute majority, nevertheless found that it could muster up a motion of confidence because certain of the minority parties supported it. Eventually, however, some of the minority parties went back on the agreement, in fact over a budget issue, and the result was that the Government of Mr. Clark was defeated. So here was a case of a government being formed when the Government party was actually in the minority. That is just one example, however, because I can give many others.

But that example is not applicable here.

I can give many other examples from constitutional history. The real test, of course, is whether the Government can get laws passed in Parliament, and that depends on whether the Government can withstand a motion of no confidence at the very outset. If, however, at any time thereafter there is a sustained motion of no confidence in the Government, the Government must resign. One could also look at the constitutional situation in the United Kingdom. There that is the real test as well. If that is correct—and I submit that it is correct—the hon. the Minister’s argument completely proves my point, because if Parliament is as constituted, including the nominated members and those appointed by the electoral college, if the Government were to lose the election and come back with a minority of three, by the use of the appointed members it could maintain itself in power and ward off any motion of no confidence. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is so because every one of the nominated members can vote. A nominated member’s vote is as good as mine, in fact as good as that of anyone else in this Parliament. That is the truth of the matter, and the hon. the Minister has proved it. That that is the situation is therefore beyond question. A fascinating aspect is that when the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was dealing with this issue, he touched upon this point. He used the argument that one could have the governing party with 83 members returned to Parliament and the losing party being returned with 82 members. He said that if one then had to appoint a Speaker, the two parties would be numerically equal. In those circumstances, he said, one should be allowed to appoint members so as to have a working majority. Why? The answer is because one needs a working majority in order to be able to ward off a vote of no confidence. I therefore say that this piece of legislation, read in conjunction with the existing legislation, is a mechanism for constitutional gerrymandering. I said it was possible to use this mechanism to frustrate the constitutional process.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not arguing the principal Act at the moment?

No, I am not.

Now you are in trouble, Chris.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I said last night, and I want to repeat . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Sir, I am talking about the clause. One could actually use the time limit of 180 days to maintain oneself in power, see to it that one’s own people were reappointed as the nominated MPs and then, even in a minority position, still get half the members through the electoral college. I say this because the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said that until such time as the party has 21 members less, it can always still get half of the eight members. So with a minority of three, the Government party can obtain four appointed members, giving it a majority. It could then obtain another four through the electoral college and maintain itself in government. The proof of this is in the hon. the Minister’s own statement—and I agree with him—that Parliament, as now constituted by law, is not a Parliament consisting only of those members elected by the people, but a Parliament including the other 12 members as well. The test is, of course, whether or not a motion of no confidence can be passed.

Mr. Chairman, it is really amazing to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville.

The truth is always amazing.

What is the convention? The convention says that after a general election, the State President must ask the party which has won the most constituencies to form a Government.

But what I said could in fact happen.

Oh, be quiet please. I did not keep interrupting the hon. member for Yeoville.

Let us now take the extreme circumstances which the hon. member for Yeoville submitted to support his argument, namely that the result is 82 to 83. Let us take it that in terms of the convention, the State President designates the leader of that party as the one who is to form a Government.

They are not even going to put up 83 candidates!

What the hon. member for Barberton says is an effective argument to which the hon. member for Yeoville would do well to reply.

The State President can immediately nominate four other members in terms of this provision, and then the party which won 83 seats will have 87 seats. The leader of that party can then convene the electoral college the following day and elect the other nominated members. Where does the hon. member for Yeoville get the argument that the Bill makes it possible to change the outcome of a general election?

The result is the final result.

Surely the result is the final result. The hon. member knows that is correct, after all.

We remember the packed Senate and the high court of Parliament.

We also remember “vote for the right to vote again”.

Vote for the right to nominate again.

Order!

Sir, I really do not think we should argue this point further.

I now come to the second argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. Today that hon. member—and I say this with great respect— argued about the principle whether there should be nominated and indirectly elected members. That has already been debated in this House; it appears in the Statute Book and I do not intend to argue about it. But then we come to a practical situation, namely that the House of Assembly cannot be constituted after a general election in terms of the existing legislation as provided in the section in question. For example, it is not practicable. All that is happening now is that to prevent us having to convene a special meeting of the electoral college after the general election merely to elect the eight members, we are now extending the period of office of those people by not more than 180 days. Why is their period of office being extended by 180 days? After all, we have had elections in the first half of the year in the past. On such occasions Parliament usually meets towards the end of July or the beginning of August, after a recess. I can tell the hon. member now that on the same day that a decision is taken on when Parliament is to convene, the date for the meeting of the electoral college will also be announced. The electoral college will meet before the Parliamentary session begins. With great respect, there is no merit in the hon. member’s argument. I want to concede at once the argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Durban North as well as the hon. member for Yeoville to the effect that in a certain respect, these members could be in a more favourable position than those who are elected in an election. I do not argue that point; I have never argued it. But on the other hand, if this provision is not inserted and the nominated members are full-fledged members of Parliament, they are worse off than the hon. members who are sitting here, because they cannot be elected on the election date. On that date there is still no electoral college, because on that date the electoral college has not yet been fully constituted. Many of the results only appear later. I want to concede one point to the hon. member, and that is that whatever we do, there is an element of preferential treatment of one or the other. I concede that at once. On balance, however, the step I am taking now is preferable. All the hon. members sitting here have the opportunity to be elected. The other hon. members who must be elected, cannot be elected on that date. It is physically impossible. Now I have to afford them the opportunity to become members too. That is all that is stated here. With great respect, I want to say that there is nothing sinister about this. It is purely a practical method of constituting the House of Assembly. If the hon. members must adopt a standpoint in this connection, I want to put it to them that we had better agree to disagree on the matter, and that we should not ascribe motives to one another which are not based on fact, which are untrue and which are unfair.

Mr. Chairman, I should first of all like to react to one or two points made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He said I was suggesting . . .

Order! I want to tell the hon. member I am not going to allow a repetition of arguments.

Sir, I shall not be repeating any argument. The hon. member for Mossel Bay suggested that I was saying that the eight members would be participating in their own election. I never suggested anything like that. What I did suggest was that the eight members would assist the Government to retain a majority against the will of the people only for as long as they need to recommend to the State President the appointment of four new members. I shall leave it at that. That is certainly possible.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the relevant constitutional convention and maintains that the constitutional convention in South Africa is that the party with the majority of seats is the party that forms the Government. With great respect, I beg to differ from the hon. the Minister. The convention does not necessarily relate to the majority of seats, or constituencies, but to the majority in Parliament. Irrespective of whether my contention in this regard is correct, surely the hon. the Minister does not want to suggest that for purposes of establishing which is the majority party the State President will ignore the existence of the eight members. He cannot do it.

He has to, all the same.

No, he cannot ignore them. The amendment contained in clause 1 does not even suggest an extension of the term of office of the eight members; but that they will be deemed to have been appointed, i.e. reappointed. In other words, in terms of clause 1 of the Bill as it reads they will be considered to be newly appointed members for that period. Therefore I cannot believe that for the purposes of convention this cannot apply. Obviously one can adopt some other point of view towards this argument, but the hon. member for Mossel Bay, interestingly enough, said earlier in the debate, before the hon. the Minister spoke, that there were no conventions in South African constitutional law . . .

Quote me fully and correctly.

Let him listen to me. He said there were no constitutional conventions applicable to this situation . . .

To which situation?

. . . because this is a new system. He is quite correct. Obviously the convention relating to which party is the majority party must be affected by the new composition of Parliament. If the eight members are considered to be full members of Parliament, they must be considered as such by the Prime Minister, by the State President and by constitutional convention unless, it is specifically stipulated that that is not the case. The only stipulation to that effect anywhere in the constitution as it stands now is that those eight members will not participate in their own election, which is fair enough. However, in every other sense they are full members of Parliament. They must be considered when establishing who is the majority in Parliament, and therefore the contention that the Government can retain power is a valid one and will remain a valid one.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to the hon. the Minister’s reply, I am afraid that his party and mine will just have to differ regarding the interpretation as to what the Senate did and what it did not do.

All right, we differ on that.

But it still makes their argument totally invalid, Sir. However, I should like to come back to the argument regarding the functions of these members whose lives are going to be extended. That, I think, is of paramount importance to this clause which we are going to vote on in a few minutes. The motivation for bringing the hon. nominated and indirectly elected members into this House is purported to be for their specialized knowledge and for the fact that they will contribute that specialized knowledge in this House for the purposes of creating new legislation or amending legislation. Once those hon. members leave here, when this House has prorogued, they have no further function. They have absolutely no function at all, but the elected members of this House have a responsibility to their constituencies and towards this House in that there is certain on-going business which has to be performed. The nominated and indirectly elected members, however, and particularly the nominated members, have no responsibility to a constituency. Therefore, if one wants to be totally brutal, one can ask: What are those members being paid for? I qualified this earlier when I said that I was not attacking the members themselves, but the system. Why is it necessary to continue to pay those members?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is again discussing the principle of this legislation, which was approved last year and also at the Second Reading of this measure.

The hon. member is discussing the salaries paid to these members after the election, so he is not out of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, this is a question which must be asked. Why is it that the hon. the Minister wants to continue remunerating these people when their function terminates when this House goes into recess? If one wants to be absolutely brutal, that is the question that has to be answered. Furthermore, there is a further practical difficulty. The hon. the Minister is assuming and making a presumption that the proportions of the elected members of this House will be identical when they come back after the election.

Of course not.

If the hon. the Minister says “of course not”, then how can he assume that the proportions of the nominated members must remain the same? What if there is a drastic change in the proportion of representation in this House? Let me use as an example the practical difficulties which we shall have, let alone the moral difficulties. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument—although there is obviously no substance in this—that there is a considerable change in the proportion of representation between the National Party and the PFP. Or, Sir, let us take an even better example—the proportion between the PFP and the NRP—because this is a certainty. Let us assume that we come back with 20 members and that they come back with four. [Interjections.] Their indirectly elected member is then going to draw a salary on the credit of the NRP until the electoral college sits again. Is that morally and practically right, Sir? Why should a potential nominated member of this party not receive a salary while another member does?

However, I should like to come back to the first point, namely the motivation which that Government used to argue for nominated members in this House. They have no function at all after the prorogation of Parliament, absolutely nothing. Therefore, if one wants to be brutally frank, they cannot be treated more favourably than members of this House who have a responsibility until they are either re-elected on 29 April or lose their seats.

Mr. Chairman . . .

They can visit Paraguay again!

[Inaudible.]

No, I have a very important point to make. I am exercising my right as an elected member and I will continue to do so, if you do riot mind. Do not tell me to sit down. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister was not addressing the hon. member for Yeoville; he was responding to the member making interjections behind him.

Then I apologize, Sir. I am sorry; I thought he was talking to me. I think the issue which has been raised with this Bill in relation to the constitutional conventions, is actually a very important one. I think it is very important whether the hon. the Minister is right, that merely on the outcome of an election the party which has the majority of the seats should be called upon to form the Government, or whether that is not so. I think he and I agree that it is an important principle. I am submitting that the issue is whether the leader of a political party who is asked to form the Government will be able to obtain a vote of confidence in the House; that is the test. The test is whether it is the House as it is then constituted. I have already given the example of Canada, but I now want to give some other examples to demonstrate that it is almost inevitable in a Western constitutional structure that, firstly, the test is not who wins the most seats, but who can obtain a vote of confidence. For example, let us take the West German Federal Republic. The SPD is a minority party as it has less seats than the CDU/CSU. Yet it is the leader of SPD who is asked to form the Government, because it can rely at the present moment on the support of the SDP. In other words, it is not the biggest party which is automatically asked to form the Government, but the leader of the political party who can obtain a vote of confidence in the House. I give another example, the example of the United Kingdom and the Labour Party and how it ruled by means of an arrangement—not even a pact—with the Liberal Party. I give the example of Italy, where every time a Government is formed, nobody has an absolute majority. The test is whether the particular politician, who for years has been a member of the Christian Democratic Party, can obtain a vote of confidence in the House. I can also quote France and every other democratic country, because it is relatively and perhaps unfortunately unique that in South Africa for a long period of time we have had one political party that for a considerable period of time now has actually had a majority of the seats. But there is no guarantee that that is going to continue indefinitely. On the contrary. One cannot have constitutional conventions which are based on the political positions at the time. A constitutional convention has to cover every contingency. That is why I have said, and there is no question of doubt about it, that the test is who can obtain a vote of confidence in the House. If that is so, it is the House as constituted, as the hon. the Minister himself has said, and that means it includes the nominated members and the members who are elected by the electoral college. We are not just catering here for the Government of today, the Government of the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, we are catering in this law for whatever Government, whatever Prime Minister, whatever leader of a political party may be here from time to time. That is why this particular provision, while it may be a small Statute, while it may be one provision of a law, is capable of being abused in order to provide a mechanism for constitutional jerrymandering, can be abused. So, I would appeal to the hon. members who sit in the Nationalist benches to support us in supporting the true convention of democratic Government in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville puts forward his own assumptions with regard to a convention and then argues on the basis of those assumptions. However, he reaches an incorrect conclusion. Of course it is true that when parties are unable to obtain a workable majority in an election, they enter into agreements with other political parties. In that case those parties form the majority in the Parliament. However, the case we are arguing about now is not on all fours. I say that with great respect. It is nowhere near an equivalent case. What the hon. member for Yeoville is doing, is to debate the desirability of supplementary members of the House of Assembly. But, Sir, with great respect, that has already been disposed of, and accordingly we need not take it any further. I just want to point out to the hon. member how strong the convention is. There is nothing in the constitution to say that the State President should designate anyone as Prime Minister. That is a convention. The only reference to the Prime Minister contained in the constitution is in section 10(2). It is that when the State President wants to resign, the Prime Minister must be notified. That is all. However, the power of the convention is strong enough to cause the system to function. The power of the system rests more on convention than on statutory provisions. The hon. member knows that that is so.

Permit me to address the hon. member for Durban North once again, an hon. member who presented moral arguments here. It is strange how one is always capable of perceiving immorality in other people and not in oneself. What does the hon. member say? He says that after the election the roles of hon. members of the Opposition parties could change, and that this provision would then make this unjust, in that the official Opposition would have one of these representatives, and not the party that could become the new official Opposition. Surely that was not the standpoint of the NRP with regard to the composition of the Senate. Despite the result of elections . . .

Do not bring the Senate into it.

I shall bring the Senate into it, because what is moral is moral, whether it affects the Senate or whether it affects the House of Assembly.

*It is very interesting to note how people only use morality to suit themselves. The party of the hon. member for Durban North had members in the Senate, people who sat there although in terms of the principle of proportional representation they would not have been elected. They sat there even when the Senate was not dissolved at the same time as the House of Assembly. What right, then, has the hon. member to come and argue with me about morality?

But they fulfilled different functions in the Senate.

It does not matter what their function was. They were remunerated, and the hon. member is objecting to the payment these people receive. It is so easy to interpret the norms of morality to suit oneself. The hon. member for Durban North should rather not do that. It does not suit him.

After all, he is not one of the Natal jingoes.

The hon. member is aware that as the legislation reads at present, the State President can appoint the four nominated members on 29 April. However, he never objected to this when the legislation was debated in this House last year. No other hon. member of his party argued against it. Why, then, are they raising that argument now?

The hon. member takes his argument further by saying that the motivation was that the members who were nominated and elected had to represent a special expertise or knowledge in Parliament. Did I understand him correctly?

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. According to the hon. member, when Parliament is dissolved or is not sitting, those hon. members do not give the benefit of their knowledge or expertise to Parliament. However, that also applies when Parliament is prorogued. Precisely the same argument applies then, too. Surely the hon. member can then argue that they should not receive payment because they are not giving Parliament the benefit of their knowledge. With great respect, that is surely a totally childish argument.

I maintain that hon. members in this House—and here I include myself—who have been elected in a general election or on the basis of constituencies, have the right and the opportunity to maintain continuity in their periods of office by taking part in an election. Hon. members who have come into this House in a different way—in terms of an Act of this Parliament—do not have the opportunity of maintaining continuity in their periods of office in the same way as other hon. members. All this provision seeks to do is to afford them that opportunity.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 45, after “which” to insert:
   • the election is proclaimed at which
2. (2) on page 4, in line 49, after “(3)” to insert:
   • if an amendment has been made in respect of such a division in terms of subsection (5)

I should like to motivate these amendments briefly. In terms of section 45 of Act No. 32 of 1961 it is merely provided that a delimitation comes into force at the next general election held after the completion of the re-division; in other words, after the delimitation. There is, however, no definition of “general election” and as indicated, it seems to us that there should be certainty. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that in his view it was at the time of proclamation. We agree with that view. So as to put the matter beyond doubt, the first amendment is being moved.

The second amendment relates to the provision that the names of the constituencies may be changed by the State President. The view that we take is that the only time that power should be exercised is when a change has been made due to a discrepancy; in other words, if the view of the delimitation commission has turned out to be incorrect. If the constituency has changed due to a discrepancy, then there may be a case for the change of name. In other circumstances, however, it seems to us that the delimitation commission’s view should prevail.

The reason for that is very simple. On the face of it a delimitation commission has a judge sitting as its presiding officer and it also normally has two other judges sitting there. They hear the argument of the parties and one would assume in the circumstances, whatever criticism is made of the delimitation commission otherwise, that they would have weighed all the factors. When one comes to the Executive, however, the Executive makes no pretence at not being a political body. Whatever else the hon. the Minister may be, he has never pretended that he is not a Nationalist or that he does not take decisions as a Nationalist. Therefore his impartiality in the matter obviously is tinged by his political views. This is not a reflection; it is a reality.

In those circumstances it seems to me to be highly improper that a function which by law is given to a commission, that is by its nature designed to be impartial, should be taken over by a political executive. It is for those reasons that we believe a change can be made where there is a discrepancy and maybe the old name is no longer relevant. In ordinary circumstances, however, the delimitation commission’s view should prevail. Those are the reasons why we on this side move the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to the hon. member and to deal with the two amendments that he has moved. I should like to place it on record that the hon. member has paid me the courtesy to send me copies of the amendments timeously so that I could study them.

I should like to say immediately that I think the hon. member has identified a problem in that as the provision reads now, there is no certainty that the relative date, which is also the closing date on which to change the delimitation, will be proclamation day. Unfortunately the amendment moved by the hon. member does not bring greater clarity, because it still retains a reference in the clause to section 45 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. I will read the Afrikaans version of section 45—

*If the date of the re-division is also the date of the election, one can argue theoretically that one can still effect alterations up to that date, and no one wants that. It is therefore important that we should do what the hon. member requests, and that is to refer to a proclamation day as the effective date which is also the date for an alteration to the re-division of constituencies.

†Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this matter with the hon. member, and should the hon. member be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will move the following amendment—

That will then meet the particular position that the hon. member has in mind.

*Mr. Chairman, I informed the hon. member that I could not accept his second amendment because this is not a case where a difference exists between the map and the description of the commission and where the necessity may arise for changing the name of a constituency. I put another argument to the hon. member, and that was that in terms of legislation of Parliament land is from time to time added to States which become independent, and it has happened that a constituency retains a name which no longer bears any relation to the remaining portion. Therefore, although I have sympathy with the hon. member’s standpoint, I cannot accept his second amendment, because it does not comply with the object of the clause. I agree, however, that we should transfer the authority to give a name to a constituency to the executive instead of the commission. I have no quarrel with him on that score. I also share the hon. member’s standpoint that names of constituencies should not be changed arbitrarily. In so far as I accept these standpoints, I ask the hon. member to accept my undertaking that that standpoint will be maintained.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s amendment does, in fact, have the same import as the amendment I moved. I do not agree with the argument he advanced about my amendment not covering the issue, but there is another argument which he did not mention but which I think is the very best of arguments, and that is that I have only 18 votes supporting my amendment, whilst he has about 142. That I think is about the best argument that can be advanced, so to save time we shall not argue about it and accept his amendment. I shall therefore withdraw my amendment, and that solves the whole problem. It is one of the tragedies that he has that other argument. I wish the situation were reversed.

This brings me to the question of the renaming of divisions. I am sorry he will not accept my amendment in that regard. I say that because if one included any portion of a division—and I am going according to his example—in an independent homeland the Whites in that independent homeland would still be able to vote. In accordance with the legislation he persuaded us to agree to only yesterday, they would vote in the constituency closest to them, which would be in the same constituency. The voters would still be the same, even though geographically a portion of the constituency would be in an independent homeland. So I think the hon. the Minister will concede that that argument is not as good as others I have heard from him on other days. I do not really think it is his day today for good constitutional arguments. Perhaps we could just put that down to the question of frivolity.

It should also perhaps be on record that it is actually this party that discovered the discrepancy which we are now dealing with, the discrepancy making it necessary for this legislation to be passed.

It was not the party, it was you.

It was this party. It had nothing to do with me specifically. There is, of course, the danger of abuse if the term “discrepancy” were to be widely interpreted. So I think it is very important for that term to be narrowly interpreted. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give us the undertaking that it will be strictly and narrowly interpreted to cover only the kind of situation that has hitherto existed, i.e. a piece of no-man’s land that has to be incorporated somewhere but has, due to some mistake, been overlooked.

There is another point that I think is important. In the event of names being changed, since the Government has the discretion, and a political bias that cannot be denied, I think it is important that in addition to the undertaking the hon. the Minister has given us, he should also undertake to consult the political parties involved. In other words, he must undertake not to make an arbitrary decision that might not suit us. I can think of some very funny names for constituencies, but I shall not quote them because that might disturb the peaceful atmosphere after the preceding storm. I do, however, think he should give us an undertaking that he will consult the parties concerned.

With the leave of the House, as I indicated earlier, I should like to withdraw my first amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give certain undertakings to the hon. member for Yeoville. If this provision becomes law—I am referring to the one relating to constituencies—I undertake not to rename Yeoville Orange Grove. Let me tell the hon. member for Durban North that I also undertake not to rename his constituency Orange Grove. [Interjections.] I think, however, that the point was validly made. I say this because, in essence, when a constituency is named, it is named by the commission. That will remain law. When there is such a redelimitation, the parties have the right to put forward proposals about how that should be done, and they also have the right to put forward proposals about the names of constituencies. I believe that such an input by the political parties is important, and I for myself therefore undertake to consult the leaders of the parties if there is a change in the names of constituencies, whatever the reason for such changes may be.

Not for yourself but for the Government.

Yes, for the Government, naturally. I represent the Government on this particular occasion. That is good constitutional law. I give the hon. member that undertaking. The hon. member said that the best reason advanced for withdrawing his amendment was that the voting power on this side is greater than the voting power on his side. In that case I should like to ask him whether, in all cases of the voting power on this side being greater than the voting power on his side, they would consider withdrawing their amendments.

Only if you behave well.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste the committee’s time. I just want to make it clear that because clause 3 is consequential to clause 1, we shall also vote against clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An amount of R11 354 million was voted in the main estimates for the present financial year. The Bill now before the House provides for an additional appropriation of R578 million. Expected savings on voted moneys will, however, amount to approximately R60 million which, although it cannot be utilized to reduce the additional appropriation, affects the amount by which final expenditure will be higher than the main estimates. If our expectations regarding these savings are realized, the final expenditure of voted moneys will be some R518 million or 4,6% higher than the main estimates.

In addition, final expenditure on the statutory provisions, which is not included in the voted amount of R11 354 million referred to above, is expected to be approximately R65 million less than the original estimate of R1 788 million.

Taking voted moneys and statutory appropriations together, final expenditure will be of the order of some R450 million or 3,4% higher than the main estimates, which is still fully in line with our fiscal and monetary objectives. Hon. members will note that some R171,5m of the total is being provided for protection services such as Defence and Police. Also included are supplemental amounts for services which largely could not have been foreseen at the time of the framing of the main budget, including the further increase in food subsidies (R37,5m), relief of distress (R31,8m), additional subsidies for bus commuters (R10,2m) and the payment of bonuses to social pensioners in November last (R23m). I do not wish to deal with any detailed explanations of the reasons for the inclusion of each amount since it is customary for the Ministers concerned to furnish the House with the necessary explanations during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

With the exclusion of these largely unforeseen amounts, the total amount requested in respect of other necessary services is quite modest and amounts to an increase of less than 3% on the main estimates (R11,354m). A very substantial part of this latter increase, in turn, is due to the inclusion of R170,7m in respect of the final payment of subsidies to the provinces.

The total amount of the Additional Appropriation Bill is in no way indicative of a relaxation of our policy of financial discipline. On the contrary, against the background of fast-rising costs, it is, I think, commendable that departments were able to contain their expenditure to this extent.

Mr. Speaker, I have already referred to the Government’s accounts for this financial year in my Second Reading speech on the Part Appropriation Bill. These accounts will, of course, be fully reviewed when I present my main budget for the 1981-’82 financial year during the next session of Parliament. I will, therefore, not pursue this matter any further except to assure the House that the financing of the additional amount now being requested should not pose any major problems for the Exchequer.

As the Additional Appropriation Bill is basically a measure which is discussed in the Committee Stage, I now ask the House to accept it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister commenced his Second Reading address by referring to the degree of increase in the expenditure as budgeted for. Having taken into account certain savings and also the position in regard to statutory appropriation, he reduces the figure to an increase of 3,4%. I should like to compare like with like. If we take the actual increase in expenditure in absolute terms the increase in this particular year is actually 4,9%. Without taking the savings into account, in 1980 it was 3,1%, in 1979, 1,8% and in 1978, 1,1%. In other words, we now have a progression over a period of four years in that every year the amount of the Additional Estimates has increased not only in absolute terms because of the larger amounts in the budget, but it has also increased in percentage terms. If we compare like with like, taking into account the under-expenditure, even on that basis in 1980 the figure was 2,2%. So whichever way we take the figure, there is no escaping the reality that the applicable percentage is increasing. The question then has to be asked: Why is that so because essentially additional estimates are to deal with what is referred to as unforeseen expenditure?

On the face of it if your budget increases in absolute terms, as it continues to do for inflationary and other reasons, the absolute amount of money is continually increasing. More important, Sir, the percentage is continually increasing. In other words, it seems to be that the Minister is unable to foresee less and less and that therefore the percentage becomes greater and greater. I think that that requires an answer from the hon. the Minister and he has certainly not given that answer to us.

It is interesting to take, for example, what actual Government expenditure has amounted to this year. It appears that up to the end of January of this year Government expenditure was R11 467 million whereas in the same period last year the expenditure was R10 269 million. This shows an expenditure increase of some 21%. This demonstrates that the much vaunted discipline that has been exercised appears to have been a little lax. That is also demonstrated in this particular situation where we are dealing with the additional estimates. It is fairly clear that a large proportion of this increase is without doubt due to the impact of inflation. If we look at the percentages it is fairly clear that having anticipated a reasonable rate of inflation in accordance with the opinion of the hon. the Minister, even the hon. the Minister’s forecast as to the increase in the inflation rate was utterly wrong. Therefore, we now have to vote more money because of the inflation that has taken place. The reason for that is, among others, because two fundamental things happened this year. The one is that there is no doubt that the money supply and the velocity of the money supply was allowed to get out of hand. In one month alone there was a R700 million increase and there is no doubt that adequate control was not exercised over the money supply. This is remarkable because the hon. the Minister is a monetarist. He holds himself out to be monetarist. He is a champion of Milton Friedman and yet he does not apply the very principles that he says he believes in as a result of which we have inflation in South Africa to a tremendous degree, to a far higher degree than we should have, and that is demonstrated in these additional estimates.

The second thing is that the hon. the Minister came to this House and said that he was going to stimulate demand. In reality he did stimulate demand but he overstimulated demand as a result of which we find ourselves in the unfortunate position where we have to contend with two types of inflation— not only cost-push inflation but also demandpull inflation. We find ourselves in this situation due to this overstimulation. All of that is demonstrated in these additional estimates. The hon. the Minister reminds one of what is being said about inflation: Inflation is a sin if the Government denounces it. But of course the Government practices it. That is the reality of what is happening here. Let me say that if in fact we find that in so far as Government expenditure is concerned there is a 21% increase over last year, one must look at the situation of the ordinary man in the street. Let us compare his situation with the Government’s situation. If the Government which is in control of the situation and which claims to exercise financial discipline finds itself in this inflationary position, how much more is the ordinary man in the street being hit by this phenomenon? The reality of the matter is that inflation is now enemy No. 1 and that the Government should mobilize the forces that are available in order to deal with it. That is clearly demonstrated by these additional estimates.

It is customary to ask, and I think it is traditional to ask, whenever an additional estimate is presented, whether in fact the Government has the ability to finance it. If ever a Government had the ability to finance it during a particular year, this Government has that ability this year because this year the Government’s revenue is certainly buoyant. One of the interesting things is that if, for example, one looks at general sales tax, general sales tax collections . . .

Order! The hon. member is using this Bill to conduct a general financial discussion. Every time he says it is reflected in this Bill, but it is not the subject of this Bill. He must therefore confine himself to the Bill as printed.

Mr. Speaker, is it not a legitimate question that has been asked every year since I have been in Parliament when one is asked to spend money, namely, whether one has the revenue to finance it? I have asked that question every year since 1974 and I do not know why 1981 should be different.

Order! This Bill does not ask for moneys to be spent; it asks for increases in moneys that have been voted by Parliament. That is the subject matter of this Bill.

That is correct. In other words, what the hon. the Minister is asking for is that the Government should spend more money. What I am asking is a very elementary question and I am sure your wife asks you the same question, Sir, when she wants to spend money. She then wants to know whether you have the money to spend. One has to get the money in before one can spend it. I do not see why a question dealing with the ability to finance extra expenditure should be out of order. That is all I am asking.

Order! I do not want to restrict the hon. member too much because finances are interlinked, but he must not turn this into a general financial discussion. If he does then the other hon. members of this House will be deprived of their limited time to discuss the increases.

With respect, Sir, I am the financial spokesman of the official Opposition.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am therefore entitled to put my party’s case, but if I cannot ask that question I have lots of others to ask.

The hon. member may proceed.

The simple point I was making is that one of the things that is clearly demonstrated is that due to the overstimulation of demand the general sales tax that has been collected is well over budget. The estimates are that it is probably going to be about R70 million to R80 million over budget in these particular circumstances.

How can that overstimulate demand? It should do just the opposite.

I do not know how the hon. the Minister’s mind works because I understand from elementary economics that demand means people are buying more, and when people buy more they pay more tax on what they buy. After all, the hon. the Minister does have a B.Com. degree and he did learn that.

Do not stand the argument on its head; talk sense.

But that is the reality of the matter. Obviously when there is demand there are more purchases. There is no question about it.

The next question I want to ask, because it becomes relevant to this issue, is how much money from these revenues which would be available to cover this has been transferred to the Stabilization Fund? In other words, since the beginning of this year, what has gone into the Stabilization Fund in these circumstances?

I just want to touch upon a couple of other points because I shall deal with the majority of them under the individual Votes. However, there are a few matters that need to be dealt with. Firstly, we who sit in these benches are obviously concerned about the amounts that are set out in the Police Vote. I must say that I hope that by the time we get down to discussing the Police Vote the hon. the Minister will be present in this House. We have quite a lot to say about the state of the police and we have a lot of questions to ask in regard to these estimates. If he is not going to be here we would like a very clear explanation why. We demand his presence in this House because there is a very serious position in regard to the police. We have not been told why he is not here and I say it publicly here that he should be in the House when his Vote is being discussed. I want to know, and I want to ask specifically—the question can be conveyed to him— where specific reference is made to salaries and administration, how much of the money referred to in the additional estimates is for police overtime. We have been told that police overtime has been stopped because there is no money. We are now dealing with the additional estimates, and the hon. the Minister of Police must explain to us why he is not here when we want to know why police overtime has been stopped and why the security of our people in South Africa is being threatened. That question requires an answer and cannot be left at that.

I should now like to deal with the question of defence expenditure. In this respect I merely want to point out that I believe that the time has come for us to adopt a new approach towards budgeting for defence expenditure. In my view it is not possible to calculate the actual degree of escalation in activity which takes place. I believe one has to cater in the budget for a situation in which one can cover an escalation of activities which nobody can reasonably foresee. I think it is wrong that we should find ourselves in a situation in which we should actually be telling our enemies, in the additional estimates, that we have had a little more activity than we anticipated.

This is a broad policy matter. It is unrelated to the individual. The concept of being able to give away this information in the additional estimates should be overcome in future. A new system of budgeting, particularly applicable to defence, should be considered by us.

These are just the broad matters I have dealt with. There are many others and my hon. colleagues will be asking the questions as we go along.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has made a number of assertions and statements, some of which, I think, have been made very hastily. Some of his statements, I believe, are not very reasonable. The hon. member alleges, for instance, that there has been expenditure until now in this financial year which shows we are not exercising financial discipline. Surely the hon. member knows that Government expenditure during the first part of the year is invariably higher than in the second. Therefore the hon. member must wait until the year has expired. Then we can judge the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to defence and police matters. In this budget, however, the fact remains that under present conditions one cannot possibly foresee . . . Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville should listen to me, if he does not mind. If he does not want to listen we need not waste time. I am trying to reply to the hon. member.

I am listening to the hon. the Minister with both ears.

The hon. member raised matters relating to defence and the police. It is a well-known thing that in any country where there are operations such as we have to conduct today, and in which we have to be prepared, it is an impossible matter to budget exactly. One cannot do it. Now the hon. member wants us to do it in a special way, which he has not defined. He says that if we have an additional amount to vote at this stage, we are giving away information to the enemy. What then happens when we have to put our whole amount into the main budget? Then we must be giving away very much more information to the enemy. In terms of our constitution there is no way in which we can avoid this. We have to show Parliament what the amounts are. Therefore I do not understand that at all. How one can be giving information on defence away to the enemy by simply putting an amount of R160 million on the estimates while the total amount is something like R2 200 million anyhow, is an argument I just cannot follow, with great respect, Mr. Speaker.

I should also like to point out that it is no use generalizing as the hon. member does. It is no use saying I am a monetarist. I am not a monetarist. I hope I am just a common or garden Minister of Finance. I do not categorize myself at all. Where does that argument get us anyway? Where does it get anybody?

The extra amount to be approved in respect of defence and police is R171 million. There will be very good reasons given why, under present conditions in this country, and under conditions of high inflation, it is simply impossible to be more accurate. I do not think this is a very big deviation from the main budget on these two points under present conditions. I do not think it is a big deviation at all. If we add together the amounts for Defence and Police we get a figure of R171 million. Take the question of food subsidies. Surely the hon. member is not complaining because food subsidies have increased under present conditions of inflation. If we had not done this, the bread price would have been very much higher and several other foodstuffs would have been more expensive as well. The amount in this regard is R37 million. I think this is fully justified.

How are we to foresee the ravages caused by drought? We had some dreadful droughts before the floods. We have set aside an amount of R32 million for distress relief throughout the country. None of us could have foreseen this.

He is opposed to it.

That is what I want to know. Is the hon. member opposed to this? How can we avoid this type of thing? It is caused by an onslaught of nature.

Did I say that I was opposed to it?

The hon. member criticized me because of these amounts. Why did he not exclude these amounts from his criticism?

Let us take the question of bus subsidies amounting to R10 million. These subsidies are intended for the very people he pretends to be so concerned about—the poor, the people on a lower income level.

Why were they not included in the budget?

Were we able to foresee the onset of drought months after the budget?

I am talking about the bus subsidies.

How can we foresee precisely what the costs will be? How can we foresee what transport costs will be under these conditions? To start with, how can we possibly know what is going to happen to the oil price? If we add just these few items we find that they amount to an additional R250 million which is 2,2% of the budgeted amount. I am not referring to the total budget. I am referring to the amount of R11 500 million that we budgeted for and had to have voted by Parliament. The others are statutory amounts. We must also remember that we have to exclude savings. We think that there will be savings of between R120 million and R125 million. Does that not redound to the credit of the Government? Does this not reflect discipline? Of course it does. The hon. member has nothing to say about that. When we deduct the 2,2% from the 4,9% we are left with 2,7% and I say that that is a pretty normal figure. I say moreover, Sir, that if we exclude savings, we are down to about 2% or even less.

It is the highest . . .

It is the highest, Mr. Speaker. Our inflation rate is high and we are living in a very, very difficult world. We cannot foresee what the consequences will be of the situations such as we have on the borders with Angola and other places. Neither can we foresee at this stage under these escalating costs what it is going to cost us to make this country militarily prepared and keep it safe internally in the future. If the hon. member analyzes all these things I do not believe that he will be able to sustain his arguments at all. I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is absolutely reasonable to say that if one excludes all of these extraordinary items one comes down to a completely ordinary request to this House for a normal increase in Government expenditure at this point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also said that I had overstimulated demand. Sir, I can argue at length that I have done exactly the opposite. I can argue at length—and the facts are there, Sir—that this budget has destroyed more money than it has created. I want to repeat that. I say that this budget that we have had and the policy that we are following are destroying more money than they are creating. How then can we be overstimulating demand? The hon. member has left one very important aspect out of account. He told us that we have not controlled the money supply and that the increase in the money supply over the past 12 months has not only contributed to inflation—he did not say that in so many words but I think he had it in mind—but is also one of the reasons why we have had to ask for this amount. I should like the hon. member to tell me what is happening in other countries in regard to the question of the money supply and also what has been happening in this regard for some time. Speak to the American authorities who are supposed to have such a sophisticated monetary system. They will tell you that this is their biggest worry. They have said that to me many times. Speak to the British. They are just as worried. Speak to the Germans. Speak even to the Swiss who are renowned for the way in which they control their money supply. They are all worried about this matter. I want to make this point. What does one expect will happen in a country where the revenue from one commodity alone, gold, rises from just over R6 000 million to R10 000 million in one year? Can hon. members imagine the amount of extra money and liquidity coming into that country in twelve months’ time? It is absolutely unprecedented. We have by way of Treasury policy, the Reserve Bank policy, in every way possible tried to mop up that excess liquidity and we have succeeded very substantially. The money supply in this country in the past 12 months could easily have increased by 50% or 60% with the tremendous inflow of revenue from outside, the likes of which we have never seen. Financial and banking experts are continually visiting South Africa and we have never had more of these people in the country than in the past few months. When I say to them that I am worried about the increase in the money supply, which is up by approximately 26% to 27%, they reply: “In the circumstances in which you find yourselves, with the extra income from gold, how is it that the increase is not greater?” This is a question, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to take up the time of the House, because this is essentially a Committee Stage Bill, but I want to make it absolutely clear that to say that this additional budget means that we have abandoned our policy of fiscal restraint is, I think, a very unfair and quite unjustified statement to make. One cannot foresee the onset of drought in the country. This cost us R32 million. One cannot possibly not do something about food subsidies in view of the escalating prices. For this we voted another R37 million in the course of the year. And what I say to the hon. member is that one could not possibly have foreseen the need at the beginning of the financial year to find another R61 million for defence and another R10 million or R11 million for the S.A. Police. In these circumstances those figures could have been very much higher, especially where there were increases in capital and current cost in every direction. We now have R250 million, and taking those factors into account, I believe that it was substantially unavoidable. In fact, it means an increase of the additional budget of approximately 2% on the original figure, which I say is quite normal.

Mr. Chairman, the question I want to ask concerns item H—“Payment of a single dissolution benefit to Senators who do not qualify for pension benefits. In the first place, I should like to know when this was decided on, how many former Senators enjoy this benefit and what it means in each case. Secondly, I want to know whether it is a sound principle that such a step be taken. I take it that the conditions in terms of which a person who has become a Senator or a member of this House are clear to everyone, and that that also goes for the period during which he must serve to qualify for pension benefits. I cannot therefore understand why a distinction should be drawn. The argument could be advanced that the dissolution of the Senate was not the decision of the Senate, but that is not correct, of course, because the Senators had a share in the decision, and were therefore aware of it. I should welcome a little more information in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is largely a matter of compassion. These are people who served their country well, irrespective of their party affiliation. It was brought to the attention of the Cabinet that there were Senators— former Senators—who were not financially well-off. The matter was discussed at great length. The representations were not made by a few people in one party only, but came from more than one party. The matter was very extensively discussed and it was felt that it would be only right and fair to pay something to these good people, viz. to former Senators who did not qualify for a gratuity or a pension. We then had to find a basis, and I admit that it is arbitrary. We asked ourselves: If they had served for a certain period, what would their gratuity have been? It would not, of course, have been the same for all. I do not have the exact figure, but I think six or seven people were involved. On that basis we tried to make certain calculations. For most of the people concerned the amount was in the region of R12 000 to R13 000. That is how we calculated this figure. It was after long discussion and representations from representatives of various parties that we eventually decided that this was a reasonable amount. This is really the essence of the matter.

Golden handshake!

Mr. Chairman, I accept without question the bona fides of the hon. the Minister of Finance, but the question is whether one is not perhaps creating a dangerous precedent here.

But there is no Senate any more, man!

If that hon. member would just subside, I shall explain. We find the same deserving cases among members of Parliament. If they have served for six or seven years and, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to serve for longer, the same applies.

But the Senate has been abolished.

That hon. member should just give me a chance.

Order!

If the hon. member would just give me a chance, I will give him the necessary information. An important principle is at stake here. We must guard against creating the impression that we look after ourselves here in an arbitrary fashion. All I want is that we should establish a consistent principle here. I have no objection to a decision of this House or of the Cabinet to the effect that if a man has served for one year, he is entitled to one-fifteenth of his pension, whether he was in the Senate or in this House. That is a sound principle that can be justified and it is quite clear. I can understand if people ask: If a man has served for seven years, why, then, should he not at least receive seven years’ pension throughout his life? However, to decide summarily in this way that an exception can be made in this particular instance is something I cannot understand. Accordingly, I just want to ask the Minister whether a dangerous precedent is not being created here. That is all.

Mr. Chairman, in all fairness I must just say that these are people who have been deprived of the opportunity to qualify for a pension, and it was as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

Losing an election.

Yes, but I think there is a difference. If one fails to come back because one has lost an election, that is one thing. In this case, however, there were circumstances making it impossible for them to continue to serve as Senators. This occurred due to circumstances entirely beyond their control. This is probably something which only occurs once in a lifetime. I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition will concede that. Should we, then, have done nothing? Not everyone received the same amount. The amount depended on their period of service. In such a case I do think that a Parliament can approve such a thing. That is my opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give us more information in connection with main divisions A and F, viz. amounts voted for the President’s Council. In other words, I should like background information in connection with personnel expenditure and professional and special services.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to be clear on this. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referring to the amount of R40 900?

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the main division A: “Personnel expenditure”, the amount of R598 900.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is therefore referring to the R2 million in connection with the President’s Council?

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R2 million is comprised as follows: Personnel expenditure, R864 000; administrative expenditure, R810 000; stores, R267 000; equipment, R58 000; and professional services, R100 000.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that in the additional estimates an amount of R2 056 400 is being voted under the programme as such, of which R2 million is actually for the President’s Council. If we look at the position in regard to standard items, we see that under the individual items which are given, the figures which are given to us now for the President’s Council are in many respects not only different, but would not balance if they were taken into account. So, either the figures in the printed estimates under the standard items are not correct or the amounts which are specified are not correct. They cannot both be right.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that the authority of the Minister of Finance has been obtained for an amount of R3 million for the present financial year with regard to all expenditure in connection with the President’s Council, on condition that it must be more carefully determined by revision. In the second revised budget of expenditure for the financial year 1980-’81 it is calculated in the light of available information that an amount of R2 million will be required, and that amount was made up as I have indicated.

Mr. Chairman, that would seem to indicate that the printed estimates are not correct, but that the information which the hon. the Prime Minister has given us, as he has now specified, is correct. Therefore, by voting for this, we are voting for an incorrect proposal.

Another factor which one finds a little disturbing, is that the expenditure of the President’s Council was estimated at R3 million. It is now said to be R2 million, and when one compares it to the expenditure on the administration of Parliament, one finds that the President’s Council is costing us two-thirds of what it cost us to run the whole of Parliament. That really is a little staggering.

Mr. Chairman, surely one cannot compare the two at this stage. The President’s Council was only established this year, whereas Parliament has existed for many years. There are establishment costs, for example. If one were to compare the two bodies with one another as far as establishment costs are concerned, Parliament would probably cost far more.

Secondly, the amount in respect of which I replied to a question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is R2 million. This amount is being appropriated for the President’s Council.

That is not capital expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister is right, because one has to look at personnel expenditure as well. Nobody will argue that personnel expenditure is establishment costs. Surely, personnel expenditure means the salaries which are paid to people. If I have the figures correct, the hon. the Prime Minister gave us a figure of R846 000 for personnel expenditure.

R864 000.

R864 000. I think the administrative expenditure was R810 000, and for item C: “Stores and Livestock”—which I presume means equipment—the amounts were R267 000 and R58 000. In those circumstances it is quite clear that the bulk of this expenditure obviously is not establishment costs, and the reality of the matter is that it appears, on the face of it and in the absence of explanations, that it is costing proportionally more to run the President’s Council than to run Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, my information is that the programme structure and the item structure cannot be compared directly. There are savings on the programme structure in particular, savings which are being utilized, but which are not shown in the item structure because they are being credited directly to the President’s Council’s expenditure.

Then it is still more expensive.

It may be more. But what is the hon. member’s point?

It is too expensive.

Yes, it costs even more . . .

If it can provide a solution for South Africa’s problems, we must be prepared to pay more.

Mr. Chairman, rather than specify the individual items, of which there are so many, I would ask the hon. the Minister of Defence if he could give an explanation of why there is this increased expenditure, obviously within the limits in which he is able to do so. In particular I should like him to try to explain to us why the International Committee of the Red Cross is obtaining this particular grant at this stage. I should also like him to pay particular attention to the two divisions of “landward defence” and “logistic support”.

Mr. Chairman, in order to reply to the questions I shall have to give a broad background sketch of how this budget was drawn up. Like the hon. the Prime Minister, I should also prefer to give explanations relating to the standard items rather than to the programme items. In effect, the standard items relate to the programme items throughout and they are easier to follow. Accordingly I shall give explanations on that basis.

I realize that a very large amount is at stake. That being so, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville asked to be given a general background picture as to how an amount of R160 million could appear in an additional appropriation. What makes the process so complicated is, firstly, that when one compiles a budget, one must be able to predict a threat for a period, and that in turn depends on three factors. The first is the finance one must have on a time scale. The second is the manpower one requires and, thirdly, there is the equipment one requires. Therefore the short-term, the medium-term and the long-term are involved. Whereas we are dealing with the 1980-’81 budget, the planning in respect of finance, manpower, and equipment had to begin as far back as 1970. In other words, prediction of the threat had to a certain extent to be taken into account in 1970 in order to have the correct amount here.

A second aspect which made the situation very complicated is the long period taken up by training. Before a member of the Defence Force is qualified, he has to undergo training for 6 to 7 years. As far as equipment is concerned, it took five years from the time that the need for R1 rifles was ascertained before the manufacturer could deliver the rifles. Again, therefore, it is a question of time.

Now we come to an aspect which greatly complicates the Defence budget. An embargo was imposed on us fairly recently and as a result it was necessary to strive for self-sufficiency through local production. Then the question occurred as to whether, in view to the threat facing us there was enough time to produce.

I now come to the third aspect which complicates matters. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville had a very good point in this connection. It relates to the operational intensity and the question whether one can predict it in advance and whether it should be budgeted for in the additional appropriation, since the amount requested can serve as an indication to the enemy. I think that this unpredictability will have to be accommodated in one way or another. I think that a simpler answer will have to be found for a complicated problem. I intend looking into this. To illustrate the matter briefly: It could occur that an operational need could arise in June which would have to be put into effect as early as the following month. That need would not have been budgeted for, and accordingly one has necessarily to resort to the additional appropriation.

Another aspect which greatly complicates the budget is the fact that we have experienced a very big turnover in consumer articles. Here I have in mind for example rations, fuel, etc. Moreover, the price of such items is escalating. This price escalation has a considerable effect on the budget, and accordingly one has to make use of the additional appropriation.

This amount of R160 million can be subdivided into two amounts. The problem area with regard to operating expenditure involves an amount of R126 million, and then there is an amount of R34 million in respect of the Special Defence Account. I therefore maintain that it is very difficult to budget accurately, and what makes it even more difficult is that it is difficult to foresee accurately at an early stage what is going to be required at any given period. However, what is very important to me with regard to the budget is that it must at all times be subject to financial discipline, as is indeed required by Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, there are other factors, too, that contribute towards complicating the task of compiling the budget accurately. If I could inform the committee briefly with regard to these factors it would perhaps become clear to hon. members why we are dealing here with an amount of the order of R160 million. There is some doubt with regard to one’s achievements. One is always aware of history: How well has one fared, both financially and in respect of production? I mention this specifically, because when one looks at additional appropriations in the past, one finds that the additional appropriation for the Defence Force only made its appearance last year with an amount of R60 million. This year we have an amount of R160 million. In other words, when one is dealing with an organization which is becoming more and more efficient with regard to its achievements and its financial planning, then one finds that one miscalculates if one relies on historical data. That, then, is one of the reasons why this amount of R160 million is so high.

I want to elucidate the two amounts involved here very briefly. First there is the amount of R34 million in respect of the Special Defence Account. Parliament appropriates a certain amount for the S.A. Defence Force, and for the 1980-’81 financial year this amount was approximately R1 890 million. However, because the budgeting process is so difficult, a commitment authority is approved by Parliament which, for the 1980-’81 budget, amounted to approximately R2 346 million. This means that a certain amount is available, but if the performance of the organization were to improve, as was in fact the case with regard to the Special Defence Account and certain capital items, then it is permitted that the cash appropriation may be exceeded, as long as one does not exceed the commitment authority. That is the principle that applies to this budget. What happened here was that the cash appropriation was exceeded by R34 million. More capital items were acquired in 1980-’81 than those for which provision was made in the amount voted and as a result there was a shortage. Accordingly, an additional R34 million is being requested for the Special Defence Account.

†Let me now deal with the other items comprising the R126 million. I should like to take these amounts individually, and I shall start with personnel expenditure, an amount of approximately R31 million. A total amount of R417 million was made available in the 1979-’80 budget, the additional budget and the Treasury contribution for the 1979 increases. Except for the effect of these increases, no real provision for personnel growth was made in 1980-’81 in anticipation of the economic upswing. As a result of a concerted recruiting drive, a most welcome 6% personnel growth was, however, achieved, which will require an additional expenditure of R31,5 million.

As far as the administrative expenditure of R23 million is concerned, the increased expenditure which gave rise to an additional appropriation of R9 million in the previous year and on which a further shortfall of R6 million was in fact experienced, became evident too late in the year to include corresponding adjustments in this year’s budget. The result is that the current Vote is also under-budgeted by the same amount. This increase is specifically due to the effect that the almost trebling of fuel prices in 1979 had on transport tariffs. I must stress, however, that Defence not only makes use of its own transport, for which the fuel Bill is included under “Stores and Livestock”, but also of outside carriers whose rates are payable under “Administrative Expenditure”. The fuel price increases only fully impacted on transport tariffs late in 1979, by which time it was too late to make adjustments to the then current rates used for budgetary purposes. It must be borne in mind that because of its extent defence budget inputs close in June of the previous year. The effect of increase transport tariffs together with increased cargo requirements is an inevitable additional expenditure of R15 million. A further additional administrative expenditure of R6 million results from the cost of the increased recruiting mentioned before. This is to cover temporary accommodation to and transport of families and their belongings. This increased expenditure is included under “Command and Control”. A further R2 million administrative costs increase under “Command and Control” is for increased use of telephone and telegraph facilities. This includes data-lines, which are rapidly expanding with the implementation of modern administration systems, including a completely modernized pay system.

*The third item is “Stores and Livestock”, amounting to R42 million. This relates to the everyday consumer goods of the Defence Force, in other words, consumer items, on which a deficit of R42 million is expected. Taking into account existing cost increases, the 24% increase cannot be regarded as unreasonable, particularly taking into account the following: R23 million is required for the department’s fuel consumption and this is largely due to the price increases that have taken place. Then there was a cost increase on food and particularly meat prices, which caused a 23% deficit amounting to R14 million. Then, too, a R4 million deficit has been calculated on the general army stores due to cost increases, and this is largely due to increased consumption of sandbags, for example, which were urgently necessary for the protection of bases. The effect of all these factors in connection with stores is an increase of R36 million on the logistic programme and R3 million for aviation fuel for air defence and R1 million for landward defence.

Under “Equipment”, various items— implements etc.—there is an amount of R2,4 million. A deficit of 6% of R2,4 million is expected on equipment, chiefly for steel shelving in buildings which suddenly became available as a mobilization centre. Here we are thinking in terms of 72 Brigade headquarters which is fully accommodated. Then, too, there were the rentals for earthmoving equipment used in the operational area, for example to combat the jaundice epidemic which broke out there. It was necessary to use this machinery to improve hygiene. Under the item “Land and Buildings” the Department of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services built the air base at Hoedspruit for an amount of R8 million on a basis of recovery of costs from the Defence Force. As is customary, price escalation claims are only submitted after completed phases, and consequently price escalation claims for 1979-’80, and in part for 1980-’81 as well, amounting in total to R5 million, were only received in the present financial year, and insufficient provision had been made for that. Then, too, certain phases of the project which were to be carried out at a later stage were halted due to economic reasons. Some facilities that were to be provided therein are, however, still needed and therefore had to be advanced so as to be completed as part of the present contract. The additional R3 million relates to the advancement. That is what brings the total amount to R8 million.

The amount in respect of professional and special services relates basically to the maintenance of equipment due to the increased workload. The amount required for this totals R16 million, R4 million of which is intended for the repair of ordinary and combat vehicles and R12 million for the servicing of aircraft by Atlas. The R12 million earmarked for Atlas includes R9 million for increased tariffs, while R3 million is earmarked for personnel supply to the Air Force.

The extra amount with regard to miscellaneous expenditure is the result of an underestimation in the estimate relating to the Defence Force insurance scheme. For that the additional amount of R2,5 million is required.

With regard to the last item, the item in connection with which the hon. member for Yeoville requested more background information, I can explain that it is in respect of the International Red Cross. The annual contribution of the Republic of South Africa in Swiss francs dropped in value, due to exchange differences, from R50 000 in 1970 to R20 000 at the moment. The original rand value was restored in the current budget, but due to many financial problems the International Red Cross, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, requested a nonrecurring donation of R50 000, a request to compensate in part for the steadily dropping rand value contribution in previous years. Accordingly the R50 000 was given to them as a donation.

With regard to an exposition in detail of the programmes of landward defence and logistic support, I could just briefly mention the following: As far as landward defence is concerned, an amount of R21,6 million is earmarked for personnel purposes. The administrative expenditure amounts to R6,3 million. This is in connection with transport contractors. As far as stores are concerned, the amount totals R1 million. This is for sandbags delivered. The amount relating to services totals R4,5 million, and this is in connection with aircraft maintenance. The amount relating to the Special Defence Account totals R26 million. This concerns cash deficits in the acquisition of programmes. As regards logistic support, there is an amount of R0,5 million with regard to personnel acquisitions. The amount relating to the administration of logistic expenditure totals R8,1 million. This relates to transport contractors. As far as stores are concerned the amount is R36,4 million which for the most part consists of fuel and rations. The amount relating to buildings totals R8,5 million. This is the aspect which relates to Hoedspruit. As far as services are concerned, the amount totals R4,4 million which is chiefly intended for the repair of aircraft. The remaining R4 million relating to the Special Defence Account is in connection with the cash deficit for the ammunition programme.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has certainly done his homework. We thank him for the information he has read out to the House.

I should like to raise one particular item to which the hon. the Minister referred. That is the modernized pay system. I think it is common cause that this has been absolutely chaotic, and still is. There are thousands of instances of delays, and I would ask the hon. the Minister to give the House—for the information of servicemen—more detail on how he is going to eliminate the present unsatisfactory system. There are cases in which people have been waiting up to one year for their pay. This is not good enough, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us an answer on that.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that that is a very important factor relating to payment. I must point out that the chief of the Defence Force has instructed that after the end of February there may not be more than a hundred inquiries per month about payment difficulties. Therefore we are trying to reduce the number of inquiries to 100 per month and I think that for an organization of the size of the Defence Force that is very good. We are trying to computerize, and we have called in outside organizations to assist us and to make it as efficient as possible. Large organizations have given voluntary assistance in this connection.

†I can sum it up by saying that we are trying our best and I am quite sure that before the election everything will be solved. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister just two questions. The first one concerns a decrease and I suppose one very seldom raises a question on a decrease. I refer to main division 4—“Training”. Whilst it reflects a very small amount of only R57 500, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, against the background of the desperate need for training in South Africa, how he can explain this decrease.

The second question concerns main division 6—“Utilization of manpower”—where an amount of R918 500 is shown. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some detail on that.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply to the questions put by the hon. member.

In the first place he referred to training. The grant for 1980-’81 is R2 071 000, while the revised expenditure amounts to R2 013 000. This then leaves a decrease of R57 500 to which the hon. member referred. The decrease is due to the following: In the first place expenditure in respect of apprentices at the Westlake Vocational Training Centre and the M. L. Sultan Technikon was less than was originally expected. The hon. member will recall that in the meantime the M. L. Sultan Technikon in Durban has also been equipped for the training of artisans. Under the Artisan’s Training Act, 1951, a maximum of 198 apprentices are trained annually in a variety of trades at the Westlake Vocational Training Centre and a maximum of 40 at the M. L. Sultan Technikon. Of course the hon. member knows that the Westlake institution is situated near Cape Town.

Provision for the payment of apprentices’ maintenance allowance, fees for subject tests, subsistence and transport costs, repayment of wages lost by apprentices and the supply of overalls and equipment is made on my department’s estimates. Since factors such as the number of apprentices, their marital status and the number of their dependants, which determine the amount of allowances and other expenditure mentioned above, are not always available before the preparation of the estimates, the expenditure is difficult to predict. This is what happened in the present case. It appears from the details in respect of the apprentices which are at present available to the department that it is possible to effect a saving. This is not a large saving, but the hon. member will observe that it is nevertheless quite a large amount.

I could also point out to the hon. member that it sometimes happens that one has an intake in respect of which less expenditure is involved because a number of unmarried people enrol which, of course, results in cheaper training. Furthermore it is true that the amount which is paid to apprentices in the form of subsistence and transport costs, is less than what was expected.

All conditions of tuition for apprenticeship which are laid down in terms of the Apprentices Act, provide that an apprentice has to undergo one compulsory trade test during his apprenticeship. In addition the conditions of tuition provide that every apprentice, depending on educational qualifications which he obtained before or during apprenticeship, may write a voluntary trade test at an earlier date. If an apprentice who writes a voluntary test should fail, he qualifies for the compulsory test in any case. When the apprentices take the tests at Olifantsfontein, the usual transport costs are paid to them by the department. All these factors, inter alia, whether it so happens that there are many apprentices whose travelling expenses have to be paid and whether it so happens that there are more married apprentices, make the difference because the expenditure per person can differ. Consequently the hon. member will understand that one should rather prepare estimates which are on the generous side so that one has something left, than to find oneself in difficulties later on because one does not have adequate funds to cover the necessary expenses of people who wish to study.

As far as the utilization of manpower is concerned, the increase in the voted amount is R918 000, and this is due to the increase in the wages of sheltered workers and the introduction of a holiday bonus. This amounts to an increase of plus-minus 29% in the remuneration. The service bonus amounts to an increase of 15% in their remuneration as from 1 April 1980. The department’s sheltered labour scheme consists of 13 factories and provides work for persons whose physical or mental disabilities prevent them from finding work on the open labour market. This increase is therefore due to the increase of remuneration as well as in expenses paid to these people. Although this is not a large increase, these people who are employed in sheltered labour are of great concern to us.

Mr. Chairman, I shall deal with this Vote on behalf of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization is handling this Vote. I know that he is experienced in Water Affairs, but I do believe that hon. Ministers should make an attempt to be in the House when the additional estimates are being discussed in order to answer for their departments in person.

I want to ask questions about three matters under Vote 20. Firstly, under main division 4—“Ex-gratia payment—Trustees: Percy Bilton Charitable Trust” and, secondly, main division 6—Operation of Government water schemes. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what additional costs have been incurred which are in the region of nearly 10%? Finally, under main division 8 under “Supporting and associated services” there is an item “Central Provisioning (Pretoria)”—it sounds like the Public Service canteen—for which originally R10 000 was voted and we are now asked to vote an additional R2 690 000.

Mr. Chairman, the one question concerned the establishment of State water schemes. The R132 million involved is a large amount.

The second question concerned ex gratia payments. A decrease of R114 000 is as a result of the transfer of funds to programme 1, which is involved in this. This, together with a net increase of R1 515 398 in connection with various schemes, is the result of the deliberate curtailment of activities in order to effect a saving. The essential improvements include a total amount of R3 310 000 for improved conditions of service. The ex gratia payment is a payment of R14 464 to the Trustees: Percy Bilton Charitable Trust. Then there is in respect of the Four-and-twenty Rivers State water schemes—the hon. member will know these are part of the Berg River scheme—an aqueduct servitude across the property De Hoek in the Tulbagh division has been expropriated in return for an offer of compensation amounting to R9 393, and this is what necessitated the expenditure. Through their attorney Prestige demanded a further amount of compensation for the building of an earth dam to replace two cement dams which were destroyed during the building of the canal. The amount involved was R14 364. According to departmental cost estimates the building costs of the two cement dams would have amounted to R21 600. Consequently the amount in the Prestige claim works out more favourably for the department.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with Supporting and Associated Services: Central Provisioning (Pretoria). There is an increase of R2 690 000 here. In the main budget only nominal provision was made for the introduction of the subprogramme. The increase is the result of the actual demand for provisions for the various programmes where they have to be used. The full amount is being recovered by means of internal levies and the credit, under the internal levy programme, is accordingly being increased.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to programme 13: “Environmental utilization— nature conservation.” Under the reference “Other” there is an increase of nearly 100%, the amount of the increase being R1 714 000. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister exactly how this money is being spent.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member referring to the amount of R2 164 000 under “Environmental conservation”?

I am referring to the amount of R1 714 000 under item 13.

Mr. Chairman, the revised estimate for “Environmental utilization” is R8 873 000, and consequently there is an increase of R2 164 000. This increase is made up as follows: A contribution to the National Parks Board of R1 200 000; the “Keep South Africa Clean” campaign, for which R420 000 is required; and an amount of R544 000 which is required in respect of improved conditions of service. This gives a total of R2 164 000. Furthermore there are “Internal charges”, where there was an increase of R1 520 000. The increases of R1 520 000 in respect of recoverable portions of expenditure are constituted as follows: In respect of geo-technical services there was a decrease of R13 000; in respect of workshop services an increase of R750 000; in respect of construction services an increase of R113 000; in respect of central provisioning the amount was R2 690 000; and in respect of water drilling services there was a decrease of R520 000. Consequently there was an increase of R2 803 000 on the one hand and a decrease of R1 283 000 on the other, and this gives us a nett increase of R1 520 000. I do not think the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation will mind if I say that I shall send these particulars to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister and I want to refer him to page 20-1, item 7: “Control of Public Water.” I want to know whether under that heading or under the heading F: “Professional and Special Services” on page 20-2 we are voting an amount which will be used in the combating of the water hyacinths in our waters.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member just repeat his question concerning water hyacinths?

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether under either of those two headings, i.e. item 7: “Control of Public Water” or item F: “Professional and Special Services” on page 20-2 we are voting money for the combating of water hyacinths.

Mr. Chairman, I must now reply to the hon. member’s question off the cuff. I recall that when I was still in charge of this portfolio, the control of water hyacinths fell under special services. I shall be surprised if it no longer falls under that heading. The hon. member will recall that it was the practice in the department at that time to include a whole number of conservation and development services under “special services”. The control of public water is one of the programmes of the department and the hon. member now asked a question pertaining to the revised estimated, which represents an increase of R110 000. There was an increase of R93 000 as a result of improved service conditions and the net increase of R17 000 was principally caused by staff expansion, which consequently led to an increase in the administrative expenditure as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give an elucidation of the increase in the three amounts in this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, the amount in respect of “decentralization of industries” is bound up with the decentralization benefits which accrue to industrialists. In this regard there are two main groups of benefits. Firstly there are the rebates on rail transport, which coincides with the increased rail tariffs which came into operation on 1 April 1980. Secondly, there are the subsidies which are paid instead of the tax benefits which accrue to industrialists. The exact amount is very difficult to estimate in advance, since it is difficult to estimate how many industrialists are going to apply for a subsidy instead of tax benefits. In the past year it became apparent that far more industrialists made use of the subsidy than the tax benefits. In addition more industries expanded as a result of the economic upswing and consequently larger subsidies were claimed instead of tax benefits.

The increase in wages as well as the higher prices of machinery has also resulted in industrialists asking for larger concessions. These are the two components used to estimate the subsidies. Those two aspects contributed to the increased expenditure under subhead 2, “Industrial Services” and “Decentralization of Industries”.

The increase in regard to the S.A. Bureau of Standards coincides with an improvement of salary conditions. The increase in salaries is covered in Vote 31, but an additional amount had to be requested for the improved conditions of service, particularly as far as pensions are concerned. Hence the amount of R350 000 for the S.A. Bureau of Standards. The same applies to the amount which is due to the CSIR. There, too, last year’s salary increases were accompanied by an improvement in conditions of service and this meant that a larger amount had to be contributed to the pension fund on a rand-for-rand basis. That is the explanation for the increase there. The same applies to three research institutes which fall under the CSIR. The salaries and conditions of service of the staff of the research institute in question have also improved. They are the Sugar Research Institute, the Fishing Industry Research Institute and the Leather Industry Research Institute. This contributed to the amount of R1 165 000.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister provide us with further information on the increases with regard to main divisions 2, 3 and 4 in particular? It was particularly noticeable to us that in the case of main division 2, “Provision of Housing”, there was an increase of 0,5%, whereas in the case of main division 4, “Official Quarters”, there was an increase of 6%. Could the hon. the Minister provide us with further information about that, as well as about the increases in main divisions E and F under the presentation according to standard items?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the hon. member for Sea Point asked for information on main division 2. I want to explain that in respect of all the Votes I am dealing with, in both Community Development as well as Public Works, it will in general become evident that since my department is engaged in the development industry in particular and has to make considerable use of architects, quantity surveyors and engineers and especially because the department has a staff shortage, we are compelled to appoint an increasing number of outside firms to assist us. These peoples’ fees are estimated on the costs of the programme. As a result of the escalating costs in the building industry, these people’s fees have increased to such an extent that we have experienced increases in our costs in all these areas. Included under main division 2—Provision of Housing—is a large development programme in respect of the Coloured area, Ennerdale. During the past year we have had various development programmes in progress and in the process we have made considerable use of outside firms. The additional costs deriving from fees paid to these firms amount to R262 000.

Another major item is the interest subsidy on housing loans. An amount of R1 420 000 is involved. The hon. member will be able to understand that very easily. My predecessor announced an improvement in respect of the payment of rent by the people who are assisted by the Housing Commission. It is related to the differentiated interest rates as well as the buying of houses. This programme came into operation on 1 October. As a result of the fact that the subsidies are now far higher, the amount involved is now R1 420 000.

I was furnishing the hon. member for Sea Point with a reply when the business of the House was suspended and I still owe him a reply on programme 4 which covers the same field as that of main division E and which involves an amount of R4 million. It may be divided into four items. The first is an amount of R2 million which we are spending on 60 residences for the Department of Foreign Affairs at Mafikeng. Before the new regulation which now exists, our people always stayed at the old Imperial Reserve, but this land is now required for other purposes by Bophuthatswana. Accordingly we had to issue instructions to make provision for alternative housing as soon as possible, and the R2 million was used for that purpose. In addition an amount of R1 million was used for leased premises which have been acquired throughout the country, for our Police and the Defence Force in particular. The largest amounts here were spent in Pretoria where there is a dire shortage of housing for those departments. At one stage the Defence Force was in dire straits and we had to acquire a considerable number of additional leased premises. We were unable to provide them. Of course rentals rose sharply in the interim and as a result of that the R8,5 million which was allocated for this Vote, was completely inadequate. A further R1 million was spent as additional costs involved in municipal services. There was a wave of increases in the costs of municipal services throughout the country. We often have to rent houses and units for the S.A. Defence Force and S.A. Police. Contracts are then concluded and we have to pay the rates as well, and these have shot up overnight. It is for this reason that we need an additional R1 million. I trust that this answers the question put by the hon. member for Sea Point.

There are four items here concerning which the hon. the Minister could perhaps give us further information. The first is under main division E, under which the cost of decorations, lighting etc., for national and local celebrations and public functions has increased from the original appropriation of R3 000 to R523 000. That is an enormous increase and the hon. the Minister must explain it. Under main division F, too, there is a substantial increase with regard to the purchase of furniture, safes, plant, machinery and tools. This reflects an increase of R1,25 million. Under main division G a grant-in-aid of R201 760 is being given to the Control Board of the Voortrekker Monument as against an original appropriation of R83 000. The final item to which I wish to refer falls under main division M, namely the accommodation, structures and engineering services, which have increased to R4 385 340 more than the budgeted amount. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us further information with regard to these four points.

With regard to main division E, in the first instance there is an ex gratia payment of R17 500. This is a repayment to the Bophuthatswana Government. Over the years, just as we have done in the case of Reygers Park in Rondebosch, they have paid rental for flats in Waterkloof Heights. The Department of Foreign Affairs made an agreement with them and on 18 November 1980 the Cabinet decided that the rental should be repaid to them by means of an ex gratia payment.

The Department of Defence is erecting a tent town for 8 500 members of the Defence Force with a view to the Republic festival celebrations in Durban. We had to create facilities there for these purposes. The provision and distribution of power for that tent village will cost us R250 000. We must also arrange for water provision and sewerage for the tent town. This will also cost R250 000. Therefore, this is an additional expenditure of R500 000 in connection with the Republic Festival celebrations in Durban.

Then there is another smaller amount of R20 000 with regard to miscellaneous expenditure also in connection with the Republic festival celebrations in Durban.

The hon. member also asked me about the large increase under main division F. Due to the process of rationalization that was set in motion in the Public Service and implemented in practice in the second half of last year, the department had to make provision for all the Ministers who travelled back and forth and also for the Directors-General and the Deputy Directors-general who needed new accommodation. We also had to make provision for the furnishing of that accommodation. We also had to furnish the residences that we purchased and rented for Ministers here in the Cape. The house of the Commissioner-General in Groblersdal had to be furnished and the house of the Director of Walvis Bay had to be furnished too. The furniture in this regard cost an additional R1 million.

The Voortrekker Monument falls under main division G2. At the request of the Control Board of the Voortrekker Monument provision was made in the 1979-’80 budget for a sum of R75 000. On 23 August 1979 they informed us that they were unable to have the work carried out in that financial year. Therefore, it had to be carried over to the 1979-’80 financial year. This was done. Prior to giving them the money, we asked for the CSIR to be called in to investigate the entire matter there and submit proposals to us because we were under the impression that the work may have been more extensive and that the repair work to the monument should be more extensive. The CSIR then made a very thorough study and ultimately established that a considerable amount of repair work had to be done to the south side of the monument. Ultimately the cost was calculated at R194 000. R75 000 appeared on the budget at the time and we then had to request an additional R118 760 for this purpose.

The hon. member also asked about M, which deals with accommodation, structures and engineering services. In the first place, due to the increase in the price of building material, an additional amount of R1,5 million is required for the services that are undertaken by the prison authorities themselves and which are under construction at present. Hon. members will notice that provision is being made in the budget for an amount for the account of this department. This will be used by the department itself, by their building teams, for providing their own services. Now they have informed us that they require an additional R1,5 million for the current financial year in order to proceed with those services. They must keep their work teams busy. They must keep a number of people busy. Of course, this work cannot be easily stopped simply because the money has been used up. That is why we are now asking for the additional R1,5 million.

Then we purchased a dwelling in Bishops-court with a view to possibly equipping it ultimately as an official residence for the vice-State President. It is a dwelling on a large plot. The house is in a fairly good condition. A Minister is living there at the moment because we had not yet been able to make the necessary changes there. At the moment the vice-State President is still living in his ministerial home in Newlands. However, provision must be made for him. The original idea was that he would settle in the Fort at St. James. However, as a result of the security measures that had to be taken there, and also because the place is squeezed in between other properties, that dwelling could not be converted for occupation by the vice-State President, and it was decided that we should look around a little. Accordingly we then purchased the house in Bishops-court. It is situated on a very large piece of land and it is very well positioned. Therefore, with a view to the future, we shall now have to plan for the possible erection of extra accommodation that can provide for the requirements of the household of the vice-State President. The dwelling that was purchased cost R260 000.

As hon. members know, there are now 20 Ministers, instead of the previous 18. Therefore, both in Pretoria and in Cape Town, we had to make provision for two extra Ministers. We have not yet purchased an additional dwelling here in Cape Town. The idea is that we will be able to provide for this need, together with the construction of the dwellings for the chairmen of committees of the President’s Council. However, in Pretoria we are in the process of renovating a dwelling in Brynterion for this purpose. The cost has not yet been included in the budget, because the work is being done on a departmental basis. The dwelling concerned has not been occupied by a Minister before, but it will now be able to serve as an official residence for one of the Ministers.

We also purchased another dwelling in Waterkloof for R225 000. Property prices in Pretoria are extremely high. I personally looked at 20 or 30 houses, and ultimately we have succeeded in obtaining a house that comes anywhere near to complying with the standards laid down. We then purchased this dwelling there. Then we also bought the block of flats called Mouille Grange, for which we paid R605 000. This is intended for senior Government officials who come to Cape Town for the Parliamentary sessions. The planning for this was completed long ago. However, we have to pay the purchase price now, and the amount for it must be voted now.

I believe that these are all the particulars that I can give the hon. member in connection with this question.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether there is any provision in the fund for the provision of accommodation for Coloured members of the President’s Council in Cape Town?

Mr. Chairman, we cannot make an exception with regard to the non-White members of the President’s Council. We do not do this for the other members of the President’s Council, nor for members of Parliament. Many people ask about Acacia Park. In the first place Acacia Park was not erected for members of Parliament. Originally it was meant for officials and ultimately we made additional accommodation available there. There are many members of the House of Assembly who cannot obtain accommodation in Acacia Park and they simply have to provide for themselves. The Government is adopting the same attitude with regard to the members of the President’s Council. However, the Government and myself realize that non-White members may perhaps experience a bigger problem because dwellings are not as readily available to them as they are to Whites. Nevertheless, there are international hotels. Then I must point out that dwellings available for non-Whites in the Peninsula are over-occupied. There is really no great problem in this regard, because there are only 15 or so of these members. Some of them live in the Peninsula, others have made provision for themselves and so far only three of them have announced that they require accommodation, one to myself and two indirectly to the department. We shall try to help them. We have offered two of them plots in the Indian area. These are wealthy people and they will probably build houses for themselves there. In addition, we have the five houses in Belhar which we used for members of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. We can utilize those houses too. I really do not think that there is a shortage.

Order! The hon. the Minister does not have to dwell on this matter for such a long time.

But the hon. member put a question to me in this regard, Sir.

The hon. member succeeded in putting his question and unfortunately the hon. the Minister began to reply to him before I could call the hon. member to order.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question further to his reference to the Fort, Muizenberg. This is a dwelling that belonged to Prince Labia. The hon. the Minister said that the dwelling is not suited to serve as a dwelling for the vice-State President. Why is this so? Is it because the street there is so narrow that there are no parking facilities?

Yes, but there is also the question of security measures that must be taken. In addition, additional accommodation must be made available for the household. If the vice-State President lives in the region of Groote Schuur, we can make provision for some members of staff in Acacia Park, whilst other members of staff may be accommodated in the environs. The problem is that the dwelling in Muizenberg is situated too far away and therefore we cannot send the people there from here. We had certain plans in view there and we really tried to organize the place for this purpose, but according to the estimates that we received, it would have cost in the region of R400 000 to make that place suitable for the specific purpose. The Government decided against an expense of that size.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have further details about the ex gratia payment to the Government of Bophuthatswana.

Mr. Chairman, that payment was made under Vote 13.

No, I am referring to the ex gratia payment under main division E of Vote 26.

I told the hon. member that the diplomats of Bophuthatswana always stayed in the diplomatic flats in Waterkloof Heights and they paid rental for them over the years. The Government then decided that the rentals should be repaid to them. The hon. member may inquire from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information as to the reasons why this decision was made. All I had to do, is to make the money available by means of an ex gratia payment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to announce that I will be dealing with this Vote on behalf of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches welcome the fact that more money is being spent in this very vital area, and we hope that this augurs well for the future. I should like the hon. the Minister, however, to give us some breakdown particularly on the three major main divisions relating to primary education, secondary education and tertiary education—main divisions 2, 3 and 4. For what are these amounts being utilized? Are they for additional schools or are they for additional staff? That is the sort of information which I seek and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give it to us.

And where.

Yes, and where the development is taking place.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question in regard to main division 2, “Primary education”, the amount of R2 316 000 is for equipment and books for schools that were taken over in the Mutzi area of Lebowa. The building programme in that area has been expedited. I shall group main divisions 2 and 3 together. Main division 2 is in regard to primary education while main division 3 covers secondary education. In the Mutzi area there are 31 000 schoolchildren, 637 teachers, 42 primary schools and 12 secondary schools. The additional R2 316 000 has been spent on school buildings and equipment for the children in that area after it had been taken over. It was not foreseen that this area would be taken over during this financial year, and that is why there has been this additional expenditure.

In regard to main division 4, “Tertiary education”, there has been such a run by students on accommodation at Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of the North that it was necessary to provide hostel accommodation, firstly at Fort Hare, for housing 120 female students and 170 male students, making a total of 290 students. At the University of Zululand two hostels were built for 126 female and 280 male students. At the University of the North a similar run on student accommodation was experienced, especially for females and accommodation for 200 students was provided.

An amount of approximately R1 million appears under main division 9B, “Hospitalization”. The actual figure is R850 000. This was provided for what is called a “CAT scanner”. This is X-ray equipment that was needed for Medunsa. It is a special type of modern equipment and is used to X-ray the body in sections instead of by front or lateral X-rays.

The items mentioned by the hon. member under this Vote are all in the line of primary, secondary and tertiary education.

The hon. member did not mention main division 5, but I should like to mention technical colleges. Nine technical colleges have been started and they are using mainly existing buildings. There are, however, certain building programmes that will come up in later budgets, but the amount under this main division was not foreseen and therefore was put in the additional estimates.

Mr. Chairman, there are two amounts under this Vote in respect of which I should like details. The first one is an additional amount of R2 520 000 being voted for a grant-in-aid to the S.A. Development Trust Fund. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of how much land is, in fact, being held at present by the Trust and why there is always such a delay in handing the land over to the homeland for which it is intended. Then I should like the hon. the Minister to give us details about the additional amount of R27 480 000, which is for assistance to Governments of self-governing Black States. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate to which States the additional amount is being made available. I should also like to have whatever details he can give us.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I shall deal with the amount of R2 520 000. This was voted to the Trust for certain essential services. I am simply mentioning the services as they occur seriatum. There is an amount of R1 270 000 for water provision for the relief of distress for drought conditions in Natal. This entails water provision at a cost of R551 000: at Ntambanana, Empangeni, an amount of R260 000—I am not giving particulars about the number of water tanks, etc., used there —at Groutville, Stanger, an amount of R170 000 and this is also in respect of relief of distress, water tanks, etc.; at Inanda, Durban, an amount of R55 000. Assistance was also given there in connection with nearly 60 000 squatters. It is a tremendous achievement to have been able to deal with the situation like the one at Inanda in the way that it was in fact dealt with. At Goedeverwachting, a rapidly growing densely populated settlement to the east of Pietermaritzburg, a water provision and relief of distress project was also tackled to try to assist the rapidly growing community there. Then work to the value of R55 000 was also carried out at Newton, Sinandini and Nieupolitiek. This is also a densely populated settlement close to Edendale. The population there has already increased to more than 800 families. Relief of distress was also granted there in the form of providing water, etc. A further R30 000 is also required there for pipelines which will be more economical as a permanent supplement than would be the case if water was continued to be transported there. There is also an item of R460 000 with regard to the Trust Appropriation. This is for the provision of employment.

You have not done very well there, have you?

We have done very well. In a moment I will be able to give a few more details in this regard. It is amazing how well we have in fact done. Work was provided in the form of cleaning tanks and dipping tanks and repairing cattle dips and drinking troughs, clearing 35 km of firebreaks, repairing 52 km of sidewalks and 15 km of bus routes. I am mentioning these details so that the House can take note at the same time of what this department is doing to provide work in the areas where it is essential to do so.

I am still referring to the money voted to the Trust. There are also credit facilities for the Zulu farmers on the land of the S.A. Development Trust. The amount involved here is R261 000. This was established after discussions with the Natal Sugar Association. We helped the sugar farmers of kwa-Zulu. The last item that I want to mention in connection with the Trust, has a bearing upon the continuation of services in the Moutsé district. The amount involved here is R1 249 000. This is being used in particular for soil planning and conservation, for providing employment and creating revenue, for providing social services and creating physical infrastructure. I have now dealt fully with the amount voted to the Development Trust.

Now I come to programme 6—assistance to Governments of self-governing Black States—where an amount of R27 480 000 is involved. I am now going to mention the States that receive assistance. There was an amount of R13 490 000 for the Ciskei. A very large portion of this sum was for combating drought conditions. We involved 13 000 people in the project with the funds that were voted. For Gazankulu there was an amount of R1 767 000; for Kangwane, an amount of R505 000; for Kwa Ndebele, an amount of R1 305 000; for kwaZulu, an amount of R9 907 000; for Lebowa, an amount of R3 711 000; and for Qwaqwa, an amount of R219 000. This then gives the total of R27 480 000 if one takes into account another amount, viz. a decrease of R2,633 million in the appropriation of Lebowa as a result of the fact that Moutsé no longer forms part of Lebowa. If the hon. member wants details regarding the various States, I shall give them to him with the greatest of pleasure because I have them here, but I can tell him that the largest portion of this amount was used to grant assistance in drought threatened areas and to provide for certain basic needs.

In conclusion, I come to the hon. member for Houghton who said that the provision of employment was not so good. I have already said that we succeeded in providing employment to 13 000 people in the Ciskei as a result of this amount in the Additional Appropriation.

What is the cost per job?

It is very low.

The hon. the Minister must answer that question today.

The hon. member can work it out herself. The hon. member must also bear in mind that we gave assistance with regard to feed, water provision and many other things. However, the point that I want to make, is that we involved more than 28 000 people in kwaZulu in some way or other as a result of this money that was voted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to give the House an explanation regarding various items that appear under this vote. In the first place there is item 3—Animal Production Promotion—with regard to which there has been an increase of R3 886 903. I am referring in particular to the ex gratia payments to J. Staby and others. The former Minister of Agriculture may listen too; perhaps he can give some assistance.

Where is your farm, old Kowie? Where do you farm?

Sir, the second item regarding which I am asking for an explanation from the hon. the Minister, is item 5—Entrepreneur Development— with respect to which an amount of R556 000 must be voted. With regard to “botanical research grants-in-aid to National Botanical Gardens” under item 7 “Supporting and associated services”, I should like to know what is involved here. Then there is also a very large sum of R25 600 000 that must be voted for item 10—Subsidies and assistance. Finally, an amount of R11 411 000 is being voted for item Il-Agricultural Financing.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to talk about item 3—animal production promotion. The ex gratia payments are related to losses suffered by farmers as a result of two groups of faulty paratyphoid vaccine issued by Onderstepoort. The vaccine concerned, group 179, the anthrax vaccine, is provided by the Veterinary Division and issued to farmers. Foreign organisms were apparently present in two of the consignments of vaccine that were issued, causing swelling below the skin and an accummulation of fluid in the chest cavities of the animals which resulted in death amongst the animals that were vaccinated. Altogether 682 animals were involved in the claims submitted by 75 farmers. This is why an ex gratia payment was made to them.

In connection with item 5—entrepreneur development—I can simply mention that the increase of R556 000 was caused as a result of the additional expenditure in connection with establishing a documentation centre, provisional expenditure for the celebration of the Republic festival and a continuation of the test programme in connection with the use of sunflower oil as fuel for tractors. Then there is also the development of grounds for the agricultural college at Nelspruit for which R77 000 was required; an apparatus for the de-ionization of water at the agricultural college in De Aar; and increased food prices and maintenance services at agricultural colleges.

Then we come to item 7—supporting and associated services. I shall give a brief resumé of the details. In the first place there are increased contributions to the national botanical gardens. The amount concerned is included in the R18 million that has already been granted with respect to the first revised estimate according to a letter from the Exchequer dated 1/10/1980. I can just point out that the State contributes annually towards the activities of the various botanical gardens. The amounts total approximately R900 000 per year. The national botanical gardens have requested that this amount be increased as a result of the escalation in costs. This has already been approved by the Exchequer, but the additional amount of R145 000 must be indicated in the Additional Appropriation.

Then there is an increase of R60 000 in the rental of a computer for the Botanical Institute; completion of irrigation dams at Burgershall and Aloe and watering places for animals in the Highveld region to the amount of R69 000; security measures for foot and mouth disease to the amount of R11 000; increased costs of study trips abroad and increased expenditure for larger numbers of students that the department trains at technikons, in regard to which a sum of R127 000 is involved; game fences near Messina and safety precautions and maintenance regarding fences on borders for which R37 000 is required; a new replacement apparatus that is urgently required, as well as provision for considerable price increases in research apparatus, in which a sum of R91 000 is involved . . .

What type of research apparatus?

This concerns apparatus that is used to extract the various ingredients, with which vaccines are manufactured at Onderstepoort.

Now the hon. member knows even less.

This is extremely expensive apparatus. Then there was also a considerable increase in the cost of research material such as fertiliser, seed, etc. As far as the botanical gardens are concerned, I have already pointed out that the State provides assistance in this regard.

As far as item 10 is concerned—subsidies and assistance—we have the considerable increase of R25 600 000. Firstly, as a result of the increase in the production price of wheat on 1 October 1980 without a concomitant increase in the price of bread, a further R26,5 million is required to subsidize bread. However, there are savings too. Other aspects here are the prevention of drought conditions, particularly the serious drought in the arable land in the winter rainfall area and some areas of arable land in the summer rainfall area. As a result of these drought conditions, the Jakobs Committee has recommended that an interest subsidy be paid on the production carry-over debts for the 1978-’79 season. An interest subsidy of 3½% is payable on the Landbank interest rate with regard to cash credit loans for co-operatives. A four year period for repayment applies in this case. The subsidy is paid to the Land Bank on 31 June and 13 December. Furthermore, as a result of the serious drought experienced during 1979-’80 by sugar farmers in northern Natal and in the regions of arable land in the far western Transvaal, most of the Free State and certain areas in the northern Cape, the Jakobs Committee recommended that the interest subsidy scheme be extended to these areas too. With regard to the sugar farmers in Natal, the interest subsidy will be 3% on the Land Bank rate of interest of 8% on their loans in terms of section 34. This is to bring these farmers in line with the farmers in the summer rainfall areas. The period is seven years since the re-establishment of sugar cane is at issue here and the sugar industry is a long-term industry.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to programme No. 3, “Fiscal transfers”, and particularly to the subheading “Provincial subsidies.” I should like to know the reason for the increase, and to which provinces the increases were allocated.

Mr. Chairman, this is a higher amount than usual. The main reason is that every five years the formula governing the payment of the so-called subsidies to the provinces is revised. In this case the revision was fairly substantial, particularly because of cost escalations in the case of a number of factors. Then, too, there was what is known as an “agterskot”, which is also paid in terms of the formula. That amount was also higher than usual. A third factor was the provision that was made for salary increases for the provinces. The hon. member may know that certain staff are employed by the provinces directly. Provision has to be made for them, and it was necessary to make provision for supplementary amounts because there was an underestimate overall. The reasons I have given in fact apply to all four provinces.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for particulars relating to a number of matters. I should like to refer firstly to main division 8, which includes an ex gratia payment of R27 500 to New Garden Cities. Secondly, I should like to have particulars of the actions in respect of which interest has to be refunded in the case of taxation. The amount involved here is R150 000. Thirdly, I refer to an amount of R1 344 000 relating to economic and financial agreements with Lesotho, Swaziland, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. I should like to know why there should be an increase in respect of this particular main division at this stage. Then, too, I note that there has been an increase of R826 000 in respect of subscriptions to the International Development Association. In addition, there is another increase under this heading entitled “Other.” I am fascinated to know what is covered under “Other.”

“Miscellaneous!”

Yes, that is why I am asking.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I shall refer to the amount of R27 500 with regard to an ex gratia payment to New Garden Cities. New Garden Cities was registered in terms of section 21 of the Company’s Act of 1973 as an association without profit motives. It’s main aim is to provide accommodation and better standards of living for the Coloured community. On 25 August 1976, New Garden Cities purchased a farm, No. 458, and a portion of another farm in the Stellenbosch district, for the sum of R600 000. R30 000 was paid in transfer duties in respect of the transaction. The Stellenbosch Divisional Council notified New Garden Cities during October 1976 that it was not possible to provide the necessary services, and proposed that New Garden Cities exchange the land that they had purchased for a larger piece of land near Brackenfell, which was the property of the divisional council. New Garden Cities agreed and the property at Brackenfell was registered in the name of New Garden Cities during 1979, after payment of R28 077,04 in transfer duties. The result of the two transactions was that New Garden Cities agreedowns the ground in Brackenfell only, but has paid the transfer duties twice. New Garden Cities is in fact in partnership with the State for providing accommodation to the Coloured community, and therefore it was decided that it was not fair to oblige the firm to pay transfer duties twice under these circumstances. The approval of the Exchequer was then obtained for an ex gratia repayment to the amount of R27 500.

†The R1,344 million is the payment to Lesotho, Swaziland, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda in terms of an agreement where these countries use our currency in circulation. The Reserve Bank issues notes at a profit. It is under this agreement where our notes circulate in those countries that those countries would be compensated on the basis of an agreed formula for that fact. But there is a second element, and that is where those countries may have monetary reserves and might want to hold those reserves overseas where interest rates are higher. We find it very convenient in the administration of the affairs of the Rand Monetary Area that those reserves be held in Pretoria. This is done under agreement, and if there is an interest differential to their disadvantage at any particular time, then we, again, under a formula, make good the differential which is to their disadvantage. Those are the two elements in the situation and accounts for the R1,344 million.

Can you tell us what each country is getting?

The countries are Lesotho . . .

No, the separate amounts.

No, unfortunately I do not have the separate amounts with me but, if it pleases the hon. member, I shall write him a very nice letter and let him have those amounts.

“With love from Owen.”

For the sake of interest, I may just mention that the formula which makes up this method of compiling the so-called compensation, is to take the money in circulation in a particular country and multiply it by a factor of 1,2. That is really to compensate for the fact that our money is circulating in that country. Then multiply it by two-thirds of the interest rate on long-term Government securities to make up for the interest differential in comparison with the country where they might want to invest a particular amount at a better return. I shall give the hon. member these figures.

*With respect to “other” it has a bearing on other increases under programme 2— economic policy and financial control—and is related to the expenditure of the Exchequer and Finance Directorates with regard to administrative expenditure on transport and supplies. That sum was originally calculated at R36 000 lower than it should have been.

It is not other subscriptions is it?

No, it actually falls under 0. R150 000 is the last item shown here under the standard items.

*The additional amount is required for interest on the repayment of estimated taxes as a result of appeal cases (section 88 of Act No. 58 of 1962). Taking into account the expenditure until 30 September 1980—an amount of R122 000—and cases that may possibly be dealt with before 31 March 1981 and on which interest will be payable, additional provision is then being made for this purpose to the amount of R150 000.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the hon. the Minister to give the names of all the cases?

Oh, please man!

I shall give this to the hon. member too later on.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has answered the first part of my question. The second part is this. Could the hon. the Minister tell us how much of the provincial subsidy went to the Transvaal Provincial Council?

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I do not have a breakdown of that figure. We can certainly make that available to the hon. member later.

You will have a lot of writing waiting.

Mr. Chairman . . .

I put the Vote. Any objection?

Mr. Chairman . . .

Order! In terms of Standing Order No. 120 the hon. member must address the Chair when he rises to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I did address the Chair.

Order! It is not possible for me to notice a member who does not address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I did address the Chair, and in terms of the Rules, you should then call on me to speak. It is the duty of the Chairman to call on me by my constituency.

The hon. member must address the Chair. Only then will I call him by his constituency. He has to address the Chair first.

Mr. Chairman, I did address the Chair.

Well, then the hon. member should address the Chair loudly and clearly. The previous time when he rose to speak he also did not address the Chair. The hon. member may proceed.

All this, Mr. Chairman, for R80 000.

That can buy a lot of hearing aids. [Interjections.]

All I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, bearing in mind the small amount that is now going to be voted for this, is whether it is going to provide any solution to the problems of the Auditor-General, problems which are really serious.

Mr. Chairman, this is obviously one of the problems with which we are faced. It is a staffing problem of some serious dimensions. That is obviously one of the reasons why we have had to try to make significant salary adjustments this year. We hope very much that this will contribute towards easing the staffing position in the Public Service as a whole. With the shortage of staff, however, particularly of skilled staff throughout the economy and with the salaries, particularly the increased salaries offered throughout the private sector, one really does not know. Fortunately the calibre of people we have in a department such as this is very good. They are doing a tremendous job, but I could only hope that this will contribute to a solution. Whether it can do so overnight, however, I do not know. It is a serious problem. It is not confined to this department of course, but certainly also reflected here.

With respect, the difficulty I have with the hon. the Minister’s answer is that the audit department should receive a degree of priority, I believe. The reason for that is very simple. That is that—as we can also see in the latest report—it is quite apparent that they are firstly not able to carry out the adequate degree of checking and control because they do not have the necessary manpower, as a result of which a laxity creeps into the other departments. This in turn leads to financial losses being suffered in addition to all sorts of other administrative problems which arise. In those circumstances, while I appreciate that there is a very serious staff shortage throughout the Public Service, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that people are transferred into this department in order to put it at full strength. If that does not happen the consequences can be very serious for the Public Service as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat myself or hold up the Committee for too long but the hon. member and I are talking the same language. I can assure the hon. member that as far as it is in the power of the Commission for Administration to do so, this is precisely what is being done. Every effort is being made to find the necessary kind of staff. This is an exacting type of work and every effort is being made to find the staff who have to be of a particular calibre. This is one of the dilemmas facing us. However, it is not confined to this department. In fact, we have some serious shortages in other departments as well. I want to tell the hon. member that I would certainly like to see more staff employed in the revenue departments, the Department of Inland Revenue and the Department of Customs and Excise. We are doing the best we can in this regard. Fortunately, the people who are working there are tremendously dedicated. They work long hours with, I think, tremendous efficiency. However, as I say, I should certainly like to see more staff there and in other departments as well. We are doing our very best in this regard, Mr. Chairman, and I must say that we are not very happy about this position.

There is a shortage of good Opposition members too!

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in relation to three main divisions under this Vote. I refer to main division 2, “Civil Aviation”, in regard to which there is an increase in expenditure of R2 360 200; to main division 3, “Overland Transport”, in regard to which there is an increase of R10 568 600; and to main division 6, “Merchant Shipping”, in regard to which the increase is R2 636 300. Looking at the presentation in regard to programmes I find that the bulk of these increases are in respect of transfer payments but that there is also a large increase in respect of professional and special services. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some information in regard to the reasons for the increases in respect of these three main divisions.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the question asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in connection with civil aviation, the increase is due to salary improvements, an increase in telephone tariffs, power and water consumption, public transport, rail freight, Government garage transport, accommodation expenses and fuel prices; more specifically with regard to more extensive training of new recruits due to higher staff turnover, an increase in auxiliary services at airports, commissioning of additional armoured vehicles at airports, the cutting of grass along runways on a non-contractual basis, larger purchases of protective clothing due to a higher staff turnover, purchases of spare parts for fire-fighting vehicles, salary adjustments for Railway police staff who render service to the department on a percentage basis, additional construction work at Jan Smuts and D. F. Malan Airports, increased rentals in respect of computer services, underestimation in consulting engineering services at Jan Smuts and installation costs of the Solari system at D. F. Malan Airport; airfield subsidies and flying club subsidies.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also put a question in connection with the increased expenditure relating to transport on land. The increase resulted from salary improvements and the fact that the department itself must now accept debits in connection with Government Printer’s expenses, increased tariffs in regard to telephone services, rail freight, public transport, increased computer rentals, rental of tape recording services in connection with the Commission of Inquiry into Transport Facilities, a contribution to the Civil Engineering Advisory Council and increased subsidy payments. The biggest item in this increased expenditure of approximately R10 million relates to the increased payment of subsidies.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. member asked those questions because there is a statement I wish to make in connection with the proposed Commission of Inquiry into Bus Passenger Transport in the Republic. Due to the steadily increasing operating costs of bus services and the consequent increase in bus fares which, in turn, results in an increase in claims with regard to subsidies, the National Transport Commission recommended to me that I should approach the State President with a view to the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate bus passenger transport and to compile a report on the matter.

The idea is to give the commission comprehensive terms of reference to ensure that all aspects of bus passenger transport are covered. In this regard I might mention briefly that what the National Transport Commission has in mind is that the commission of inquiry should carry out an in-depth investigation into the tariffs imposed by bus operators, the basis on which tariffs are determined, the publication and implementation of tariff adjustments, the effect of tariff increases within the Republic on interstate areas etc. Together with this the commission should give attention to the subsidization of bus commuters and, if it is found to be justified, to the basis of subsidization, the payment of subsidies, etc.

We are also considering including in the terms of reference of the commission that it should recommend a policy for the future of the bus industry, with a view to energy supply, urban planning, the desirability of complementary activities and including these among the operating objectives of bus operators, the responsibility for the provision of facilities for the bus and passengers, the need for security for the bus industry in the interests of South Africa, interstate transport etc. Matters such as the effect of taxis on the bus industry and the laying down of guidelines in that regard, the desirability of the co-ordinating body or bodies for the various metropolitan areas, the desirability of a bus transport corporation and everything that would involve, etc., would also form part of the commission’s activities.

Because the terms of reference of the commission ought to cover such a wide field, it will be made up of persons representing the bus operator as well as the commuter. The Passenger Transport Association (SA) and the Southern Africa Bus Operators’ Association have accordingly been requested to nominate persons to be appointed as members of the commission. At the same time I have requested my colleagues the Ministers of Co-operation and Development and of Internal Affairs to nominate a Black man, a Coloured and an Indian respectively for appointment as members of the commission. The Director-General: Finances, the Director-General: Manpower Utilization, and the United Municipal Executive of South Africa have also been requested to nominate a representative each.

I intend recommending to the State President that the commission function under the chairmanship of Prof. P. J. Welgemoed of the Rand Afrikaans University. The final terms of reference and the names of the members will be announced in the Government Gazette after approval by the State President.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti put a third question to me in connection with item 6—Merchant Shipping, R2,6 million. This additional amount is the result of salary improvements—in fact, the examples I have just mentioned are also applicable here— and also due to the cost of telephone services, public transport, rail freight, accommodation allowances, etc. and also the replacement of extensive equipment and provision made to balance the revenue and expenditure account of the Oil Pollution Fund. That is in respect of the reductions. Nevertheless an amount of R2,7 million in addition to the original amount will be voted.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti did not put a question in that connection.

He did.

About reductions?

Yes, he asked a question in connection with item 6—Merchant Shipping. However, if he did not do so, some other hon. member would have asked the question.

Mr. Chairman, this item includes an additional amount of R6 880 000 as a contribution to the South African Coloured Persons’ Council, and we on this side would like further information in this regard. Further, there is an additional R620 000 for administrative, professional and other assistance on which we also require further information.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be handling this Vote for the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The reason for the increased amount of R6 880 000 is, firstly the increased payment of social pensions and allowances. I have the information available. Secondly, children’s allowances have also been increased. Then, thirdly, there is the increase in the allowances for free writing materials for primary schools and junior and senior secondary schools, and also a provision for free readers and textbooks for senior secondary schools. I have quite a bit of information on each category. This brings me to the R620 000.

*Due to the acute shortage in the department of suitable teachers for secondary schools in particular, a large number of teachers qualified for primary schools have to undertake tuition of secondary school subjects, while ample use also has to be made of the services of unqualified teachers. Accordingly, measures which will ensure that the quality of tuition received by pupils and students is as high as possible, are being investigated. Arising out of this, and to ensure continuity in education, it has been approved that with effect from 1 January 1981, White teachers in possession of a university degree and a teaching diploma who are fully qualified in the subjects which they are to teach, may be appointed in terms of the following provisions—

1. (a) Teachers must be selected by the Chief Inspector of Education concerned.
2. (b) Teachers are appointed for an unbroken period of four years.
3. (c) Teachers who have to meet bursary commitments to other education authorities are appointed for the period of their bursary commitment, on the understanding that the period of the appointment will extend over at least four years.
4. (d) The posts to which they are appointed in terms of paragraphs (a) or (b) are not advertised as vacant before the posts have been vacated by them for whatever reason.

†There is a great deal more information available, but the conclusion is that for the salaries of the abovementioned teachers an additional amount of R620 000 is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, there are two comparatively small items on which we should like some further information. Could the hon. the Minister concerned please give us a breakdown on the first item in regard to social pensions. What kind of pensions, for example, are referred to, and could the hon. the Minister also give us some information about the additional R988 000 for child welfare?

Mr. Chairman, the first item, as the hon. member said, refers to social pensions.

*The increase of R1 362 000 is exclusively attributable to—

1. (a) the non-recurring bonus which was payable to all pensioners during November 1980 and for which provision had not been made in the draft estimates since the department had been unaware that such a bonus would be paid. This came to an amount of R833 000.
2. (b) it is extremely difficult to ascertain in advance the increase in the number of pensioners with any degree of accuracy, as a result of which an underestimate was made in this regard in drawing up of the draft estimates. The larger increase in the number of pensioners will result in a deficit of R529 000 in the amount voted.

So the two amounts together give us an amount of R1 362 000.

The additional amount to be voted for child welfare is made up as follows—

1. (a) bonuses paid to all recipients of grants during November 1980.
2. (b) an increase in the number of recipients of grants as well.

So it is the same sort of provision as the other one.

Mr. Chairman, there are four minimal amounts mentioned under the heading “Official entertainment”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to tell us about the parties he has attended, which seem to be accounted for here. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically about the increase of more than 40% under the heading “Legal Expenses Incurred by State Attorney”, which seems to indicate a rather gross underestimate on the part of the Ministry of the amount required or, if it does not indicate that, it would seem to indicate a rather litigious tendency on the part of the department. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister precisely how the money was spent.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the entertainment to which the hon. member referred, I do not think he is so much interested in the parties I attended but rather in the invitations he may receive as a result of what he has said here.

I do not think he should be invited.

Sir, if the hon. member promises not to make any more speeches ad nauseam and if he promises to polish up his Latin, I undertake to commend him for invitations.

But does he want to go?

Fair deal!

Do you have dancing girls at your parties?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the increase in legal expenses, I wish to remind the hon. member for Sandton of the fact that the State Attorney has a vast clientele, among others all the Government departments, the provincial administrations and also the Railways and Harbours. During the current year we saw a vast increase in expenditure relating to offices, travelling etc. This is a trend which we observe in our economy and partly accounts for the underestimate. The hon. member must also bear in mind that this amount not only reflects amounts relating to bills of costs and judgments between party and party but also to attorney and client fees.

Mr. Chairman, I am very gratified to hear the explanation given by the hon. the Minister of Justice but it does seem to be extremely vague. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is in possession of any details whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, what kind of details is the hon. member referring to? He must remember that we have already dealt with a certain number of cases and these cases have been finalized. However, as a result of the indications we have as to the number of cases that have not yet been finalized, we have to budget for a global figure to meet what we think may cover the possible final number of cases.

The amount is sub judice.

The hon. member for Hillbrow suggests that the amounts are sub judice. If he invokes all the Latin he knows and all the other knowledge he has, he will still not be able to assist me for the simple reason that so many matters are pending. They have not been finalized. It is a global figure that we have in mind here. The hon. member can check on this amount again in the coming budget to see whether we have expended the full amount or whether there is a further shortfall.

Is that the hon. the Minister’s answer?

Yes, that is the answer.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Sine dubio it seems to me a sine qua non that in respect of the hon. the Minister it can be said that forti nihil dificilius. I wonder if he would like to respond to that? [Interjections.]

Sir, methinks the arguments of the hon. member are all ex abun-dante cautela.

Order! Let us return to the Additional Appropriation Bill and leave the Latin exercises for later on.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that under main division 3, “Services to Citizens”, there has been an increase of almost 30%. I should like to know what those services to citizens are and why there has been this large increase. I am also pleased to see that under main division 5 there has been an increase in expenditure as far as immigration is concerned. I should like to think that this is a result of more immigrants coming to South Africa. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on that as well.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply on behalf of my hon. colleague. As far as programme 3, “Services to Citizens”, is concerned, the expected deficit is ascribable to various factors. Due to the publication of the Electoral Act, 1979, election forms had to be revised and reprinted. All the new forms had to be supplied to regional offices of the department while political parties had also to be provided with supplies. 2 100 copies of the new Act had also to be purchased for use by electoral and presiding officers during elections and by-elections. The expected expenditure in connection with the general election on 29 April 1981, amounting to R415 500, and a further amount of R943 000, is expected in 1981-’82. I hope this answer is satisfactory.

As far as programme 5, “Immigration” is concerned, the deficit is chiefly ascribable to the following: Firstly, an increase in the number of immigrants qualifying for assistance; secondly, an increase in the State contribution to costs of passage for immigrants up to 80% of the tariff for adults without a limitation on the maximum amount; and, thirdly, the payment of financial assistance with effect from 1 January 1980 to immigrants from neighbouring States who were previously excluded from any form of assistance under the State-supported immigration scheme.

Mr. Chairman, we have grown accustomed to the good reputation of the Department of Foreign Affairs for close budgeting over the years. That is quite a feature of its budgeting. We hope we shall also be able to say the same of the Department of Information now that the two are combined. However, we note that this year the increases are rather larger than is usually the case.

It is all the broken china.

The increase is roughly of the order of 7½%. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could enlighten us on two points. The first, going by the list of presentation according to programmes, is “Diplomatic Services”, in respect of which there is an increase of R2 187 000, which again is of the order of 7½%. We would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain how this was brought about. Secondly, we should like to know more about the item “Development Aid and Co-operation”. We understand that development aid and co-operation may in certain respects be a confidential subject. Nevertheless the increase in respect of this is substantial. If the hon. the Minister could indicate in what direction, for what purposes and with what success this kind of money is being spent, it would be helpful to us in assessing the expenditure. The last item under this Vote is “Liaison services” where there is a substantial additional appropriation, and I will be glad if the Minister will indicate what this additional appropriation was for.

It is true that more was budgeted for the programmes to which the hon. member for Constantia referred. I am grateful to him for having put the questions to enable us to put the matter in perspective.

As regards his first question relating to “Diplomatic Services”, in respect of which there is an increase of R2 187 000, we are dealing with expenditure which cannot in the normal course be foreseen. In the first place, we have a large number of locally recruited personnel overseas, and their salaries, allowances, social pension and social insurance fall under the laws of the country in question. Although we can provide for ordinary scale increases and increments in the allowances and salaries they have to be paid, the increases that may take place in those countries in terms of their laws cannot be predicted. As the hon. member is aware, they are sometimes subject to trade union negotiations, and then we have to fall in with what is decided. In this instance it was a fairly substantial amount, which could not be budgeted for with precision. Then, too, there are rentals, for example for houses of officials overseas. We pay for this, and in view of the inflation and price increases that are occurring in so many countries, one can imagine the situation. We have officials in Japan, South America, Europe and the North American Continent, and hon. members can imagine how inflation in some of these countries complicates the prediction of salaries. Accordingly it is very difficult to predict such expenditure with accuracy. Then, too, there is expenditure such as school fees. We have to pay for officials to take their children overseas and send them to school there. We pay these fees since the children would have been entitled to free schooling in South Africa. These fees are also subject to sudden changes and unpredictable increases.

Then, too, there is an item such as travel and accommodation overseas. Some of our officials who are stationed in a country often have to undertake long journeys in that country. In America, for example, officials of the embassy in Washington often have to visit other federal States and travel long distances. The travelling and accommodation costs are constantly on the increase, and we cannot always foresee when the American airways or hotels are going to increase their tariffs. Then, too, there is our programme of inviting guests to visit South Africa. We cannot always foresee a year in advance that we shall invite a certain dignitary. In international life events occur in such a way that one can be faced with the situation, not overnight, but perhaps in a month or two, in which it becomes desirable to invite a high-ranking guest, and then we have not budgeted for that because the possibility had not existed when the budget was drawn up. I should not like to mention specific countries here, but I think that the hon. member will perhaps know to which countries I am referring. There are items such as telephone and telex costs, and we are communicating more and more by telephone and telex and less and less by mail. Nowadays an airmail letter still takes a week or longer to reach its destination. However, we are still sending airmail bags with the routine administrative matters which the department deals with in respect of every office abroad. Most of the other political and diplomatic work often require decisions within a day or two, and accordingly the expense involved in communication with our offices has also vastly increased. This, too, is often subject to tariff increases over which we have no control and for which it is difficult to budget.

I think I have now dealt in general terms with most of the items. There are smaller items such as immigration. For a long time, Immigration was more or less at a standstill, and in this regard I am referring to immigration from European countries to South Africa. For a year or two there was not a significant number of immigrants. In recent months there has been renewed interest in immigration to South Africa. Now, all of a sudden, every office must again have forms printed and appoint one or two extra members of staff. This results in unforeseeable expenditure.

As far as development aid and cooperation is concerned, there are two main items which make up virtually the entire amount. One is the flour subsidy. My department is used to channel the flour subsidy which has to be paid to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We cannot budget for that in advance because it is in fact the Wheat Board and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that submit those claims. We merely pay that claim, which depends on the claims submitted to them, for example by the bakers who bake the bread.

The other major item from which that amount is made up is the emergency aid we gave Transkei during the drought there. This was in respect of water, food, medicine etc., and we could not foresee that. Then, too, there is a smaller amount in that item relating to aid to an African state ravished by storms.

The increase in liaison services is chiefly due to the replacement of obsolete apparatus and the larger circulation of departmental publications at present being printed. May I just explain: the condition of the apparatus, the darkrooms for photographic development and the offices for the preparation of publications such as Panorama and Oorsig of the Department of Information were in such a poor condition that hon. members would hardly have believed their eyes were they to have seen them. In fact, they were in such a poor condition that we had to lock some of the premises because electrical short circuits had begun to occur in the basins for developing films. Now, as funds come available from Treasury, we have to modernize, extend and replace this apparatus. Then we also have, due to developments in South Africa, for example the establishment of the President’s Council, the difficult negotiation process concerning South West Africa and important events such as the Geneva Convention concerning which background documents have to be published. Then we go out of our way to distribute the appropriate correspondence and the documentation with regard to these events as widely as possible both at home and abroad to a far greater extent than before. This is chiefly why this increase has occurred. It is partly due to unforeseen events and partly as a result of the need to replace obsolete apparatus, apparatus which was vitally necessary to enable us to continue with our production process.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record I should like to know whether any of the money, particularly under “Liaison services”, or any money in this Vote at all, whether covertly or overtly or in any other way, has been paid to the SABC.

Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is no. That was budgeted for under the Special Account, and money from the Special Account was paid to the SABC for its audiovisual service. However that is not included here.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to item D— “Equipment”, under the heading “Presentation according to standard items”, I note that the amount totals only R67 000, which is less than 10% of the total amount relating to liaison services. I must therefore assume that the greater part of the amount relating to liaison services is not really being used for equipment or apparatus, but in fact for the extra services provided. What is the hon. the Minister’s comment in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, allow me to begin by furnishing an explanation as to the way in which our budgets are now compiled. The first main columns relate to the programmes, while the lower columns indicate the items. In order to explain I refer the hon. member to the top section, which contains the programmes. Under “Administration”, “Diplomatic services” and “Liaison Services”, we encounter virtually every item provided in the list in the lower column. That is the problem. That is why reconciliation is not really possible in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I ask whether the amount of R67 000 relating to “Equipment” only forms part of the amount which will be utilized.

The item “Equipment” cannot summarily be fitted into the top column. It is an item that is represented in the programmes “Administration”, “Diplomatic Services” and “Liaison services”. Now, we have a number of calculations in this regard which do not always make matters so simple. I refer for example to item C in the lower column—“Stores and livestock.” A printed form could for example fall under “Stores.” In some cases, books purchased would also fall under “Stores.” That is the problem. A camera, for example, may be required for a liaison service, or even negatives or photographs. Even telephone calls can fall under “Liaison services.”

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I prefer to say nothing on that score.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to point out that I find it most unfortunate that the hon. the Minister responsible for the Police portfolio has not been here at all today. This does make it somewhat difficult when one seeks specific information from the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this department.

I seek information particularly in regard to the items C and D under the standard items, relating to “Stores and livestock” and “Equipment.” In respect of Item C the increase amounts to R4 786 000, and in respect of Item D the increase amounts to R3 323 000. I seek this information because I believe it may relate very directly to the very considerable discontent which exists in the S.A. Police Force at the present time.

We know of the problems in the Police Force. We know of the fact that last year alone there were some 2 000 resignations from the Police Force. I think people tend to relate this entirely to the really pitiful salaries that are paid to S.A. policemen. From other information, however, it appears that the discontent is not simply in regard to salaries. It is also in respect of matters such as overtime, faulty vehicles which policemen are obliged to use, a shortage of vehicles, great delays in the issuing of uniforms, obsolete weapons which they are asked to carry, and many other factors which come to my mind following complaints lodged with me. When I look at the items relating to stores and equipment and livestock, I should like some information about what is precisely provided for here and whether we are getting any closer to supplying proper equipment and proper services to the S.A. Police Force. I should like some information in connection with this.

Mr. Chairman, due to the unavoidable absence of the hon. the Minister of Police I have been asked to deal with the discussion of this Vote on his behalf.

We welcome the fact that the hon. members of the Opposition are concerned about the Police and that they express their concern by way of these questions. If they carry on like this for a few years, they may succeed in erasing the present image of that party as one which over the years has undermined the image of the Police in this House.

Why is the hon. the Minister of Police not present?

Why are you not always present?

I am always present when matters in which I have an interest are discussed. Where is the hon. the Minister?

The hon. the Minister of Police provided me with all the information, and if the hon. members want the information they asked for, they must give me a chance.

We are awaiting his excuse.

But he gave an excuse.

He gave his excuse, after all. [Interjections.]

I now come to the questions asked about main division C—stores and livestock. Two additional amounts are involved here. Firstly there is an amount of R825 000, and secondly an amount of R3 950 000. The former item arose because far more fuel is being used at the moment for security lighting which has to burn all night, particularly at the smaller type of police station. In addition, there are approximately 100 new generators and/or emergency generators that have been purchased and are still to be installed. The price of domestic gas used by members performing special service and the artisan staff has also risen to an abnormal extent. The recent severe winter also caused heating costs to rise abnormally.

As regards the really major part of this item, viz. R3 950 000, the explanation is that this was chiefly caused by the purchase of more petrol and oil than was previously used. Due to the extensive riot situation and the fact that a large number of new vehicles were taken into use, fuel consumption increased very rapidly notwithstanding the fact that stringend fuel conservation measures are still being applied. The Police have also had an exceptionally successful year in crime prevention, and imaginative programmes have been launched to ensure prevention of crime. This inevitably resulted in additional fuel consumption, in the major centres in particular, under this head. There have also been increased activities relating to the combating of terrorism on the borders of our country as a result of which the fuel, petrol and oil account has increased tremendously.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us something about main division 5— detained persons. I think the amount has increased from R1 941 000 to R2 311 000, an increase of R370 000. I want to know whether these are security detainees that are being referred to, or are they persons who have been arrested and are detained in police cells while they are awaiting trial?

Mr. Chairman, under the subprogramme “Detained Persons” R370 000 is required additionally mainly to provide for the increased tariffs with regard to rations and also food and meals provided to prisoners from 1 April.

*The increased tariffs in this regard have been approved by the Treasury.

Since I am on my feet, I should point out that in my previous speech I had only replied with regard to main division C to which the first question referred. As regards main division D there is a whole long explanation which I shall have to give the House.

In the first place, main division D includes an amount of R280 000. This is an amount which was required for the purchase and hire of labour-saving aids. The increased amount was chiefly due to sharp price increases. We are concerned here with items which often have to be imported from abroad at great cost. Service fees for copiers have also increased considerably.

In the second place there is an item of R144 000 under main division D which is required for the purchase of photographic and technical equipment under the subprogramme Crime Records. Once again, all these items are imported from abroad at highly inflated prices. There were also other problems relating to the importation of these items which resulted in the prices being increased. A large number of very expensive items, for example comparison microscopes, had to be purchased. All these factors contributed to the increased expenditure.

In the third place, there is a very large amount of R2 738 000 which relates to a number of items. Firstly there is an item of R1 597 000, then one of R1 100 000 and another of R41 000. Due to requirements when riots occur, other special services that have to be rendered and the combating of terrorism on the borders of our country, certain motor and other vehicles had to be purchased urgently. The prices of some of these vehicles have risen abnormally since the last budget. Something that may have a bearing on the objection raised by the hon. member is the development of a new type of riot vehicle, the cost of which is already approximately R100 000. The price of material such as armourplating and bullet proof glass has also increased abnormally and it is materials of this nature that are required for urgent and essential modifications to mine-proof vehicles.

Due to the security situation on the border, more huts are being constructed, and this gives rise to considerable expenditure. Included here are alarm systems and scrambling devices which had to be purchased at great expense. Another contributing factor under this Vote is the price increases of certain items, which is of course a general problem. R1 100 000 of the additional amount has therefore been utilized for general equipment.

Radio and technical equipment, which is also very expensive, had to be purchased. Some of it had to be imported from abroad. Due to the major expansion of the radio network that is being carried out at the moment, more equipment was necessary. The amount required for this was R41 000.

Finally, an additional amount of R172 000 was required in respect of item D for mess and barrack equipment. In the light of the growing shortage of manual labourers, the messes are becoming more and more modernized in order to eliminate manual labour and by so doing to ensure better utilization of the manpower in the S.A. Police and provide more convenient conditions for the Police. Moreover, a large number of new messes have been opened, and most of the equipment is purchased at great cost. Free issue of bedding for the new barracks, and the replacement of old bedding, has also increased to an abnormal extent. So has the price of linen.

I believe that the hon. member has now been furnished with a full reply.

Mr. Chairman, I take it from the hon. the Minister’s reply that there is no provision in these extra amounts for overtime pay?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the so-called overtime is concerned, I want to begin by putting the hon. member in the picture. No provision is made for overtime payment in the Police Service. [Interjections.] What does exist is additional compensation for additional work. [Interjections.] If a policeman normally has to go home at six o’clock, but is still busy with a certain task which he only finishes at eight o’clock that evening, he receives no overtime payment for the extra hours he has worked.

Is he not paid?

No, he is not paid. However, provision is made for additional compensation for additional work; that is to say, if a policeman has a day free when he need not work . . .

If a policeman works more than four hours than the prescribed number of hours . . .

I shall explain it now. [Interjections.] Let us get the facts straight. Additional compensation is paid when a policeman, on his off day, works a shift of at least four hours or eight hours. No provision is made for overtime payment under this item, although I know that there is a misunderstanding on this point. [Interjections.] The mistaken impression has been created that funds were not available. Provision is still made for the payment of additional work, but the amount available for additional compensation for additional work has been reduced.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brits concluded the debate last night, and on his behalf, I should just like to apologize for the fact that he is not here to listen to the reply to the debate. He is unable to be here because he had to leave suddenly.

I should just like to reply to a few points that were raised here last night. Perhaps I should give attention at the very outset to the hon. member for Brits and congratulate him on the speech that he made. I think he stated in a nutshell what the whole matter is actually about. I think the hon. member put it clearly—this is also in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville—that what is at issue here, is actually a person whose term of imprisonment has been completed, but who is still under departmental treatment at that stage. He may be on parole and have already left the institution. If he should perhaps stop taking his medicine—or perhaps he has already stopped taking it—the legislation makes provision for his being brought back to the institution.

†I think the hon. member wrongly interprets the word “custody”. The word “custody” does not mean that the person necessarily has to be put into gaol. What it actually implies is that the superintendent of the institution where the patient should actually be, can ask the Police to fetch the person concerned and bring him back to the institution. He is simply arrested by the Police and put into a cell. I was surprised at the two cases the hon. member mentioned, because they have nothing to do with this Bill at all. They do happen to be unfortunate cases of people who were obviously so mentally deranged that they had to be put into a Police cell where something happened to them, but that has nothing to do with this Bill at all. It is amazing how the hon. member manages, from time to time, to raise things that have nothing to do with the legislation, but simply put either the Department of Police or my department in a bad light.

*The hon. member for Albany has already replied to this, and I think he put it in a nutshell: He put it very clearly, and I do not think I need digress further on this. The aim of the amendment is to make it possible for us to have the Police return a person who has served his sentence and stopped taking his tablets, to the institution once again. How else are we going to get him there?

Will he be returned by the Police?

Of course. He can be arrested by the Police. Is the superintendent to catch the man, tie him up and bring him back to the hospital? The normal procedure that is followed, is that we ask the Police to collect the man at his house.

What about the night that he spends in the police cell?

How would such a person end up in a police cell? Surely the superintendent would only have him collected if there was space for him in the hospital. After all, it is not being provided here that he be locked up in a cell. This is not provided anywhere in the legislation. Either the hon. member for Hillbrow did not read the Bill carefully before he delivered his speech, or he does not understand it properly.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to clause 4, the long clause whereby section 42A is inserted in the principal Act. This provision was actually requested by the Transkei Government, and for a very particular reason. The Transkei Government has psychiatric hospitals, such as the one at Umzimkulu, but there is a problem regarding cases that have to be admitted for observation, people who are committed to an institution by a judge or a magistrate, people who cannot be taken to just any psychiatric hospital. These people have to go to hospitals where they can be kept under special observation, where they can be attended to by psychiatrists, psychologists and special staff, and there are not many people with such qualifications in the Transkei at the moment. These people have always been sent to hospitals either at Komani or to hospitals in Natal, but the Attorney-General of Natal found that there was a problem in this regard. He said it was no longer possible to do this because we are dealing with an independent country. That is why, a short while ago, the Transkei, through its Minister, requested me to look into this matter. The only way in which we can solve the problem is by inserting the proposed section 42A, so that we will be able to help them to see to it that these people are properly observed, but we have also added, as part of the clause, a provision that after these people have been observed, they must go back to the Transkei. We cannot keep these people after they have been under observation. They must either be taken to court or be committed to their own psychiatric institutions. That is the only reason for the insertion of the proposed section. It does not destroy anybody’s credibility. We have been doing this for years. We help patients from Lesotho, Swaziland and all over. Nobody’s credibility is at stake here. It is only a matter of good-neighbourliness and if we can we will obviously help any of these States that formed part of South Africa in the old context.

*I have already referred to the hon. member for Brits. He explained the matter so well that I feel there is nothing more for me to reply to. I have already said that the hon. member for Albany made a short, neat contribution and explained the entire matter, as well as replying to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, this clause, in the words of the hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill (Hansard, 18 February)—

I am not against that. However, when it comes to the transfer of such a person being referred for examination, how exactly does this work in practice? A person in this particular case, as distinct from the people referred to in clause 5 with which we shall deal later, is one who has been charged with a serious offence, either murder, attempted murder, rape or assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Such a person is now coming for mental observation. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that such a person will come under police escort, having been arrested for a serious charge. Coming into South Africa, he will come under police escort, and although in subsection (2) it is said he will go to an institution, I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the police are in charge of this patient or accused. He will be placed in a police cell in the South African town to which he is brought for observation. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister who escorts him and who is responsible for his safety and, when he is received at the police station, who actually receives him, who is responsible for him there and where does the hon. the Minister’s responsibility towards him in terms of this provision cease and the responsibility of the Minister of Police begin. This information is essential if we are to be able to understand this clause and put the case we are trying to put to the House. Could we therefore please have information on this.

Mr. Chairman, the normal procedure is that this person will appear in court. He will then be committed for observation by the judge or the magistrate. I presume that the police of the particular State will then take him directly to the hospital if the necessary arrangements have already been made, or to the border where he can be handed over to the S.A. Police, because that is another way of doing it. He becomes the responsibility of the institution the moment he is admitted to the hospital. Where else can he go? He is the responsibility of the judge and that part of the system, of which the police in transporting him also form a part. He is then admitted to the hospital and, the moment he is admitted for observation, he becomes the responsibility of my department. I think that that is as logical as one can put it. I do not know what the hon. member is getting at. What does he want me to do about this?

Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. the Minister to accept that such a person, coming under police escort from a particular State, is going to be placed in the custody of police at another police station before he goes to any institution. That is what I am getting at. It is where he is kept in a prison cell that the mischief and the danger lie, and that is what we are trying to eliminate.

Mr. Chairman, any person who is mentally deranged and, indeed, any person at all can be put in a police cell if he contravenes the law in some way. Any person who is dangerous to the public can be put in a cell. In this case that would only happen when there is not place right away in the mental institution. That is what the hon. member complained about in regard to two other cases. Does he want me to change the Act in terms of which that is done? Where must such a patient be put in the meantime? What should we do with the Act concerned?

Mr. Chairman, what we have to guard against is that, when he is placed in a police cell, he is placed in a police cell with other prisoners who can do him harm, prisoners who may just have been arrested for being under the influence of drugs or liquor, or for violence. We must also guard against the possibility of him doing violence to other prisoners in view of his mental condition. Is a prison cell the right place in which to keep a person who is obviously in need of some special kind of protection by someone specially trained? I have great respect for the police force, but the members of the police are not specifically trained to deal with patients of this nature—and they are patients at that stage. I think the hon. the Minister must make provision for this. If such a person is his responsibility at this stage, I think he will one day be answerable for cases such as I have mentioned. Repetitions of such cases should be avoided in the future.

Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to refer to on this clause. Firstly, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply, in which he pointed out that this is in fact an arrangement which was requested by Transkei. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to give us an estimate of the number of cases that are envisaged to be so dealt with in the course of a year, and roughly what the total cost of this facility is likely to be during the course of a year.

Secondly, there is a minor amendment which requires to be made to subsection (3) of the proposed new section 42A. In line 34, in the English text, the word “if” is missing. I therefore move as an amendment—

This will bring the English text into line with the Afrikaans text, which reads: “en indien die persoon in bewaring is . . .”.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot give an estimate at this stage as to how many cases there will be, but it is quite obvious that the Transkei will have to pay for the detention and for the time during which a person is in an institution. This is a normal arrangement between States. It is a reciprocal arrangement, and they will just have to carry that cost. I am, however, unable to give an estimate. I do not think that this has in the past been a problem. There have, however, been a few cases which have caused difficulty. I have been told this by the legal people in the Transkei as well. They have been saddled with people and they have not known whether they could charge them with certain offences, since they did not know whether these people were in a fit state of mind when they committed those offences. Some of these people should possibly not have been committed to jail at all, and should rather have gone to a mental institution. It is not the judges’ job to see whether they are in a fit state to go.

Finally, I wish to say that I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, there is a small point that I want to raise. The provision in the proposed new subsection (3) which provides for detention for a period of 30 days, bothers me. The 30 days is quite acceptable, but the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that these matters can sometimes continue for longer than 30 days in the medical profession. What is going to happen if the investigation, etc., is not concluded within those 30 days?

Mr. Chairman, the period of 30 days actually corresponds with the provision in the Criminal Procedure Act. It is a provision that is laid down there too. A judge cannot decide that a person should be detained for 90 days. He may be detained for shorter periods, but the usual provision is that a person may be detained for a period of up to 30 days for analysis and observation. However, what can happen, is that an institution can refer a person back, and then the court may cause that person to be detained once again, but he cannot remain there longer than the period for which the court provides. Therefore, it is a matter that is determined by the Criminal Procedure Act.

Habeas corpus!. I am all for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

With respect to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brits, I cannot entirely accept the arguments they have raised. This particular clause, as hon. members will see, deals with the amendment of section 74A of the principal Act. Section 74A deals with non-compliance with conditions of discharge and the review of these conditions. This in turn relates to the conditions of discharge in terms of sections 29 and 37(1) respectively. If one turns to paragraph (b) it states—

In other words, section 37(3) is the section which we have agreed to amend by agreeing to clause 3. Subsection (3) which we have agreed to add to section 37 of the principal Act states—

He is a mentally ill patient. “Mental illness” is defined in section 1 of the Act as follows—

Therefore it is quite clear that we are dealing with a mentally ill patient. The proposed paragraph (b) provides that “the Minister may direct that such person be taken into custody and removed to an institution”. The hon. the Minister, and this is why I raised this point so pertinently during the discussion of the previous clause, has conceded the point that I made, viz. that such person is taken there by a policeman. The whole thing that we want to avoid is this question of his being taken into custody. I am quite satisfied that “taken into custody” is in the spirit of the law. Taken into custody means taken into custody by a policeman and placed in a police cell. If one considers the whole tenor of the Mental Health Act, No. 18 of 1973, one will appreciate what I am saying. One only has to look at section 9 of the Act itself which makes provision for the issuing of a reception order and the procedure that has to be followed. Section 9(5) deals with the patient being removed to the institution or place of detention, pending removal. This all ties up with a place of detention. I am raising these objections because I believe that a person who has been discharged in terms of section 37(3) has been discharged under certain conditions. Those conditions may be that he must report for out-patient treatment. He may have to report merely to receive further drugs etc. He is nevertheless still a mentally ill patient. He falls within the definition because that is what section 37(3) states. As long as he is that type of patient he will be taken into custody by a policeman because he has broken the condition. We are dealing here with a man who is mentally disturbed. He has been detained in an institution and he has been discharged conditionally. Now these conditions may include all kinds of conditions but as he has broken one of them he has been arrested. I am objecting to the fact that he has been arrested. Now, if he is no longer mentally ill and has been discharged but has broken a condition, why arrest him? If he is still mentally ill why have him arrested by a policeman and why in fact bring him to a police station? There is no doubt that the whole history of people who are mentally ill being brought to a prison is a sad one. A prison is not equipped to deal with mentally ill people. A mentally ill person should not be in the same cell as other people. It is bad for him and it is bad for the others. Concerning the two tragedies that I dealt with in this House in regard to which I illustrated graphically what happens in these police cells to these mentally ill patients, I think the hon. the Minister must be as worried as I am that people of this nature are put in prison with hardened criminals. They are left in police cells for heaven knows how long until arrangements are made between the police and the institutions themselves. All I am asking for by the deletion of the words “taken into custody and”, where a patient is being conditionally discharged in terms of section 37(3), which has just been amended, is that he must be taken directly to an institution. Do not take him into custody and put him in a prison cell. Take him to the institution. That is where he must be treated. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that there is a type of admixture here. On many occasions people are brought before the courts and accused of certain crimes and these people are sent to certain of these institutions for observation because of a mental condition. I can understand that these people will at the outset come from a court, come from a police cell, but then I maintain that they must be removed from those surroundings as soon as possible. However, where must they go? I maintain that these people who may be mentally ill and who need treatment at a mental institution should be kept completely away from the court. We must regard such cases as health cases and not police cases. The hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions must have concern for the mental illness of such people and ensure that they are kept away from the dangers that face them in police cells.

It is for this reason that I have moved my amendment which I hope the hon. the Minister will accept. If he does so, we shall be taking a giant step forward today in our whole approach to mental illness and our whole approach to the confinement of these people in police cells.

Mr. Chairman, I regret I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment. The omission of the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. member makes complete nonsense of the clause. Such a person has already been sentenced by a court but he, has been released for a while as a State President’s patient. However, he is still under treatment and then his treatment is terminated. At that stage his sentence has expired but he is still a person who needs treatment. I am the person mentioned in this clause. How does the hon. member expect me as the Minister to get such a person back into hospital? Does he expect me to fetch such a person? Does he expect a superintendent to tie such a person up and drag him into hospital? Is not the normal method of dealing with a patient of this nature to refer such a case to the Police? It is their duty to detain such a person. If we read this provision in conjunction with Chapter IV, we find that the whole of Chapter IV deals with the functions of the superintendent. In such a case the superintendent requests the police to bring such a person back to the institution. Chapter IV does not even mention a police cell. The hon. member appears to have an obsession about a police cell. The custody mentioned in this provision has nothing to do with a police cell. All it does is empower the superintendent to instruct the Police to return such a person to an institution in terms of Chapter IV. This provision has nothing to do with a person who may go berserk in a street and who is detained by the Police. If the Police cannot find accommodation for such a person in an institution, they are compelled to put him in a police cell for the night until such accommodation can be obtained. Of course, such a person should not be placed in a cell with other prisoners, but this is a matter which can be discussed with the Police administratively. In any event, I am quite sure that the Police would not place such a person in a cell with other prisoners if such person was violent. I repeat that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment. I do not think that it makes sense to remove those words because then we may as well scrap the whole clause. When the superintendent turns up to take such a person back to an institution and that person refuses to accompany him, what does one do then? Does one hit him on the head and take him back to hospital? One cannot then call in the assistance of the Police because that provision will have been removed from the legislation. This provision is there for purely practical reasons. It is certainly not our intention to subject mentally deranged people to ill-treatment. That appears to be what the hon. member is concerned about—that the Police will ill-treat such a mentally-ill person. That is not the impression that one should leave. I think the Police do a wonderful job with such people. If unfortunate cases of this nature do occur, then I think the hon. member should try to remedy those and not give to understand that the odd exceptional incident of this kind is the general rule as far as the treatment of such patients is concerned. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply. I would have thought he would have leaned over backwards in an endeavour to obviate the type of situation that I described. First he says that it does not make sense, but I must disagree with him completely because the relevant phrase would subsequently read “direct that such person be removed to an institution”. That is all. After all, that is what one wants. One wants him in an institution, not in gaol.

Whom do I direct?

This brings me to the hon. the Minister’s next argument, and this argument and his first argument I find contradictory. He contradicts himself completely. On the one hand the hon. the Minister asks whether he should go and fetch the person concerned or whether the superintendent must go and fetch him. The hon. the Minister wanted to know what he should do if the person did not want to come. He asked whether he should go and clobber the person over the head. No, the hon. the Minister says, of course I send a policeman. So he admits he sends a policeman, and that is what I was getting at. That is precisely what I am getting at, because a policeman will apprehend the individual and put him into a police cell, so it is no good quoting me Chapter IV of the principal Act and saying that the individual will be going into an institution. The policeman is going to keep him in a cell and that is exactly what one is trying to obviate. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that if anything happens to those patients in those cells, i.e. if they are not given the best of care to ensure their safety and health, the hon. the Minister must be held indirectly responsible.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I must say that we in these benches cannot support his amendment. I do think he is getting confused with a totally different aspect of people being taken into custody. The Minister’s reply makes a great deal of sense to me. The hon. the Minister drew a clear distinction between, as he put it, a man who unexpectedly goes berserk on the street and the specific category of patients referred to and very clearly defined in the legislation, and in the light of that I think it is only reasonable to accept the hon. the Minister’s interpretation and his assurance in this regard. I do think that the hon. member for Hillbrow has a point, but I do not think he is relating it to the right clause, nor do I think he is raising it at the right time. I think the hon. the Minister might agree with me that the hon. member for Hillbrow had a very good point to raise in the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Police, but I do not think it fits into a discussion of this clause. Much as I understand what he is trying to avoid, I think he has raised the issue at the wrong time, and so we cannot support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. member for Berea, I quite frankly do not think he knows what is happening. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to give a clear and unequivocable undertaking to the House that a person who has to be brought back, because he did not comply with conditions imposed upon him, will not be detained in a police cell, but will be taken directly to an institution. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to give that undertaking?

That is what the Act says in Chapter IV.

If the hon. member for Berea had any experience in these matters, he would know why I am saying this, because such people are taken directly to police cells. He is welcome to come to Newlands police station at any time and see what happens there. Over the years I have had occasion to visit the police station and see what happens there for myself. If the hon. member would take the trouble to find out, he would know what he was talking about. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister is indeed worried about the situation, but I do not think he is taking the steps he should be taking to stop the abuses that could take place in police cells.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Precious Stones Act, 1964, provides for granting prospecting and mining rights to precious stones, as well as for the regulation of matters directly related to this, such as the trading in, and Police supervision over the handling and movement of uncut diamonds.

The basic principles on which the Act is based do not give rise to any practical problems. However, as can be expected, a degree of obsolescence has set in and certain minor changes have become necessary in order to facilitate the practical implementation of some provisions and to increase the efficiency of the Act.

Hon. members will note that the majority of the proposals are aimed at making provision for metrication and the rounding off of metric measures, the rationalization and bringing up to date of obsolete definitions and references in the existing provisions in order to bring them into line with the latest concepts and definitions. Then the existing wording of the principal Act has been rectified in a few places, for instance the substitution for the words “in consultation with” of the words “with the concurrence of” where the intention is that the Minister of Finance does not simply have to be consulted, but that his concurrence must in fact be obtained in advance in connection with specific costs. Amendments in this regard are being moved in clauses 2, 11 and 23. There is also an anomaly in section 92 of the principal Act. This is being obviated by clause 18, and there are also consequential amendments as a result of metrication.

All these amendments are very simple and easy to understand. That is why I want to limit myself to two clauses that require explanation. These are clause 6, which entails an amendment of section 30 of the principal Act, and clause 19, which amends section 93.

Section 30 regulates the presence of persons on proclaimed diggings by means of residential and work permits. Experience has shown that due to the lack of a deterrent against false statements, applicants mislead the Police in their applications and conceal previous convictions. It is an impossible task to check the accuracy of each application, and it is now being proposed to extend section 30 to make the furnishing of false information knowing it to be false, punishable by the penalty laid down for perjury, as in the case of applications for digger’s certificates in terms of section 27 of the principal Act. Therefore, all that is being expected of applicants, is that they should submit their applications in the form of a sworn statement.

Section 93 provided for Police control over transactions in uncut diamonds by dealers and prohibits the involvement in such a transaction of a person who has not been approved beforehand by the chief of the Diamond Branch of the Police. Like a diamond dealer, a banker is authorized to initiate transactions in uncut diamonds, but in that case the Act does not provide for approval by the Police of the other party involved in the transaction. Consequently, the position is that smugglers can take advantage of bankers, for instance, to send uncut diamonds out of the country. The proposed amendment will mean that the chief of the Diamond Branch, as in the case of transactions by dealers, will have to give his approval in advance to the other party in transactions involving bankers. Banking institutions that frequently negotiate diamond transactions are already co-operating of their own violation with the Police in connection with such approval. The amendment has the support of all those banking institutions that have an interest in the matter, including the Association of Clearing Banks of South Africa and the Merchant Bankers’ Association.

I also want to point out that provision is being made, as in previous Bills that I have dealt with earlier during this session, for the transfer of ministerial powers to take place in order to improve the functioning of the department.

I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to bring two matters to the attention of the House, matters that do not necessarily have a direct bearing upon the amending Bill before the House, but which are of topical importance for the diamond industry and are therefore an integral part of this Bill.

As I already held out in prospect last year during the discussion of my Vote in the House of Assembly, I now want to announce that a Diamond Development Advisory Committee has now been appointed in terms of the provisions of the Precious Stones Act, to assist me in granting prospecting rights for diamonds in the coastal area between the Orange River Mouth and Cape Columbine. The hon. L. de V. van Winsen, a former judge, has been appointed chairman of the committee. The other members are, Mr. N. J. Uys; a former Secretary of Mines; Mr. T. L. Gibbs, a former Government mining engineer; Mr. J. F. Enslin, a former Director of Geological Survey, and Admiral H. H. Biermann, a former Head of the S.A. Defence Force. Mr. J. J. Daffue, a controlling administrative official in the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, will act as secretary of the committee.

The function of the committee will be to assist me (a) with regard to establishing and defining a border or borders between the shallow and deep water areas of the coastal area concerned; (b) in judging applications for prospecting leases for precious stones received in terms of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, with regard to the specific shallow and deep water areas that are available for the granting of such prospecting leases; and (c) with the formulation of minimum requirements with which applicants must comply and proposed special conditions of which prospective applicants must have prior knowledge.

The committee has already held its first meeting, and it is planned to publish the necessary notices which, inter alia will contain the minimum requirements and conditions, in the Gazette and the most important newspapers before the end of April 1981.

Secondly, I should like to announce that it has been decided to appoint Mr. J. J. Kitshoff, a former chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation, as from 1 April 1981, as the chairman of the Diamond Producers Association, of which the State is a member.

†Mr. Kitshoff succeeds Dr. W. P. de Kock, who retires as chairman on 31 March 1981 after a very successful term of office of 14 years and three months.

Under his chairmanship, Dr. De Kock saw the growth of total diamond sales handled by the DPA from R351 424 000 in 1967 to R2 141 574 000 in 1980. Despite various other activities he served the DPA with great distinction and dedication, and the Government’s gratitude and best wishes accompany him.

The Government also wishes to express its thanks to Mr. Kitshoff for his willingness to serve in this important capacity.

*In conclusion, on this occasion, which will most probably be the last occasion that we will be saying a few words about mining affairs, I want to take leave of and convey my best wishes to two very prominent members on this side of the House who made a very special contribution as chairman and vice-chairman of the mining group of the NP over the years. I am referring to the hon. member for Stilfontein and the hon. member for Welkom. In the mining group of the NP we have a great deal of appreciation for the contributions that they made. They can look back with pride over a fine career in this House. We wish them a good retirement, a great deal of strength and energy and we know that despite the fact that they are going to leave us, we can still follow their example and learn from their experience.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Constantia, who has made a constructive contribution towards mining affairs as chief spokesman of the official Opposition, that we will miss his contribution, and I want to thank him for his excellent co-operation and dedication to this subject, aspects that are not political in nature, during his presence as a member here.