Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by saying a few words about the nature and purpose of a Part Appropriation. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, I knew that the hon. members on the other side would laugh. What I actually want to tell them is that they were all at sea. This is not the main budget which we are dealing with now. I shall explain the matter to them, Mr. Speaker, because their newspapers also seem to be quite confused with regard to this matter. [Interjections.]

The purpose of this Part Appropriation is to appropriate an amount of money to meet the State’s financial needs until such time as the main budget has been passed by this House; a period of between three and four months, therefore. It is not a substitute for the main budget, but only, as its name indicates, a Part Appropriation. It is totally misleading to suggest, as some newspapers and some hon. members of the Opposition parties are doing—thereby creating completely erroneous impressions and false expectations, of course—that measures which are traditionally dealt with in the main budget should suddenly, for inexplicable reasons, form part of the Part Appropriation. This kind of thing is only done in highly exceptional cases. Last year there was such a case, when it became quite clear to us that we had to propose certain tax increases. So we did this in the Part Appropriation last year, but as I have said, something like this only happens in very exceptional cases.

†Let me correct immediately what the hon. member for Yeoville said. This is not a non-event budget as he tried to tell the public. I suggest with great respect that this is indeed an extremely sound and satisfactory budget, reflecting an extremely sound and satisfactory financial position in South Africa, while the world outside is financially in a state of near-chaos. Everybody in this world who is familiar with finance says that.

Tell that to the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, if is a pity, I believe, the hon. member for Yeoville has not been with me during the last few days again when, on three occasions, I have been holding talks with three real authorities from the outside world, people visiting South Africa. One of them said to me quite clearly: “I have just travelled the world, and this is the first country I have been to where I can see real prosperity.”

Who said that?

I say it, and he said it. [Interjections.] That man happens to know more about finance and about conditions in the world than all the hon. members of the Opposition parties put together and multiplied by 10. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, it is a very great privilege for me to congratulate three hon. members on their maiden speeches. I am referring to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the hon. member for Parys, and my old friend from the Senate days, the hon. member for Walvis Bay. I must say at once that listening to them, I was impressed by the fact that they were an asset to this House. I wish them well for the future.

It has been a tradition of this House for many years that the Minister of Finance should concentrate as far as possible on the financial and economic aspects of a budget debate. Although, as far as this specific debate is concerned, I am sorely tempted to talk politics, I shall try to steer clear of that, as far as possible. I want to thank all hon. members who made constructive contributions, as well as those who expressed constructive criticism. I shall now try to deal with several of the proposals, arguments and so on that have been raised in the course of this debate. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to refer to each individual speech that has been made. However, I am sure that hon. members will understand that.

†Mr. Speaker, I should just like to interpose here, because I have had a few phone calls yesterday and today in connection with a very important matter. I should like to refer briefly to the price of gold. The price of gold has dropped fairly substantially during the last two days. On every occasion that I have been asked my view on the price of gold—for quite some time now—I have warned that there will be short-term fluctuations. This is of course exactly what has happened during the last two days; we have had two down-turns. The main reason for that is that there are reports circulating throughout the world of imminent further substantial declines in the oil price. That, taken with the downward movement in interest rates in countries such as the USA and Europe, has certainly had a dampening effect on the gold price. One simply has to take that into account when it comes to the gold price. One obviously has to budget accordingly. That is one of the reasons why the Government tries to be cautious, though, I am sure, not unimaginative. We have to be responsible in this respect, however.

The gold price is volatile these days, and as long as we bear that in mind in compiling our budgets and in making our provisions ahead, we will be able to handle the situation quite comfortably. On a longer term view I am certainly not pessimistic about the gold price. I remain convinced myself that on a longer term view the trend, which has been upwards for some time now, and has been steadily moving upwards since June last year, will certainly continue over the longer term.

A good deal has also been said about inflation, about the cost of living, about the difficulties that pensioners have, and so on. I want to say a few things about that before moving on to agriculture. I shall also refer briefly to the staff position and some other aspects of the Public Service. Then there are one or two other small matters to which I should like to refer before dealing with the question of oil and with the attack on us by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who raised a matter which occurred in 1979. I shall deal with that as well.

I should like to say immediately that something which astonishes me more and more every day in this country and in this House is the absolute inability and, I think, the unwillingness of hon. members of the Opposition parties, particularly hon. members of the official Opposition—and I think hon. members of the latter-day Opposition, the CP, are going that way as well—to see the really constructive sides of life in this country. In the world today we are living in a most privileged and blessed State. I am sure it goes for the great majority of our people, and I shall quote some statistics to bear this out. One cannot ignore the fact, no matter what else one may try to do—if there are good things in this country, then part of the Press and the Opposition do their best to minimize them and, if there is anything they think that they can destructively criticize, they make as much noise about it as they possibly can. When are we ever going to see a balanced view taken? Nobody is perfect, but I want to say today, and I want to say it because it is my conviction, that under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister this country is remarkably well governed today. [Interjections.] Look at the rest of the world, and I am not talking simply about the underdeveloped countries of the world; I am talking about some of the most developed countries of the world. Look at the conditions that obtain there and look at the way governments there come and go. What do they achieve? I do not think it is an accident that this great party has in fact been the governing party in this country for some 35 years now. [Interjections.] It is true that some hon. members opposite become so completely frustrated that they lose their sense of proportion. However, I feel that they should be more realistic and should look at the positive side.

When we come to look at the standards of living in this country—and I am speaking now of everybody because this is a country in Africa—and one considers the lowest paid groups in this country, the low income sections of the population in this country, I want to ask you, Sir, to give me better comparisons throughout the whole of Africa today than the figures that I have. I am speaking about some 50 countries. We are constantly being told that this Government does not care and this Government does not worry about the poor; that in fact it taxes the poor. That is the most fallacious and misleading statement that anybody can make in this country today—that we tax the poor.

What about GST?

Mr. Speaker, GST is 6%. It is the lowest in the whole world by far.

Who pays it?

It is the lowest in the whole world by far. [Interjections.] The average GST in the world today is from 15% to 17%. [Interjections.] I shall come back to this because I want to give the House a few facts in regard to our taxation position.

We are constantly having this dreadful inflation rammed down our throats. Of course the inflation rate in this country is too high. I have said this all along, as have other hon. members. However, is 14% such a terrible rate of inflation?

Yes!

Is 14% such a terrible rate of inflation in a developing country? [Interjections.] How can those hon. members compare out position with that of the most mature economies in the world? That is absolute nonsense. One can only compare like with like.

You only compare … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville must be patient. I do not want to deal with him personally but if he wishes to become personal, I shall do so. He must just watch his step today.

Don’t threaten me.

I did not attack him. When he was speaking, I sat listening to him without a single interjection and I am sick to death of this hon. member’s behaviour in this House.

Don’t threaten. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

Certainly not! I am talking now. The hon. member has every opportunity to speak but he never does. [Interjections.] Why does he not speak?

Mr. Speaker, I want to put this point to the House and I want to put it very clearly. In the broad spectrum of developing countries, of which this country is one, there are enormous challenges which we are meeting fully every day. Under those circumstances I say that we have an inflation rate which is probably the lowest among comparable developing countries in the world. How many of them are doing what we are doing? Three years ago we were told at the IMF annual meeting and elsewhere that we should be like Brazil. It was getting as much capital as it required and its growth rate was increasing.

Who said that?

Everybody told us that at the IMF. I am talking now about the IMF. I am talking now about authoritative comment. [Interjections.] They told us that we should follow the example of that country and then I happened to ask what their inflation rate was and somebody said it was about 40%. Today it is over 100%. Brazil today owes the rest of the world $90 billion. Up to now the world has never seen such a figure in its history. Brazil owes the rest of the world more than Mexico does. Brazil’s growth rate is right down and unemployment is huge. These are facts which any fair-minded person will take into account when he looks at his own country, but Sir, do you see the attitude of the hon. members of the Opposition, of which I spoke the moment I started my speech? It is being proved every moment as I proceed, and it will continue because I have a few other facts for those hon. gentlemen.

I take account of the fact too that there will be a debate tomorrow on a private member’s motion on inflation, and therefore I am not going to say much about that now, but I want to say that if one looks at the position over the last five years or so, one notices that our inflation rate has moved between two remarkably narrow bands. It has moved between about 12% on the average and 15%. Once it was a bit over, but it has not done what the inflation rate has done in many other countries, including the countries which these hon. members now throw at us where the rate was 5%, countries like the USA and Britain. Britain not long ago had an inflation rate of 25%. The USA had an inflation rate of 16%.

And Germany?

Germany’s inflation rate has always, for very good reasons, been much lower. That has been the case since the Second World War. [Interjections.] Germany is one of the three most developed countries in the world. It has a completely mature economy; it is not a developing country. These are the things which are not taken into account.

What I want to ask in this financial debate basically boils down to this: What more should the Government have done in the way of fiscal and monetary policy? Should we have cut Government spending further, for again in this debate we are constantly told of all the things we should have done, all of them involving greater spending? It is easy to generalize when one is in the Opposition. What more could we have done in the way of monetary policy when the gold price in one year went up to an average of $613 an ounce and the income from gold rose from R6 billion the previous year to R10 billion in 1980, an increase of R4 billion in cash coming into the country in one year? The Reserve Bank was expected immediately to contain that position.

You allowed the money supply to get out of control. [Interjections.]

But don’t you listen while he is talking to you?

I want to get on with my job. [Interjections.] I am in the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I can take anything the hon. member wishes to throw at me, but I should just like to be heard. I think I have that right. When the hon. member made his speech, I never interrupted him.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must contain himself.

The hon. member’s behaviour is despicable, and I say that. [Interjections.]

What is also left out of account when we talk about inflation, is the measures taken by the Government to alleviate the burden of inflation, and those measures are on a huge scale. Our food subsidies amount to about R250 million or R260 million per year. The subsidies we pay on the bus and rail transport of the lowest income classes are again in the vicinity of R250 million per year. We therefore spend more than R500 million per year on subsidies in two fields alone. One can quote further figures, but this already is a huge amount.

Talking about earnings, this is what I said in my last budget speech—I hope I may have the latest figures next month, but these are still the latest ones I have—

That is after adjusting for inflation—

I want to ask hon. members today to give me better figures, and let them choose any country they like. Let them give me better figures covering this period. [Interjections.]

What about the previous five years?

These are the facts, but one does not hear them.

Then they went down.

I have a very firm view on the matter of taxation. [Interjections.] I hold that every citizen who enjoys the protection of the State, who lives in safety within the State and is allowed to earn his living there, should contribute something, however small, to the cost of the services that the State provides. [Interjections.] That is the underlying reason for GST, the general sales tax. Despite what hon. members of the Opposition may say, I have discussed this tax with many authorities abroad. How many Ministers of Finance in how many countries have not, over the last few years, said to me: But how did you think of that? We all have this value-added tax which is escalatory in nature, and all of us have, under pressure, made exemptions, with the result that the tax rate has simply gone through the roof. Ours was 4% initially and is now 6%. Let me say that it is by far the lowest in the world, and I mean by far! Yet here we have to be told that we are taxing the poor. [Interjections.]

How many people pay tax? I have a few figures here just to sum the matter up. This relates to a study made by Mercabank, a very interesting study based on official figures. They found that although the richest 10% of our population receive only 30% of total personal income, they pay 66% of the country’s direct personal income tax. In other words, two-thirds of the total income tax is paid by the richest 10% who are earning 30% of all income. The lowest paid 50% … [Interjections.]—No, those hon. members must listen now—The lowest paid 50% of the population receive about 20% of total personal income, and pay exactly 2% of all direct taxes. These are then the people we are taxing into the ground! That is laughable.

How do you expect them to pay taxes when they do not have enough to live on? [Interjections.]

Let me quote a further item on what Mr. Martin Spring calculated. I think it is worth quoting. He says—

That is approximately R3 000 per year—

That is about R30 000 per year. He says further—

Not a bad record, is it? Yet there is all this talk about taxing the poor. It goes much further, however, as I shall indicate in a moment. [Interjections.] When we get to the aged, people above 60 years of age and people above 70 years of age, there are very substantial further tax concessions accorded them.

I now want to deal with the question of pensions. This was a point raised by the hon. member for South Coast and some others. He asked whether I could give him the percentage of the total budget that was spent on the social and military pensioner. This year, in 1982-’83, total social pensions come to R997 million, say R1 000 million. Military pensions come to R28,7 million, giving us a total of R1 025,7 million. Those are the social and military pensions for the current year. Five years ago the figure paid out for social pensions was not R997 million but R423 million, and the total today of R1 025 million is about two and one-third more than five years ago. This represents an increase of 135%. I think that this Government is discharging its responsibility to the aged, and it is doing so deliberately because we know these people have done their bit. We will do our very best, within the capacity we have, to make their lives as easy as we can. That total is about 6% of the whole budget. I think some of my friends might like to look at that and see how it compares with the welfare States abroad where they have huge tax rates in order to pay for this sort of thing.

Talking of pensioners, I should also like to say that a fair proportion of pensioners today have saved and invested. I have received numerous letters from these people over the years. One must take into account that in the last 18 to 20 months they have, fortunately, had the benefit of very substantial interest rates on their investments. That is a point that is left out of the debate, but I think it is a very important addition to the whole position.

The hon. member for Edenvale made a characteristically thoughtful speech. It was a responsible speech and dealt with pensioners. He criticized the means test. Now the means test is obviously bound to be arbitrary to some extent. No two people approaching the matter objectively are going to work out exactly the same formula. What I want to say to the hon. member is that we do have an extremely experienced and responsible interdepartmental committee on pensions. It is an on-going committee and it issues a report about this time each year. That is of course a very valuable document to us in drawing up the budget. One of the things that committee is constantly looking at is in fact the means test. So I should merely like to reassure the hon. member that the matter does not go by default but is in fact very seriously regarded by the Government.

As far as pensions are concerned, I also want to say that the pensions paid out month by month have increased 12 times since this Government took power in 1948. They have increased from R12 per month—the figure stuck at R12 per month for many years under the old United Party Government—to R145 per month today.

What about the inflation rate over that period?

The inflation over that period increased seven times. So the increase in pensions is nearly twice as fast as the increase in the cost of living. That is based on the official figures. I think that that is a figure that was not brought into the debate either when these things were thrown at us.

When it comes to the aged, I just want to add that we have made specific provision in our Income Tax laws to give further concessions to people above 60 and still further concessions to people who pay tax and who are above 70 years of age. Firstly, all taxpayers in the age group of 60 years and over are allowed to deduct double the amount allowable to younger persons, i.e. R2 000 if they are married or R1 500 if they are not married, in respect of medical expenses. Secondly, an additional rebate of R120 is allowed to every taxpayer regardless of marital status who falls within the age group of 60 to 69 years, while those who are 70 or over receive a further additional rebate of R80 to R200 in total. A further concession to senior citizens over the age of 70 years lies therein that, whereas other taxpayers have to contribute towards the loan levy if their taxable incomes exceed R7 000 and the normal tax payable then amounts to R150 or more, they are only called upon to contribute if their taxable incomes in fact exceed R15 000. The effect of the concession is to increase the tax thresholds, the level above which they become taxable. It increases the tax thresholds in the case of persons who are entitled to maximum deductions in respect of medical expenses as follows. If you take unmarried persons, those under 60 start paying tax, on average, at about R2 400. From 60 to 69 years they start paying tax at R5 350 and if they are 70 years and older they only start paying tax at R6 150. If they are married without children and under 60 years of age, they start paying tax at R4 500; if they are between 60 and 69 years of age they start paying at R6 700 and if they are 70 years and older they start paying at R7 500.

I want to put this to the House because, as I said earlier, I believe this Government has a proud record when it comes to its concern in practical terms for the aged, for whom we have the highest respect.

*I now wish to refer to agriculture. If there is one industry which has been considered very important by the Government over the years, it is agriculture. Here, too, our achievements are there for all to see. The hon. member for Ventersdorp made a very interesting speech. The hon. member for Heilbron, the hon. member for Barberton, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and other hon. members referred to agriculture. We are deeply aware of the problems facing the agricultural industry at present, especially as a result of the serious drought conditions. I as Minister of Finance and my department are continually in contact with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his officials and we consult them in order to do everything in our power to afford relief to the agricultural industry under these extremely difficult circumstances until conditions return to normal. In the Additional Appropriation which is to be introduced and debated next week, hon. members will see that the appropriation for agriculture is the biggest in our history. We on the Government side are glad that this is so. It is absolutely justified, and we shall say more about this at a later stage.

We also appointed a very efficient committee, the Jacobs Committee, a few years ago, and this committee is continually investigating this problem and others and submitting reports on them. We give priority to those reports. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture issued a very fine statement this morning to indicate to the public the serious light in which we view this matter.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also said something about Land Bank rates. It is a pleasure for me to deal with these. I have on-going talks with the Land Bank concerning these matters, and in fact I spoke to the managing director only a few days ago. The financing requirements of agriculture have grown so enormously over the past two years that the Land Bank could no longer rely exclusively on overdrawn accounts at the commercial banks for its funding, and was therefore forced to turn to alternative sources for additional funds. This was a major step, and it means, of course, that the Land Bank itself has to carry a much greater burden of debt. Over the past financial year of the bank, the cash payments by the Land Bank to farmers and their organizations have risen to no less than R6 681 000, almost R7 000 million. The necessary funds for this were obtained mainly on the money market by the issuing of bonds and the negotiation of Land Bank bills at effective interest rates varying from 16%to 18,39%. These funds were available only on a term basis varying from three months to three years, which would make a downward adjustment of bank’s lending rates in a period of declining interest rates difficult if not impossible. It is significant, therefore, that the bank has nevertheless been able to maintain its lending rates on a competitive basis throughout and has been able, in spite of that, to show a sufficient surplus with which the board of the Land Bank has been able to make an adequate provision of R30 million to support the downward adjustment of its lending rates when circumstances necessitate this. As a result of the latest drop of 1% in the prime lending rates of the commercial banks, I am pleased to be able to announce that yesterday, that is on 23 February, board of the Land Bank decided to reduce all its short-term lending rates to co-operatives by 1% with effect from 1 March 1983. The bank’s adjusted long-term lending rate of 15,5% on instalment loans to co-operatives is already under pressure, too, and this is receiving the necessary attention at the moment. It is being studied intensively. The rate of 11% which farmers are presently paying to the bank on their long-term mortgage loans can still be regarded as favoured at this stage, but I have been assured that the matter is being watched continually so that this rate, too, may be lowered as soon as conditions justify this and make it possible. I may just mention, too, that the bank’s financial statements will soon be tabled in this House.

The hon. member for Heilbron also referred to the serious drought conditions. I have already referred to these briefly. I hope the hon. member will agree with me, when he sees the Additional Appropriation, that we are really doing all we can to afford relief in this sphere. The amount appearing in the Additional Appropriation will not be the total amount, because there are obligations that are being incurred at the moment, while the payments will only be made in April or May. Therefore it will be even better than it appears to be from the Additional Appropriation.

The hon. member for Barberton said that the agricultural appropriation had increased very slowly and had even declined in one year. I have the official figures here for the past five years. The amount for the 1977-78 budget was, in round figures, R113 million. In 1982-’83, i.e. the present financial year, the amount is almost R300 million in round figures. This represents an increase of 164% over five years. I think the hon. member was suggesting that food subsidies should not be added, but food subsidies have a very strong indirect effect on agriculture, because they increase the demand for the products. Therefore one cannot simply omit these amounts. In 1977-78, the amount budgeted and voted for food subsidies was R128 million. This year the amount is R268 million. So it has actually more than doubled over a period of five years. If one adds up the two, the total for agriculture in 1977-78 was R242 million, and this year it was R567 million. This represents an increase of 134% over a period of five years. I think this is not a bad achievement at all on the part of the Government.

Reference has also been made to input prices. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to these. It is true that input prices in agriculture have unfortunately risen quite sharply. I cannot deny that. The facts are there. Unfortunately, this is again one of the results of inflation. We shall simply go on doing our best to afford relief wherever we can in this connection. I think, however, that the figures I have quoted to hon. members show that we regard this matter in a very serious light. I may elaborate on this matter at a later stage, in the main budget debate and perhaps next week as well.

†Coming to staff matters, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sunnyside referred to problems in the Public Service in this regard. In this connection I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Department of Inland Revenue, the department which has been specifically mentioned, and in fact the Department of Finance as a whole is functioning I believe as well as always and provided it is given the material with which to do the job it will continue to do so. The system of occupational salary differentiation which was introduced from 1 April 1982 has already had a very beneficial effect on recruitment. It is expected that with the better grading and better prospects we shall be able to retain new recruits and increase the efficient functioning of the department even further. I think this occupational pay differentiation scheme is certainly looking extremely promising and has already yielded some very substantial results.

The hon. member for Edenvale said that he thought that all employers should provide pension fund facilities and that all employees should be members of pension funds. There is a great deal in that suggestion. But I do not think the hon. member was suggesting a national pension scheme. That has too much of a welfare connotation and presents great problems. But in principle I agree with the hon. member. In regard to the transferability of pensions and the protection of pension rights, we have tried hard to do something about it, but unfortunately we have had a great deal of problems through agitations which were at times quite reckless and irresponsible. I would have appreciated the support of the Opposition on this matter.

You have got it.

However, these are things we all agree on. There is no disagreement on these things. The hon. member is right when he says that we must remember that where the State is expected to pay pensions to people who have made no provision for their old age, and there are many of these unfortunately, this is placing a tremendous burden on the taxpayer. It limits the extent to which we can put up pensions. I said in a debate two years ago that subject to certain assumptions in regard to population increases, the escalation of costs and the escalation of salaries, etc., it had been estimated by the Government Actuary that the amount which we might have to pay by the end of the century in social pensions would exceed R6 000 million, that is if we go along as we are now. So these are really urgent matters, and I am very glad that in this regard we have the support of the hon. member for Edenvale.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to an article in the Institutional Investor, an article which concerned Anglo American. I shall read what the hon. member said (Hansard, 17 February, col. 1196)—

Surely this is quite wrong. My interview had absolutely nothing to do with this. I submit that the quotation which, according to the hon. member, comes from the Institutional Investor, does not in fact come from it. I want to make it quite clear to this House that what it says here has nothing to do with the interview which I had with the Institutional Investor, nothing whatsoever. He says it appeared in the Institutional Investor. He says that reference is made to the Oppenheimer group, and then he quotes the following—

According to the hon. member for Sunny-side, this appeared in the Institutional Investor. He quoted further, as follows—

Then the hon. member asked: “What is happening in respect of our administration?”

Mr. Speaker, I cannot find any reference whatsoever to this in the Institutional Investor. I just want to mention that I consulted the head of the exchange control section of the S.A. Reserve Bank in connection with this matter. I now want to read his reply to hon. members, as follows

And now we are speaking only of the past two years, Mr. Speaker, not of a longer period. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Sunnyside would submit any specific allegations to me, accompanied by proof of such allegations, I shall go into the matter myself. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to deal with a matter now which I regard as of great importance, and that is the attack that was made on the Government by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central I might as well simultaneously refer to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who once again talked from a lofty moral pedestal. The hon. member must not forget what I said to him last year about people who set themselves up on high moral pedestals. They have a habit of falling very fast, very far and very hard. But never mind that. The hon. member referred to certain leaflets which, according to him, were issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. That is so. They were issued by that department. Then, however, the hon. member said that that constituted a corrupt practice.

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens says that in this House, he is under an absolute obligation—if he has any regard for his reputation in this House—to go immediately to the Advocate-General. It is not the first time he has said things of this nature in this House. Yet, he has still never been to the Advocate-General. [Interjections.]

I tried to go to the Advocate-General because I wanted to catch that hon. member out but the law prevented me. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. The law prevented me. [Interjections.]

Where is your Select Committee on Kruger rands? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is bound by all the laws of responsible behaviour in this House to go to the Advocate-General immediately and to tell him that this was corrupt practice. [Interjections.] However, let us leave it at that for the moment because I should like to get back now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central saw fit to rake up the Salem matter. [Interjections.] Yes, the case of the oil ship; an incident that took place in 1979. The hon. member did so in a very remarkable manner. After consultation with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who can unfortunately not be here today owing to official commitments elsewhere, I should like to respond to certain allegations made by the hon. member. In the first instance he attempted to belittle the decrease in the price of fuel. That is yet another instance of what I referred to earlier in the debate when I said that whenever anything really constructive is done by the Government it is invariably denigrated by hon. members of the Opposition. Why? Why can they not give credit where credit is due? Why can they not do that for a change? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the prepared part of his speech the hon. member dealt with crude oil acquisitions and deemed it fit to dig the Salem incident out of the cupboard. The hon. member stated that only South Africa had been kept in the dark. After referring to certain passages in Lloyd’s Law Reports he insinuated that the Government was endeavouring to cover up the incident. It was a clear insinuation. [Interjections.] He even went so far as to accuse the former Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs of stifling discussion regarding this affair. What are the true facts of this case? I would like to refer to a press statement made by the same hon. Minister to whom I have just referred, on 12 July 1982, which received wide publicity but, for the sake of convenience, was completely ignored by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. To put the record straight I want to quote this statement because I want it reported in Hansard. With your permission, Sir, I wish to quote it in full. It states—

The Minister had this to say—

The supply of oil to South Africa remains a sensitive issue and because of conclusive strategic reasons the State cannot allow existing statutory provisions to be ignored. Legal steps are being considered as a result of the recent reporting. It is correct in so far that both Shell and SFF…

That is the South African Fuel Fund, the official crude oil purchasing agency. That is correct. He says that they were both defrauded. He went on to say—

The Minister went on to say—

That is quite correct.

Yes, that is correct.

Yes. He goes on to say—

Yes, I was there.

And the Progs were also there.

The Minister goes on to say—

Since then there has been a House of Lords decision.

The Minister goes on to say—

Since then there have been three court cases.

The Minister went on to say—

This is the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs speaking—

He published that as well—

That was Shell’s statement. The Minister went on to say—

That is the end of the Minister’s statement. From this statement it is undoubtedly clear that the hon. member has not only chosen to ignore the undertaking of his own party, but also betrayed the solemn confidence shared by the Government with the Official Opposition.

Absolute nonsense!

Absolutely correct! [Interjections.]

I submit that he tried to make cheap political capital out of an unfortunate incident when South Africa, as all other oil importing countries at the time, was in an unenviable position to lay their hands desperately on a very scarce commodity at that time. The hon. member also recommended in his speech that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate, inter alia, the Salem connection and the question of parliamentary control of taxpayers’ funds used for the acquisition of crude oil.

Regarding the hon. member’s allegations that the funds employed to purchase oil were State funds which were not subject to parliamentary control, I submit that in fact those funds are not State funds. I refer the hon. member to the provisions of section 1, read in conjunction with section 15 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, Act 66 of 1975, and furthermore section 1 of the State Oil Fund Act, 1977, which clearly indicate that the SOF (Pty) Ltd is a company incorporated in terms of the Companies Act and consequently audited according to normal business practices.

I should like to draw the attention to the House to the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act, Act 120 of 1977, which prohibits the publication of certain information regarding petroleum products. I feel myself bound to abide by the provisions of an Act passed by this House, and therefore I am prevented from dealing publicly with certain facts and figures presented by the hon. member in his speech which, with due respect, I say are certainly not entirely true. I suspect strongly that the hon. member has blatantly contravened the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act, and the question arises whether the House should not consider appointing a Select Committee to investigate whether the hon. member has in fact not violated an Act of Parliament and if so, has not abused the privileges of this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had blatantly contravened the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act. If, Sir, you hold that the hon. the Minister alleged that the hon. member committed an offence, I would ask you to rule that he withdraw those words.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister meant that the hon. member committed an offence.

Mr. Speaker, may I on a point of explanation repeat what I have said? My words were—

[Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your ruling?

In my opinion it is an opinion uttered by the hon. the Minister in saying that he suspects it. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I merely want to say that this brings me to the end of my speech. I thank you very much for your patience, and we look forward to the Third Reading debate.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, thus far in the debate our discussions have centred largely around clause 2. In terms of this clause, the State President is being replaced by the Minister of Transport. In his speech last night the hon. the Minister made certain references and he quoted, quite incorrectly, from what he described as my Hansard. I shall come back to that at a later stage. I think one could rectify this administratively.

When I rise to speak on this clause in this House, I do not do so for political gain. We have a problem with this clause. In terms of the old Act the power was vested in the State President and in terms of this new clause the power will be vested in the Minister. This Minister could be a Minister of colour. He could be an Indian, a Coloured or a White, but he will not be responsible to this House, since we will not be electing him. Nor are the voters going to elect him. According to the constitutional guidelines, he is going to be appointed by the State President. In this case I cannot leave the worker, whom I represent, unprotected.

But you said that you did not wish to talk politics.

It is not politics when one wishes to protect a man. This legislation is being submitted in a sovereign Parliament in which everyone has a say and in which each one of us has a vote. In terms of the new dispensation, legislation will be submitted in a tricameral parliament in which the sovereignty of the White Parliament will comprise only one-third of the sovereignty of Parliament. I am saying that we are opposed to these changes and to this clause. This legislation was amended in 1982, 1981 and 1980. Why is the Government pushing this legislation through before going over to the new dispensation? Could the Government not have waited with this statutory amendment? This Act has existed since 1960 and it has already been amended 23 times. Why does the Government not wait for another six months and then put it to the public and to the workers? I am not saying that they are all going to be satisfied. That will depend on them. I am opposed to legislation being piloted through this Parliament without their knowledge, since the Railway workers do not know at this stage what the Government’s policy is with regard to the tricameral parliament. The Railway worker is not aware that he may be getting a Coloured or Indian Minister of Transport. He is unaware of this. For this reason it is fitting that this Parliament should discuss this matter. Yesterday the hon. the Minister told us that the old Act and this proposed legislation were the same. Surely this is not true. In the old Act, power was vested in the State President. He delegated by way of empowerment. This is not merely a random delegation. He effected it by way of regulation. This was the reason for the successful negotiations with the various categories of workers on the Railways all these years. Clause 2 (3) reads—

We are satisfied with this. Clause 2(2) reads—

In terms of the constitutional guidelines the Minister is not an elected member of this Parliament in this case. He does not need to be a member. He could be a nominee and a Coloured or an Indian and he may be a member of any of the chambers. If hon. members are satisfied with this and if they all understand this, then they must vote in favour of it. However, I cannot go along with this.

Mr. Chairman, last night I replied in full to the load of rubbish spoken by the hon. member for Langlaagte. I am not being insulting when I say this. Last night I told him that he had insulted the officials, as well as the management of the Railways. The position has always been that the General Manager is appointed by the State President. This will continue to be the case in the future. The old Act stated that the top officials are also appointed by the State President, but it has never been done this way. This was a task delegated to the Minister by way of regulation. Therefore absolutely nothing is being removed here. The hon. member also said that we were being sly, and that we were engaged in carrying out reform by stealth. These are insulting words. I should really have ignored the hon. member, since he stood up here and made a political football of a clause which the Management and the trade unions have already considered and concerning which they have decided that this was the correct decision. He referred to these people, saying that they were engaged in formulating sly legislation. The hon. member may say just what he wishes. He said that the State President was going to be a dictator. At present, the State President forms a Cabinet in consultation with, and on the advice of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member said that the State President would be able to appoint a Coloured, Indian or a White. Today the position is that the hon. the Minister of Finance is appointed because he is an expert. He does not have a seat.

He cannot be a Coloured or an Indian.

Yesterday I stated repeatedly that those hon. members ran away because they were afraid of the HNP. That is plain and simple! They have become afraid of the HNP. I say, Sir, that the people who are convinced that their cause is just are sitting on this side of the House. I think we are wasting time now. I have had enough of this slander. I say that I shall fight for the railwayman of Langlaagte and I shall tell him that his trade union and the Management, the top management of the S.A. Transport Services made these recommendations for practical purposes. At no stage was the new dispensation taken into account when this legislation was drawn up. Sir, under these circumstances, that hon. member deserves to be ignored.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister attributed statements to me which I know I did not make. The hon. the Minister said that I spoke about reform by stealth. This is true, but I never implicated any official. Do the officials make the laws nowadays? The hon. the Minister has been in this Parliament for so many years. Does he still not know who the legislator in this country is? If he does not know that by now, I am extremely sorry for him.

Order! In his first speech during the Committee Stage I allowed the hon. member to discuss the general principles of the Bill. I cannot afford him a second opportunity of doing so. If I were to permit the first speaker on every clause to address this Committee on the general principles of the Bill, we would have a repetition of the Second Reading debate. My ruling is therefore that the hon. member must now confine himself to the details of clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to teach the hon. the Minister something about this legislation. Apparently he has not read it. Let us look at section 2 of the existing Act, which is entitled “Delegation of certain powers by the State President”. It reads—

If we apply this situation to a tricameral parliament, I shall be satisfied that it be dealt with by way of regulation since the President would still be responsible to this Parliament to a certain extent. Let us now consider clause 2 of this Bill. In terms of subsection (1) the General Manager is still appointed by the State President. But now subsection (2) reads as follows—

My point is that the Parliament as it is composed at present differs from the tricameral parliament, as it will be composed in six months’ time. The difference lies in who the Minister of Transport Affairs is going to be in that tricameral parliament. It is no use our going through this clause rapidly. The legislation before us will be the legislation before the tricameral parliament as well. Now the Minister, who is empowered in terms of subsection (2) to appoint and dismiss employees and to determine their salaries, may be an Indian or a Coloured …

Order! The hon. member must not try to evade the ruling of the Chair. He is once again discussing the principle embodied in this clause. He must please now come to the details of the clause.

Sir, I am in the process of pointing out the difference between this clause and section 2 of the existing Act. There is a vast difference between the two. In the one case, the power is vested in the State President, whereas in terms of the other, the power is vested in the Minister, and this Minister may be a Coloured or an Indian.

Order! Nowhere in this clause is it provided that the Minister may be a Coloured or an Indian. The clause only concerns the powers of the State President and the Minister and the hon. member must please confine himself to it.

Mr. Chairman, surely I may speak about the effect of this clause under a tricameral dispensation. [Interjections.] Oh, I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is no longer going to appoint other chambers …

I am pleased that you can still be a joke to us in Parliament from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have mentioned, we shall not be able to vote for this clause as it stands at present.

Mr. Chairman, the present Bill deals with the present parliamentary system of government in South Africa. It has absolutely nothing to do with a new dispensation which has not yet even been given statutory form. Every sober-minded and normal person realizes that we are acting in terms of the present situation in South Africa. No legislation containing provisions with regard to a tricameral parliament exists as yet. Therefore we certainly cannot argue about anything of the kind.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that this legislation will not be legislation in the tricameral parliament as well? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there was a time when the hon. member for Langlaagte sat in our caucus; then we were ashamed of him. Now he is no longer in our caucus; now we laugh at him.

Correct.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister may hurl as many insults as he wishes. However, we are not going to allow him to get away with the provisions of this clause. [Interjections.] Once again I wish to indicate that clause 2 cannot be acceptable. To support my argument, I am going to quote section 2 of the Railway and Harbours Service Act (Act No. 22 of 1960), as follows—

In terms of the Bill under discussion, this power is no longer vested in the State President, but it is provided by way of legislation. Now a Minister need only submit legislation to Parliament in order to obtain this power. This signifies a major departure from the previous principle. This departure alone is sufficient to compel us to vote against this provision.

At least a trade union cannot defend itself against the provisions of an Act. When Parliament provides by way of legislation that a person’s salary may be increased or reduced, no trade union can defend itself against such a ruling. This is precisely what we find in the present legislation. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill under discussion, the State President may delegate his powers wholly or in part by regulation.

Order! I should not like to deny the hon. member for Langlaagte the opportunity of addressing the Committee and stating his case here, so that the hon. the Minister may take note of it. However, the hon. member has already read the old section in the Act of 1960 to the Committee. He has also already read the new clause 2 in the Bill to the Committee. In terms of the Standing Order No. 110 I cannot allow the hon. member to repeat what he said earlier. I therefore call upon the hon. member to confine himself to the contents of clause 2 of the Bill. This is what the debate is about at the moment and he must confine himself to its contents alone.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling. In terms of the provisions of clause 2, the worker no longer has the opportunity of defending himself. Nor may he any longer exercise his rights through his trade union any longer, since simply by way of legislation …

Which clause are you discussing now?

I am discussing clause 2. Simply as a result of legislation submitted in this House, his salary may be increased or reduced. Nor does the worker have a say in who is appointed by the Minister.

Order! I wish to make a final appeal to the hon. member to abide by my ruling. He is once again discussing clause 3. The reducing of the salaries of employees is a matter which belongs under clause 3. I am warning the hon. member for the last time. If he does not put forward a new argument now, I shall have to order him to resume his seat.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] Clause 2(3) reads as follows—

Order! I have given the hon. member for Langlaagte sufficient opportunity to put his case. However, he continues to repeat the same arguments and to disregard my ruling. I therefore order him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, if that is your ruling, I shall resume my seat.

That is my ruling.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we have a similar problem as far as clause 3 is concerned. I should like to quote the existing section 3 to the hon. the Minister so that he can understand the position. It reads as follows—

1. (a) a decision made under the provisions of this Act and the regulations governing the employee in regard to discipline; or
2. (b) an Act authorizing a general reduction in pensionable emoluments throughout the Service.

For the purposes of this section the expression “pensionable salary” shall not be deemed to include any sum on which an employee is entitled to contribute to the New Fund in terms of Pension Regulation No. 23(1)(b).

In contrast, clause 3, the clause we are now discussing, reads as follows—

1. (a) a decision made under the provisions of this Act or the regulations governing discipline; or
2. (b) an Act authorizing a general reduction in the salary of employees of the South African Transport Services.

Mr. Chairman, this clause which will form part of an Act of this House, would be able to cause the reduction of the salaries of the entire work force of the SATS. That would be the effect of this clause. Those workers would not be entitled to approach their MPs in the ordinary way so that they in their turn could come to this House and object on behalf of those workers. This is what could happen when this legislation falls under a Parliament with a tricameral system.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that there is absolutely no reference to another Parliament in clause 3. Clause 3 deals with the reduction in the salary of an employee. That is all that is involved and I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the contents of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this point?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will be an Act that will not disappear in future when there is a tricameral Parliament.

The principle of this legislation has already been accepted during the Second Reading. It has already been dealt with.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte asked me whether he could address me on my ruling, and I ask hon. members to give him the opportunity to do so.

Sir, I am asking this in a friendly way because each and every hon. member has a duty to represent the people being represented by him to the best of his ability.

Order! No, the hon. member need not address me on that.

Very well, Sir. All I want to tell the hon. the Minister is that if he can give me the assurance today that the Bill we are now discussing will not be law in a tricameral Parliament I have no objection. However, if the Bill …

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member again, but I must point out to him that he and I are not discussing the Bill as a whole but the provisions of the clause now under consideration. He must therefore address me on the contents of the clause.

The contents of the clause form part of a Bill and the Bill … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to the hon. member not to waste the time of this Committee unnecessarily nor to play games with the Chair.

No, Sir.

That will under no circumstances be allowed, and I therefore call on the hon. member to address me as he requested so that I can give my ruling. I call on him now to continue doing so.

Sir, I am merely asking whether the clause forms part of legislation that will also serve as legislation in the tricameral Parliament.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing a totally hypothetical matter which is not at present being discussed by the Committee. What is being discussed is clause 3 which concerns a reduction in the salary of employees. I request the hon. member to return to those provisions.

Sir, I shall address the House on this matter during the Third Reading debate.

All I want to say now is the following: The authority now being granted to the Minister to reduce the salaries of employees by means of legislation is something I am opposed to. I believe my party is also opposed to it. This is something that has never happened before in our history; there has never been a provision in terms of which the salaries of workers could be reduced by means of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is not necessary to point out to the Committee that the clause in question contains more or less the same provisions as section 3 of the 1960 Act. If anything else is to be introduced, for example a tricameral Parliament—and I do not want to discuss this—then any hon. member of the Opposition may discuss the possible tricameral Parliamentary system whenever a Bill comes before this House. I think we should confine ourselves to what is stated here.

As far as I am concerned it is quite clear that there are only two matters of importance here. The first is the question: When may a worker’s salary be reduced? A worker’s salary may be reduced if disciplinary steps are taken against him or if for some or other reason a general reduction in salary takes place. Parliament then still has the opportunity in any event to discuss such a reduction in salary. I do not know why the hon. member for Langlaagte is so worried about the Minister being able to reduce salaries. They cannot be reduced arbitrarily; they can only be reduced—this is what the clause provides—if disciplinary steps had to be taken, or if there is a general reduction in salary owing to specific circumstances. This clause does not deprive anyone of the right to discuss reductions in salary, and this provision has been in existence since 1960. Therefore I really do not know what the hon. member is objecting to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Kuilen gave the correct reply. However, I just want to repeat for the record that I, as Minister, am not able to discharge a Railwayman. I want this placed on record. What is more, this clause is the same as section 3 of Act 22 of 1960.

But surely that is not the truth.

In that case it was done in terms of a regulation, whereas it will now be done in terms of legislation. This is exactly the same concept as has always applied. Yesterday I told that hon. member that no employee’s salary could be reduced, unless he consented to it, or unless disciplinary steps have been taken against him—the hon. member for De Kuilen has just said this—or this has taken place through an Act of Parliament in terms of which a general reduction in salaries of all employees has been authorized.

Surely he can then discuss it.

That is all this clause entails. There is one thing the hon. member must not go and tell the general public outside, and that is that I have been empowered to reduce salaries. That is why I want to spell out clearly here that there are only those three sets of circumstances under which I may ask the General Manager to discharge a worker, if it is a disciplinary matter, but the Minister himself does not have the right to discharge a single employee of the Railways and this remains the case.

In terms of this legislation as well?

Yes, it remains the same.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In many ways this clause is the most important clause in the Bill because of the fact that—as I mentioned in the Second Reading debate—in the regulations at present Black people or people of colour are, virtually without exception, not allowed to become permanent employees of the S.A. Railways.

Hon. members will see that there are, in fact, two amendments that I have proposed. One is to ensure that South Africans and citizens of countries formerly part of South Africa can become permanent employees. Hot off the Press—in fact, the ink is still sticky—the new General Manager’s annual report landed on my desk in my office. I see there is a quaint new staff subcategory. We do not have merely Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking staff members. We now have Caprivian, Bushmen, Pondo, Pedi, Fingo, Zulu, Venda, Herero, etc. The classification even goes as far as telling us that there are five Caprivians, seven Bushmen and six Fingoes employed by the S.A. Transport Services. Also, to amaze the statisticians among us, there are 13 “others” spelt with a lower-case “o”. I do not know who they are. They may just happen to be ordinary Black South Africans. The point is, however, that there are 50 650 Xhosa-speaking, Tswana-speaking and Venda-speaking Black people employed in the S.A. Transport Services, as well as six Fingoes, but I do not quite know what language they speak. That means that approximately one-third— 50 000 out of a total of 130 000, so a little more than a third—of the S.A. Transport Services Blacks are now members of so-called independent States which were formerly part of South Africa. Those are individuals whose citizenship was stripped from them without their consent. I believe that it is basically unjust to deny these people access to permanent employment on the SATS. In 1981 I asked the question how many station forement there were in the SATS, then still the Railways and Harbours, and how many of these were Coloured, White, Indian and Black. There were 90 station foremen who were Black, including eight in training, and a little over 1 000 Whites.

I do not believe that a man who holds as responsible a job as that of station foreman should not be entitled to be a permanent employee of the SATS. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if two-fifths of his Black labour force are, through no fault of their own, denied the right to become permanent employees, I believe that that is a grave injustice and that it is going to contribute to increasing frustration because, as the Black workers become better qualified and move up the ladder of acquired skills and do not just remain labourers as it were, they are going to be aware of these disabilities. I do not see why a man who comes from Madeira, Mozambique, Angola or Poland who gets a job here and stays here for five years is able to be a permanent employee while a men who grew up with us and was born in this country is denied the right to become a permanent employee of the SATS, It is not as though there are not many other Acts Parliament has accepted which speak of “the Republic of South Africa and Territories formerly part of the Republic of South Africa”. So it is not as though we would be introducing something which would be entirely new in our legislation.

*My other amendment to this clause seeks to provide that someone who has worked for the SATS for two years in a regular capacity, may apply for permanent appointment. He must, of course, be a South African citizen, and he must be of good character, he must not suffer from any illness, etc., but then at least he knows that he can apply. If he cannot be appointed due to certain conditions, he knows about them, but at least he will then have the right to apply if he has been in the employ of the SATS for two years.

†I feel that the two amendments I am proposing go a long way “om die angel te trek” out of this whole legislation, legislation which is not, I believe, in the interests of South Africa, nor the kind of legislation we should be bringing into this House at this stage in our history.

Mr. Chairman, I promised the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. the Minister that we would have something to say about this clause in the Committee Stage. Let me say that what the hon. member has raised here is a very, very important question, viz. the status and conditions of service of migrant workers. The question is whether one should tackle the status of migrant workers in the SATS in this Bill or whether one should look for a wider investigation into conditions of service for all migrant workers, as I told hon. members in my Second Reading speech. We have considerable sympathy with the fact that there may be some employees who are presently migrant workers who were formerly citizens of South Africa and now by virtue of the independence of their homeland are deprived of their permanent employment status. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many employees of the SATS in permanent positions prior to the independence of their homelands have subsequently lost their permanent positions because of the deprivation of their citizenship.

None.

I do not think there will be many, but let the hon. the Minister tell us. The point which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made here today is for a citizenship review and not a review of the status of the conditions of service of the employee. There is a considerable difference, depending on what aspect one is looking at. We believe that migrant workers who are employed in contract worker trades rather than in permanent appointments come to South Africa from all over Southern Africa in order to fulfil an economic need and not in an attempt to change their citizenship. That is why we believe that the whole question of migrant workers should be the subject of review and investigation by the Manpower Commission. It should come with recommendations as to whether the conditions of service for migrant workers are acceptable, unacceptable or whether it can be improved.

I am sorry the hon. member for Pinelands is not here today because he said in his Second Reading speech yesterday that he abhorred the migrant labour system. And that hon. member was the labour adviser to the Anglo American Corporation for many years.

[Inaudible.]

I want to put this to the hon. member for Pinelands because 190 000 employees in the mining industry are migrant workers. Did the hon. member for Pinelands ever suggest to the Anglo American Corporation that they should do away with their migrant labour system? [Interjections.] He could have done it for years and years but now it is politically expedient. In his attack on the SATS he has changed his attitude for political expedience.

Do you not know the law?

Of course we know the law. The PFP through the hon. member for Pinelands said yesterday—it is in his Hansard—that they find the migratory labour system repugnant. Did he say that when he was labour adviser to Anglo American? [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot continue in this way. The hon. member for Durban North is addressing the Committee and hon. members should give him the opportunity to do so. The hon. member may proceed.

The point I want to make to the hon. members of the PFP is that there may well be a case to have an investigation done into the fact that former citizens of South Africa lost their permanent positions in terms of this clause by virtue of the fact that their homelands became independent. We will wait to hear from the hon. the Minister what the position is.

We will not be supporting the hon. member’s amendment for this is the wrong place to start to argue about citizenship rather than conditions of employment.

As far as the amendment relating to the two-year period is concerned, it is ipso facto. The one is congruent with the other and it comes down to the same argument which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North had. There are many citizens from other parts of Europe, England, Germany and Italy who will be equally affected. It has nothing to do with race or colour. When they come to South Africa and they are not citizens of South Africa they also will work under contract to the SATS. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North should note that this applies equally, irrespective of race, to people who are non-citizens of South Africa. We believe it is correct that people who go into permanent employment with a safe institution should after the five-year period decide whether they want to become citizens of the country or not. Should they decide after five years that they want to become permanent citizens then of course they can apply for permanent appointment in the SATS. With the benefit which one gets from employment in the SATS also goes a responsibility to the country. Therefore any person who wants to stay here and benefit after five years from employment here should, we believe, take out South African citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that whether he supports us or not does not matter to us. It is like water running off a duck’s back, because we do not need his support, particularly when he so obviously does not understand the basis on which we are approaching the clause. He is very keen that people should become permanent employees after a period of five years. That is exactly what we say. We say that once they have become South African citizens, only then should they become permanent employees. But why should 50 000 potential employees of the SATS be deprived of that right? All we are asking is that if those 50 000 people can show that they have the diligence, the commitment and the ability to apply for a job to be permanently employed, why should they be discriminated against? I want to tell hon. members that in 20 years’ time there are not going to be 50 000 of them; there will most probably be 100 000 of them. They are going to be an increasing factor in the SATS. Then, however, the hon. member for Durban North comes with this inane, ridiculous argument. And what does he do? He thinks that the PFP and the hon. member for Pinelands do not have brains in their heads.

We are sure of that.

In 1948 the Anglo-American Corporation and the other mining houses wanted to establish family housing for their mining employees on the Orange Free State gold-fields, but the Government refused them permission to do that. Not only that, if the hon. member makes a study of any mining industry in the world, he will discover that their is always a migratory component. But in this country it is enforced legally. That is what we are opposed to and what we believe and certainly understand the mining houses generally are also opposed to. Apropos that, the hon. member will be interested to know that on the coalmines the percentage factor of family accommodation for Black employees has increased substantially, and only as a result of representations on the Government. Anglo American, that hon. member might like to know, is actually a very law-abiding company, and they are not responsible for the law.

De Beers in Kimberley have stabilized their labour.

Yes, that is another point. De Beers in Kimberley have stabilized their labour by turning away from the migratory labour system.

I personally find it amazing that the hon. member for Durban North is not prepared to support these amendments. We do not want their support because we are finding so far this session that there is an increasing tendency for that party not to do anything to offend the NP and that they are quite clearly wanting to get into bed with them. That the hon. member for Durban North who has a perfectly sound intellect should come with this sort of nonsensical argument apropos this clause, I think proves the fact that he has a hidden motive, and that is to get as close as possible to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has such a fixation about the success this party is having in influencing the Government that he was not listening to what I was saying. I said to the hon. member that our primary concern should be about the conditions of service for migratory workers and not for citizenship they have got in terms of this Bill. Hon. members can argue about citizenship in another area when one is talking about constitutional design, but the hon. member has such a fixation about citizenship and politics that he is missing the whole point of this Bill and especially of this clause. I am saying to the hon. member that this Bill has got nothing to do with citizenship, which is what he is talking about. If he wants to improve the conditions of service for those people who are employed in a temporary capacity, a non-permanent capacity—there are many categories of non-permanent employment in the SATS—then he must tell us what those differences are, what deficiencies migrant workers suffer as a result of being in a temporary capacity and what improvements he would like to have to the temporary capacity or conditions of service. If he can tell us that, then there may be merit in his case and we may be prepared to listen to him. But purely to argue here about citizenship is totally inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. The hon. member must appreciate the problems I spelt out yesterday.

I should also like to reply briefly to the hon. member for Durban North. Nobody has lost his permanency because nobody has had it. We have not had permanent Black staff. Therefore, nobody has lost his permanency.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to Anglo American, while the hon. member for Houghton referred to the De Beers organization. I should like to see a comparison between what SATS pays its Black workers and what Anglo American pays them. I spelt out certain problems here yesterday. I am sure, however, that we will ultimately reach the stage of parity. At the moment it does not exist on account of certain problems.

*With regard to the aspects that do not require additional expenditure, such as periods of notice of termination of service, the conditions are, for all practical purposes, the same for both White and Black. Other conditions of service such as salaries, medical services and pensions are at the same time brought closer to parity. Because it will cost R400 million to bring them to parity all at once, they must of necessity be introduced systematically. Agreement has just been reached with all the staff associations involved to carry through the process of equalization in phases.

If hon. members could have been present when I talked to the Black trade unions, it would have been a revelation to them. The Black employees do not argue about these things. They seek only proper remuneration and proper housing. This, then, is what we are also striving for. However, present conditions are such that I am unfortunately unable to accept this amendment at the moment. Section 32 and section 39 of the Act to which the hon. member referred deal with the same question. Even if I like the hon. member, unfortunately we do not have the money to give effect to these things.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ascertain something from the hon. the Minister. In clause 16(4) it is provided that any person who is not a permanent employee of the S.A. Transport Services is not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Can the hon. the Minister please tell us why only these people are being excluded, whereas permanent and temporary employees would still seem to be covered by the legislation in question?

Mr. Chairman, whether or not an employee is permanent, and whether or not he is a citizen of the Republic, he is still covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Workmen’s Compensation Act covers everyone.

Mr. Chairman, with respect I should like to suggest that if the hon. the Minister were to look at the wording of subsections (3) and (4) he would observe that reference is only made to what happens in the case of an accident outside the borders of the Republic, for example in Venda or in Transkei, or even in Swaziland. But what if there is an accident in Maputo in which shunters of the S.A. Transport Services are injured? As I understand the position, there is a definition of “employee” which definitely includes only permanent and temporary workers. Therefore it excludes almost all non-White employees. I just want to know what the purpose of this restriction is.

Mr. Chairman, a sum of money is paid by the SATS to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner by which our people are covered. Even if an employee was travelling through an independent State by train, if he was on duty he would be covered.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals mainly with the suspension of members. The greatest problems facing the family of a member who is suspended is that such a worker has no income while he is on suspension. Clauses 17 and 18 of this legislation contain the same provisions as the corresponding sections in the present Act. Consequently there is no difference between the two pieces of legislation in this connection. However, the problem remains and I want to ask if it would not be possible, when an employee is suspended, to pay out part of his salary to his family, even if it is only a small portion of his salary. We have visited many families where the breadwinner was suspended for a few months and the family had no income. It is true that in due course he receives that money, but during the suspension period that family has to suffer great hardship. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether something cannot be done in such cases.

Mr. Chairman, this is a reasonable request but these provisions have been in existance for a long time. As the hon. member said, the provisions of the existing Act are the same. However, we do have a Benevolent Fund through which such families can receive assistance. As the hon. member also mentioned, that employee will in any case receive his money as soon as the suspension has been disposed of. That family may, however, apply to the Benevolent Fund. We shall give sympathetic consideration to the proposals made by the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 36, in line 54, to omit “when” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 38, in line 4, to omit “one month has” and to substitute “two months have”.

Mr. Chairman, the SATS runs what we would call tied housing. This is partly historical. However, they are moving away from this system because more and more transport employees are purchasing homes in suburbs away from shall we say, a railway village. Therefore the railway village concept is slowly disappearing. However, I believe that when a person is provided with a house as one of his conditions of employment, it brings with it extra responsibility. I think that every farmer who has, unfortunately, to rely on tied housing, knows what that responsibility is. We cannot simply dump people in the street. The purpose of my first amendment is simply to provide that a person who has given notice cannot be required to leave his house without being given 30 days’ notice. I am aware that in many cases there may be difficulties. Maybe the man was stealing; maybe he was damaging the property, but even so I do not think it would be correct for us literally to put people out of a house within 30 days, particularly in view of the housing shortage we are experiencing at the moment.

The second amendment relates to occupying premises in the event of death. Here I think two months’ notice should be given partly out of kindness, but also because if a working man dies suddenly, the family is often disorganized. They are shocked and they have to make funeral arrangements. If one gives them only 30 days in which to move out of that accommodation, I believe one is unfair, because they will not have 30 days in which they can acquire other accommodation. It is simply because of our concern for the tied housing problem and our concern for people’s right to accommodation that we move these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has now moved acceptable amendments, I want to accept the amendments in a spirit of goodwill, provided he does not object to all three stages of the three Bills that are still to be discussed being taken in one day.

†Please give me all the stages.

Mr. Chairman, while I do not wish to enter into bargaining about amendments, because I think it is bad parliamentary practice, I am aware that the hon. the Minister is keen on bargaining in order to make his business profitable. In those circumstances we are happy to give him the Third Reading.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion there is an anomaly in this clause. Subsection (2) reads—

In contrast, subsection (3) provides—

All I can think is that the relevant provision should read as follows—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister could explain the position in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea warned me about this and therefore I had a discussion with the law advisers of the department. They say there is no conflict or disparity between the two subsections. Both deal with a process of conciliation and they follow one another. On receipt of a report which contains a recommendation subscribed to by the majority of the members, the Minister may in terms of subsection (2) request the board to reconsider its recommendation. Should the board adhere to its original recommendation, the Minister is obliged in terms of subsection (3) to give effect to the recommendation as soon as is reasonably possible. Should the Board, however, revoke its previous recommendations that were subscribed to by the majority of its members, such recommendations fall away. The Minister is only obliged to give effect to the Board’s new recommendations, if any, and if such recommendations were indeed subscribed to by the majority of its members. That is the advice I get from my legal experts and I agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I can see that that could be the case if one strictly read the clauses chronologically, in other words, if one said that one could not consider clause 27(3) before one has actually considered clause 27(2). In such a case I think that would be valid. I am, however, just a simple farmer like the hon. the Minister …

More simple than a farmer.

… and it sounds to me as though this could lead to problems. I say this because a majority recommendation could, in fact, insist that the hon. the Minister should immediately give effect to a recommendation.

If, however, the hon. the Minister’s legal advisers, who know more about the law than I do, think it is all right, I suppose that is fine, but it does seem to me to be slightly inconsistent.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister on clause 27(7). In clause 27(7) it is stated—

What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether all the members involved were consulted on this matter. Does all this meet with their approval?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment to clause 32 which I have proposed is similar to the one I have proposed for clause 39. It is taken verbatim from the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s legislation on basic conditions of employment. I did not expect this hon. Minister to accept my amendment—in fact, he has already indicated that he will not be accepting it—because I believe that this hon. Minister is not, in fact, committed to moving away from racial discrimination in the S.A. Transport Services. He is, in fact, happy to call all his workers “guest workers” or “Gastarbeiters”. I believe that the Black staff associations, if they are worth their salt, will take note of what has been said in this debate. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must not underestimate the effects of Hansard, the fact that there are indeed many Black people who actually read Hansard and are interested in what goes on. There is a story about Minister Daan de Wet Nel who complained about the fact that there were people riding around the Transkei with copies of Hansard with passages marked in red to show their people what the then Native representatives were saying about what was going on. This hon. Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment such as this, even though it is also in the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s legislation which—let me tell hon. members—affects the other four million employees in South Africa. That is legislation that everybody else in the country has to apply. I believe he has to explain to us why he is not prepared to accept this kind of legislation. It indicates to me that the hon. the Minister is not serious about the commitment of Mr. Vorster and Mr. Pik Botha to moving this country away—that was in 1976—from discrimination based on race. I am sorry that he is not prepared to accept this amendment. As I have said, it is no different from, but is in fact identical to and was lifted from, the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which the hon. the Minister of Manpower passed through this House a few days ago.

I am also moving the amendment because we believe that the regulations are in large measure the very guts of this Bill. The Minister and the General Manager take unto themselves very wide powers to make regulations; so much so that the Bill is really simply a statement of principles whereas the regulations give them the power to affect very considerably the lives of the quarter of a million people employed in the SATS. If the hon. the Minister were prepared to accept this kind of amendment, we could be happy about his bona fides and commitment to the realization that no man, let alone an employee, can choose his parents, so why discriminate against him on the basis of something over which he has no control and which he cannot ever change.

Mr. Chairman, things are said here that sometimes cause problems. The hon. member has just said he wished our people of colour could get to read Hansard. He then said: “The Minister is not committed to moving away from discrimination.” I have stated repeatedly in this House that the ideal state of affairs is for there to be parity. However, one must look at the rest of Africa and one must consider the financial implications. When we discuss discrimination, we must truly be honest, once and for all. I do not want to discriminate either, but we must keep a business going. I have told the hon. member it is going to cost us an additional R400 million and we are already showing a tremendous loss this year.

I want to give an example that has a bearing on discrimination. I am not a racist. The hon. member and I are both farmers, but I do not think the hon. member realizes what some farmers in this country are doing to ensure good race relations with the Black man and to improve the conditions of people of colour. Last week I had an argument with a man and he told me about a Black man who earns R525 a month and has seven daughters in kwaNdebele, four of whom he has already sold for 22 head of cattle each. That is the lobola system and I do not begrudge a system under which he lives. That man has been given a house in the Black residential area for R38 a month. The clerk working next to him and earning the same salary cannot find a place to stay for less than R280 a month. Let us now consider discrimination. I do not begrudge that man a higher salary, but if one wants to be consistent one must consider all the aspects of discrimination. I only have one daughter and it cost me a devil of a lot of money to get her married, whereas that Black man got 22 head of cattle for each of his daughters. [Interjections.] In this regard one must be reasonable. Then that hon. member says: “I should like to see the Black people reading this Hansard and realizing that this Minister is not in favour of the abolition of discrimination.”

Why do you then not accept the amendment?

But I am telling the hon. member that we cannot accept the amendment because we cannot afford to do so at the moment. We must also bear in mind what is happening in Africa.

Will you accept the amendment if I give you 22 head of cattle?

What is involved here is an organization with 250 000 workers. We can compare the salaries in this organization with those of mining companies. By saying that I am not trying to suggest that we are paying enough. However, if this organization suffers a setback and a whole lot of people have to be discharged, we shall be going the same way as the rest of Africa. Let us do one thing and not neglect to do the other. After all, there must also be financial discipline in this country. I do not like the word “discrimination”. Sometimes one can also discriminate in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has advanced an argument as to why this matter should have been referred to a Select Committee. Of course we are all conscious of that. Why should a White railwayman get a house at R28 per month in a railway village when his colleague can get a house at R70 000 somewhere else? Why should some railwaymen be earning incredible salaries in overtime when other railwaymen who are less privileged, for example Black railwaymen, could be doing some of the jobs which retired railwaymen are doing on a temporary basis? All these things need to be looked into. Of course we in this party are aware that there are serious problems. We know we are in Africa. What we believe is that there should be an intent, there should at least be an acceptance by the hon. the Minister. We have not seen one single sign of it. The only time we saw it was when he got a bit annoyed and said: “Ek gaan die mag hou. Hulle is Gastarbeiter”. That is his mentality. I believe—for example, in the case of the amendment on clause 6—that what we need from the hon. the Minister is a statement of intent. We are perfectly conscious of the problems of living in Africa. The subsection should state—

If the hon. the Minister can effect an amendment that seeks to avoid differentiation at least that provides the opportunity. It would mean that he has stated his intention. We know change is not an event. We cannot click our fingers and change, reform and improve the situation. Change is a process. However, we have to have the commitment to start the process and we do not see it in the way the hon. the Minister is acting in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North will be pleased to hear that we agree with him in sentiment that no organization should discriminate on the basis of race, colour or creed. In fact, that is what is stated in the Wage Act. In much of the labour legislation that has gone through the House there is no mention or inclusion of this clause as such because it is implied that unless discrimination is specifically stated the opposite is accepted—that it does not restrict or prevent people from not discriminating. In sentiment we agree with the hon. member.

However, the point where we differ with the hon. member’s argument is that what he is looking for is affirmative action. Affirmative action is one of those things which are undertaken by people who want to redress or call for redress on what is supposed to be iniquitous in the past. The spirit in which the hon. member has put it is not acceptable to us. The spirit of affirmative action, of the leftist clique, is not acceptable to this party. However, the concept that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race, colour or creed is acceptable to us. That is why we will be supporting the hon. member’s amendment, not for the reasons which he has stated but simply because the idea and principle which we believe in, namely that one should not discriminate on the basis of race, colour or creed. I do want to point out to the hon. member that unless there are discriminatory provisions in the Bill it is assumed that they are not there. Therefore I think it is only overstating the obvious.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39:

Mr. Chairman, I stated my reasons in relation to the amendment moved to clause 32 as to why we wish to have this amendment inserted. Again we have a restriction on racial, sexual or colour discrimination. Again, the wording is taken from the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s recent Bill, viz. the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill which will now, of course, apply to several millions of employees in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, you will notice that this is a very wide clause in the sense that it validates all other regulations or Acts that shall be deemed to have been promulgated, made, exercised, published, issued etc. This, again, is to try to ensure that we move away from racial discrimination in South Africa and more particularly in the SATS.

I accordingly move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the same reply as I gave when I was replying to the debate on clause 6 and the other clauses applies. I can make the hon. member happy by saying that I give him my word of honour that within five years we shall have parity and the whole matter will be settled. However, it all depends on the financial implications. It will take us more or less five years, but do not hold me to it. However, we shall strive to have parity eventually.

You are giving your word of honour.

No, I did not.

*Really, Harry, you must not start applying those tactics of yours now. What I said was: I am striving to do it.

You are giving your word of honour, but you are not giving it.

No.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister talks about parity. It is not only equal pay, it is also equal treatment. The difference between the mining companies and the SATS is that at least in some of the mining companies a Black graduate knows that he can hopefully if he is good enough and works hard enough, become a director of that company at some stage. I believe that that is the same hope that should be held out to any employee who starts in the SATS. Therefore any employee of 20 or 22 years of age, whether he be Black, Coloured, Indian or White, knows that if he works hard enough he can actually get into the General Manager’s chair if he applies himself. He is then on the inside looking out. He is not always on the outside looking in. That is what he is concerned about. I think that the concept of equal pay for equal work is accepted in South Africa— we need not debate that anymore—provided employees carry equal responsibility and hopefully have equal qualifications. The point, however, is that the employee must be treated the same. Why is it necessary to have this distinction? Why exclude people of colour from permanent employment as determined in clause 6? That is our concern. It is not just the financial principle. Every employee of the SATS, provided he does not drink himself to death and he works hard, should know that he can actually get ahead in the SATS. That is the important thing as I see it and not just necessarily parity, although that obviously is also important.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when I discussed this legislation yesterday evening, I put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the position regarding the 99-year leasehold system and housing loans to Blacks. I went on to ask him whether he would be kind enough to inform us what the position of Black people in regard to the leasehold system would be with specific reference to those persons resident in the South-Western Cape. I am sure it was an oversight on the part of the hon. the Minister when he did not reply to my questions, and I should like to ask him if he would be kind enough to reply to them now, if it is possible of course.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I did not reply to the hon. member for Nigel’s questions yesterday evening. However, I want to tell him that in this case the Western Cape is excluded from the relevant housing scheme.

Why? Surely the Western Cape is also part of South Africa! [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment contained in this clause involves the deletion of words which refer to revenue reserves, specifically established in terms of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977. The specific words now being deleted, all that is now said is—

The question I should like the hon. the Minister to answer is the following. What is meant by a “revenue reserve”? It can be any amount whatsoever because nothing prescribes what it should be. Should it be limited in amount? Should it be specified in respect of its relationship to the total capital invested? Should it be specified in respect of the average annual revenue over a period of time? What should it be? At the present moment it reads like a piece of string. How long is a piece of string? It could be any length. Before we deal with this any further, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what he actually means by this, and also why he wants the existing words deleted from the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act. I should also like him to tell us why the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act does not contain the necessary limitation to which this should apply.

Mr. Chairman, section 2B of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, provides for a revenue reserve made up of money appropriated by Parliament and which is to be utilized for the financing of the capital programme of the SATS. However, because a revenue reserve forms an integral part of a recognized accounting system it is not necessary to provide for the operation of it in specific legislation. The said Act is being repealed and replaced by the proposed South African Transport Services’ Finance and Accounts Bill, 1983, in which without any specific reference to revenue reserves, provision is being made for an accounting system based on recognized accounting principles. The proposed amendment of section 7(2)(a) of Act 56 of 1981, therefore, is essentially consequential.

The hon. member asked me what “revenue reserve” means. Is it limited? Is it capital which has been invested? It is a matter of revenue and expenditure. It is a small business transaction. There is a revenue and expenditure account. The hon. member was not in the House when I made my Second Reading speech. Where was the hon. member.

I shall reply in a moment.

The hon. member is asking questions, but if he were in the House when I made my Second Reading speech, he would have understood the position.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister read that answer very well. Perhaps he would like to tell us what he was actually reading? What he ad libbed afterwards demonstrated quite clearly that he does not in fact understand what he was reading. I say this with great respect because a revenue reserve is not a question of revenue and expenditure. It happens to be a reserve that is taken out of revenue, unless otherwise specified. When we look at the Act that the hon. the Minister if repealing we find that it provides that a revenue reserve was to comprise the contributions from moneys appropriated by Parliament which were to be applied towards the financing of the capital programme. That is now being done away with so there will now be no limitation as to what the revenue reserve may be. This means that we are here passing a clause in terms of which one can create whatever one wants to as a revenue reserve. The proposed new subsection (2)(a) inserted by clause 9 provides, inter alia—

In other words, what can be done, is that excessive tariffs can be charged in order to create a revenue reserve.

I have said it is simply a matter of revenue and expenditure.

No, it is not.

It is purely a business transaction but the money has to be voted by Parliament. [Interjections.]

The whole point is that it does not have to be voted by Parliament any longer. That is why I told the hon. the Minister that he does not know what he is reading. In terms of the present Act, it has to be voted by Parliament. This is provided for in section 2(b). The legislation before us provide that the earnings must not be more than meet the outlays, the capital costs and a little bit that is tucked away as a revenue reserve; in other words, one can actually make one’s earnings anything one wants to. There is no provision to the effect that one has really to balance one’s accounts and not have vast amounts over which one can set aside for future use. That is our complaint— that tariffs can actually be fixed in terms of which excessive amounts are levied which are then tucked away in a revenue reserve. With great respect, therefore, the answer that the hon. the Minister read was not related to this problem. The question is: Is there any limitation to the amount of the revenue reserve? I say that in terms of the phraseology of this clause, there is not. If there is no limitation, then there can also be no limitation on the tariffs that are charged. Excessive tariffs can be levied in order to create an artificial revenue reserve. That is the problem.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member does not understand this, and he never took part when this was debated. Last year when we discussed the budget of the SATS I emphatically said that I could increase tariffs in October, November, December—any time I wanted to.

Yes that is right, and therefore you did.

Yes, I did that; why then this argument? What does the hon. member want?

That is the whole point.

It was agreed that I could raise tariffs.

That is what we are trying to stop you to do.

Having increased the tariffs, I can make profits. It is a matter of a profit and loss account. I come back to Parliament and I reply to questions.

*It is really quite simple. It is a question of revenue and expenditure. I have certain rights. According to the hon. member I now have the right to increase tariffs and to tuck away reserves.

That is right.

Yes, that is true. But I am not arguing with the hon. member.

But I am opposed to that.

I put it like that in the House last year, but the hon. member was not present then. I said that I would henceforth have the right to increase tariffs without the approval of Parliament.

We opposed you last year.

Yes, you did oppose me, but the hon. member for Yeoville was not here.

*The hon. member may well know a great deal about the Select Committee on Public Accounts and he may carry on with the hon. the Minister of Finance, but he took a chance here today which did not come off.

Mr. Chairman, it does not help to try to divert attention from the wording of the provision. It also does not help to say that I was not here last year, because I was here last year. I know very well what went on last year.

The hon. the Minister knows very well that one of the things we do not want him to have is the power to raise excessive tariffs.

I have that now.

Yes, he has the power, but the fact that he has the power does not mean that we approve of it.

That is right.

And that is the whole point.

Mr. Chairman, with respect: I have the power, but I am still showing a “hell” of a loss. [Interjections.]

Well, that shows how useless he is. [Interjections.] With respect, the hon. the Minister has all the power in the world and he is making an unholy mess! Therefore, that is not the answer. The simple issue is that at the present moment there is a limitation in terms of section 7(2)(b) of Act 48 of 1977—the hon. the Minister should get the Act in front of him and look at it because the whole problem is that he does not have it in front of him—but once that limitation is lifted the hon. the Minister can charge what he likes. He can create however big reserves he wants to and it is only the question of the competence of running the service as to whether he does it or not. The intention is—remember this is a public utility—that the hon. the Minister should to the extent possible not run it at a profit; he should merely make provision for what are reasonable reserves. This is public utility—not the hon. the Minister’s farm. It is a different thing altogether. It is not a business which he runs for profit; this is a public utility for the benefit of the public. That is why there was the limitation in terms of the old Act. Now the hon. the Minister is doing away with it and he is giving himself another power of which we do not approve.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with an aspect that was thoroughly debated last year in the closing hours of the long Friday night which saw the end of the last session. The attitude of this party is well-known. I think it is important because the SATS employs in excess of 100 000 White people of whom the most are males and therefore are affected by the proposed amendment. I believe it is important for us to remind ourselves in the Committee of what the economic effects are of a conscription of White males on the SATS. What it is going to mean is that a young White male will have to do two years’ permanent training. Then he has to spend four months out of every two years doing military training, with a further effective two months on holiday. This means that he can only work, in every two-year period, for a period of 18 months. He therefore loses six months in which he could—apart from the holiday period—have been doing work for the S.A. Transport Services. I believe that we should appreciate in the fact that this is a very serious burden, but not only that. Many of the young White men who join the SATS are not graduates. Many of them do not even have a matriculation qualification. Some of them only have a Std. 8 qualification or even less. As a member of Parliament I have found—not only in the SATS, but also elsewhere—that these young men cannot easily get a job. Employers prefer to employ people of another colour who do not have military service obligations, but probably have the same educational qualifications, to fill those jobs. I believe that it is unfair that people should have to bear this particular burden.

I believe that this House and the SATS should be aware what the cost of conscripting our White males is to the country at this time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, the S.A. Transport Services is an important business generator because it transports many millions of people. In fact, the General Manager’s most recent report indicates how many passengers were transported in the past year. The actual figure is 707 million people who were transported by the S.A. Transport Services’ suburban passenger services.

There are obviously going to be people who would want to sell and trade where the S.A. Transport Services operates. Let us look at the effect of property values around the Belle Ombre station in Pretoria, a station that will be bringing in mostly Black commuters to Pretoria. Those property values have just gone up. The same applies to properties around the Durban station. The properties opposite the Durban station have increased dramatically in value because people know that where there are people, there is money. In 1981 I asked the hon. the Minister a question about kiosks and bookstalls operated departmentally. Although I do not intend to go into the matter in as much detail as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti went into the question of getting the Daily News, I do want to draw attention to the fact that on virtually every station the vast majority of passengers are Black people, and yet at most of the stations the services that these people have are very poor. The kiosks close early or are non-existent and the people have to go to a café. I think the S.A. Transport Services should encourage the small hawker. I know that in Johannesburg there were people selling green mealies, and if one asked them what they were selling, they would say they worked for Hendrik Schoeman and were selling his green mealies.

Ah!

I do not see why one should not apply that principle and license Black hawkers to sell to Black passengers if they want to, or any colour hawker for that matter. One could allow them to have a little trolley or something to move their goods round for sale to the people on the trains. It is a great advantage. If one stops at Touws River, for example, the cafe there is specially opened for the occasion.

I want to appeal to the Minister to apply this provision in such a way that he can actually encourage what is called the informal sector in the economy. There are many people who start off in business like that. I am thinking, for instance, of Black widows who earn a living simply by selling tomatoes or oranges at different places. Why not charge such people a small fee of R2, R3 or R5 per year and give them a disc or licence, so that they can benefit from that? Why should it just be all the rich White companies who open big shops around stations who benefit thereby? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to instruct his staff when applying clause 5 to do so bearing in mind the need passengers have for such services and also the opportunity this presents to enable small Black business men and hawkers slowly to develop. Perhaps some day they will become large retailers as a result.

Mr. Chairman, I dwelt at some length on this particular subject during the Second Reading debate and I do not intend to do so now. I should, however, like to support the idea put forward by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Where one does have, for instance, a coffee counter, as one has at the new station in Durban, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is not unreasonable to ask that the local newspaper should also be sold there. A lot of people are using that facility, obtaining a light meal and coffee there, and I am quite sure that people using the station would also patronize that place if they knew they could for instance get The Daily News there. I also want to put it to the hon. the Minister that quite a number of mainline trains operating at the moment do not have dining-cars. Some travelling between Johannesburg and Durban pass through Pietermaritzburg fairly early in the morning and people disembark in Pietermaritzburg hoping to get a light snack or a cup of coffee, but that facility is simply not available. One wonders whether this is not perhaps a contributing factor to the decline of the mainline passenger services. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have his department look into this in detail.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North and Amanzimtoti I can say that the whole intention is to apply this clause to the advantage of our people. They must now give us an opportunity to see what we can do with these provisions to provide refreshment stalls, etc.

*I am able to say that I am in favour of the idea which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised that people should be able to sell tomatoes and things like that at Belle Ombre Station, for example. If this takes place in an orderly fashion, I am in favour of it. What is more attractive than the example of the Parade or the flower vendors here in Cape Town?

Hear, hear!

It makes the place attractive. I also take note of the fact that the other hon. member is unable to get the Daily News. We shall make a special effort to let him have his newspaper in time in the morning.

Clause agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. The Committee stage actually started in the Second Reading and the various clauses have been dealt with in detail by some hon. members. We have also had a thorough debate on it in the Committee Stage itself. The Bill deals with a pot-pourri of pieces of legislation relating to the SATS. Some of them are obviously consequential and flow from other legislation. Some of them are tidying up and some of them are clearly necessary. We usually have such a Bill before the House each session.

We will be supporting the Third Reading as we have supported the Second Reading, and we trust this legislation will result in a more efficient and effective service.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me the reason for the change in paragraph (xi) in regard to the definition of “revenue”. In terms of this changed definition “revenue” means all amounts received from the services rendered by the SATS. In other words, it is limited to amounts received from services. If we look at the previous Act, the 1977 Act, we see that “revenue” was defined in a far wider sense as there are also other matters which are received by way of revenue which are not from services. The definition of “revenue” in the 1977 Act also included interest, rentals and miscellaneous receipts of the nature specified in the Classification of Revenue. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that there are amounts which are revenue which in fact are not received for services rendered. For example, if one hires premises that is not for services rendered. The 1977 Act included revenue in a broad definition and now we have a narrow definition. I think it is going to create a problem.

If one looks at the definition of “revenue” in the Exchequer and Audit Act one will also see that the definition is in a far wider context. If the hon. the Minister has the Exchequer and Audit Act with him he will see that in that Act “revenue” means all moneys received by way of taxes, imposts or rates and all casual and other receipts of the State, whatever the source, which may be appropriated by Parliament, and includes money borrowed in terms of the provision of that Act. It deals with all the matters which can be revenued. Both the Exchequer and Audit Act and the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act of 1977 have a broad definition. The explanatory memorandum gives no reason why the definition should be narrowed down, nor does the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech give such an explanation. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation because I think it is obviously not in the interests of good accounting practices to have such narrow a definition of “revenue”.

Mr. Chairman, I roo rise to query this particular definition of “revenue”. I am very much in agreement with what the hon. member for Yeoville has said and I wonder whether this particular definition could not be amended to read “revenue means all moneys earned and amounts received from the services rendered”. I believe the definition as it stands is too limited, and I agree with the hon. member of Yeoville that there are many other amounts of money that are received or earned by the SATS such as, for instance, interest on its investments. I too was wondering why it has been reduced to this very brief definition. I too therefore await the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville asked me about clause l(xi) which states—

*The entire clause has been rewritten. This also covers the question asked by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I shall come back to that in a moment.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked last night whether the Bill provides for the necessary control over the finances of the SATS. Clause 2 stipulates that all transactions must be accounted for in accordance with accepted accounting principles. This is in line with what is required in the private sector. I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we altered the whole of clause 1.

*Because the SATS is moving towards an integrated budget, in future there will only be one estimate of expenditure and it will therefor no longer be necessary to submit separate appropriations to Parliament in this regard. Consequently only necessary to define to concept “revenue” in the Act. As far as the votes are concerned, this aspect is closely linked to the accounting system which is being applied.

I am not asking about expenditure; I am asking about revenue.

I am getting to that. Let me explain everything to do with revenue and expenditure. A while ago the hon. member said: “If you hire premises, it is not revenue”.

It is not a service rendered.

Yes, it is not a service.

*Let me, however, explain the entire clause to the hon. member. We are moving towards another form of bookkeeping. On the basis that the Act provides that accounting for expenditure must take place according to a recognized accounting system, the definition of vote was deleted. In view of the foregoing a definition of the concept “revenue” has been inserted and certain definitions such as “additional estimates of expenditure” as well as “estimates of expenditure”, “votes” and “capital programmes” have been omitted. It was only under section 19 that reference was made to the concept of head or sub-head of the department. Because section 19 is not being included in the Bill the definition of these concepts have also been omitted. Furthermore there is an explanation for every paragraph of every subdivision of these clauses.

†I just want to tell the hon. member that all revenue is in respect of services rendered, no matter what it is.

But that is the whole point.

What is the hon. member’s question?

Mr. Chairman, may I explain it again to the hon. the Minister? In terms of this legislation the definition of “revenue” is that it means “all amounts received from the services rendered by the South African Transport Services”. That is the definition. What I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that the old definition was wider because, for example, interest that is earned from money is not for services rendered. Do we agree on that? Rental which the SATS derives from hiring out accommodation is not money received for services rendered. Those are but two examples. I can give the hon. the Minister a whole lot more. I am saying to the hon. the Minister that he is restricting himself in his definition of revenue. I am not arguing with him about all the other things he spoke about. I am only arguing with him about the definition of “revenue”. The equivalent Afrikaans definition is “inkomste”.

*In clause 1 we find that the definition of “inkomste” reads “alle bedrae ontvang uit die dienste gelewer deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste”. The S.A. Transport Services do in fact have other revenue, revenue not derived from services rendered, but revenue derived from other sources. Such revenue is not covered by the present definition. This is my problem.

If the hon. the Minister were to be prepared to change the definition, this problem could be solved.

†I should suggest that the hon. the Minister accepts the following definition, which, I submit, would cover all those other aspects which are not covered in terms of the definition as it stands in the Bill. I believe the definition should read as follows—

This definition will cover everything. If the hon. the Minister should then want loans not to be covered because they are not revenue they can remain separate. They are not income. If he should leave the definition as it is, however, he will come back to this House and tell us how sorry he is but that he now has nowhere where he can fit in rentals, interests and all those other things. That is his problem. I am merely trying to help the hon. the Minister. That is all.

Mr. Chairman, according to the definition in the definitions contained in clause 1 revenue is “all amounts received from the services rendered by the South African Transport Services”. We can have 15, 20 or even 30 separate votes under which all these things are stipulated. The Select Committee and the Auditor-General go through all these things. I cannot understand what problem the hon. member for Yeoville has. For example we can have a vote under which we include rentals received.

Is that money received for a service rendered?

No, it is not.

Well, then it is surely not covered.

Mr. Chairman, in every bookkeeping system revenue received is set down in separate columns; every column indicates exactly where the specific revenue came from. Surely we are than indicating whether our revenue is from rail transport, from pipelines, from rentals, or whatever the case may be. I therefore cannot understand what the hon. member’s problem is.

You are weak, Hendrik. You are very weak.

Oh no! I simply cannot understand what the hon. member for Yeoville’s problem is. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, our problem, I submit, is the use of the English language. As the definition stands at the present time “revenue” is defined as follows—

As the hon. member for Yeoville has very clearly explained, money received for a service rendered, is not money derived from the renting of a property, or interest derived from the lending of money. It is clearly stated in the definition that revenue is derived, in terms of the wording as it stands, from services rendered by the SATS. It could be from transporting goods from point A to point B. There are also other activities in which the SATS engages. It leases property and it lends money, and should we want an all-embracing definition of the word “revenue”, it must surely include all amounts earned and all amounts received from the services rendered. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I now move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, in section 1 of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, revenue is defined as follows—

Right, you are proving my point.

In terms of the new definition of “revenue”, it means all amounts earned from services rendered by the SATS.

But only for services. [Interjections.]

It is an improvement but I cannot understand the hon. member’s problem.

Mr. Chairman, I think it may be of assistance to the hon. the Minister if I move another amendment, namely—

I should like to try to explain the position again so that the hon. the Minister and I understand one another. If there was no definition, if all that we did was to refer to “revenue” generally then everybody would be happy. However, by means of the definition the hon. the Minister is limiting the term “revenue” to amounts received from services rendered. We do not want revenue to come simply from services rendered. We also want included, as was the case under the old definition, rentals and interest and all accruals of that nature. We want it to be exactly the same as the definition of “revenue” in the Exchequer and Audit Act where “revenue” is defined as widely as possible. We also want the hon. the Minister to have that additional revenue. All we are trying to do is to give the hon. the Minister something.

Mr. Chairman, my officials tell me that everything is included in any case and therefore I need not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I thank the hon. member for wishing to help me but my officials tell me that everything is included in terms of this definition. We will not experience any problem by not accepting the hon. member’s amendment.

When the hon. the Minister comes back again next year, will he apologize?

I shall apologize.

*I do not argue if a man wants to help me. I am grateful to him. The hon. member for Yeoville makes a study of these matters. However, my officials who drafted the legislation tell me that I need not accept his amendment since everything is covered.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I should like to raise under this clause. The first one deals with the use of the term “recognized accounting principles”. In the private sector, recognized accounting principles are meaningful. In the public sector recognized accounting principles are also meaningful. However, the SATS is now coming forward with legislation to put itself into a different category. When we look at the situation in regard to the Exchequer and Audit Act, we find that section 12 of that Act provides, inter alia—

In other words, there one has a situation where the Treasury acts as a safeguard over the department. It does so in consultation with the Auditor-General. Here, however, the accounting system is not laid down by some outside person as is done by the Treasury in another department; here it is to be done by the Minister himself. I ask whether it is a desirable arrangement that the man who is actually keeping the books is the man who decides the form in which the books should be kept. The accepted principle is that the person who keeps the books is not the person who determines the form of the books. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister why he accepts the concept which appears to be foreign to what is a normal situation in regard to accounting.

I also ask the hon. the Minister to assure the Committee—I hope he will—that in exactly the same way as is done when one changes the forms of the Estimates, if he changes accounting principles, he will go to the Select Committee on the Accounts of the SATS—not the Select Committee on Public Accounts, of which he is a little frightened— to say to that Select Committee that is how he proposes to change the accounting principles; he wants its recommendations in that regard. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us that undertaking this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, if I give the undertaking that I shall go the Select Committee on the Accounts of the SATS and it is not during the parliamentary session, must we have a special meeting of the Select Committee?

No, during the next session.

The only thing that is happening here is the following: The clause, which envisages the substitution of section 9 of Act 45 of 1977, rectifies the incorrect use of the words “system of accounts”. The correct terminology i.e. “accounting system” is being substituted for the words “system of accounts”, and this correction is also being made in respect of all sections in which the words “system of accounts” appear.

†This terminology expresses the correct accounting principle.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that should we divert from this, we would refer the matter to the Select Committee as he has asked me to do.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this particular principle is of course contained in the 1977 Act, but as it is now being re-enacted, a very important issue arises. It is perfectly correct that where a service is specifically requested by Parliament and that service would result in a very substantial loss to the SATS, quite obviously the people who require the SATS to render that service should then make financial provision for it. I think it is a logical concept.

The way in which the clause has been drafted and in which it existed in the previous legislation as well, may however, theoretically result in the SATS arguing that as far as they are concerned, they lose a lot of money on passenger services and therefore they are out of the passenger business. They can also tell the people who require such a passenger service that they should see to it that a resolution is passed by Parliament in terms of which the money is made available and subsidies paid. I think this is a very, very dangerous principle.

The reality is that in running the SATS which are a public utility service there are some services which are going to show a profit while others are going to show as loss. Therefore the SATS have to render some services which are going to show a loss in order to project a balanced service to the community.

We are concerned that the hon. the Minister will give us the undertaking that he will only use this particular provision when a new service is requested by Parliament, that he will continue to render the existing services which are being rendered and that he will not cease to render any of the existing services and then say: If you want me to render them, pass a special resolution and give me the extra money. That will introduce a new principle and a very dangerous principle to which one could not agree.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member tell me where I must get the extra money to cover the losses? Where does he think he, or anybody else, would get the money?

From the Exchequer.

To cover losses of R690 million, losses on the transportation of passengers, commuters?

Well, who is going to pay for it?

Let me give him an undertaking.

*I am just asking, because if there is any place from which one can obtain the money to cover these losses, I shall go there right now. However, there is no such place. It is inconceivable to expect that we will be able to indicate with a stroke of a pen that we are no longer going to offer certain services. The hon. member is quite correct; it is a socioeconomic undertaking. Commuters have to be conveyed at alarming losses. It is not the intention to terminate those services.

†The hon. member asked me to assure him that it would only apply to new undertakings. I give him the assurance.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand from the hon. the Minister that he is required by the State President or by a resolution of Parliament to provide these passenger services which he has just been talking about and which cost R690 million—I think he said—to provide? We heard the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his reply to the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, telling us that these services were subsidized by some R250 million per year. In this case, however, we are dealing with an imperative. Here it is stated that it is a must to claim for these services. As I read the clause—

That sounds to me remarkably like an imperative, because it is stated that the S.A. Transport Services shall “pay” for the services and that the money “shall” be paid back to the S.A. Transport Services. If this is the case, it actually opens up a whole new ball-game, because when we suggest to the SATS that it should, for example, allow private enterprise to carry out a particular service, the answer we get from the hon. the Minister is always: Oh, but we have to utilize the profitable services, such as the oil pipeline services, to subsidize our non-profitable services. Now, however, we have been told that if the SATS was told to furnish those services by the State President or by Parliament, it can claim all the money back. I would very much like the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that.

Mr. Chairman, the idea is not to claim the money back. This does apply in certain instances, such as in the case of a guaranteed line, new undertakings, the building of a line to Richards Bay or something that did not previously exist. The hon. member is completely right. We do cross-subsidize. I know the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not like that, but as I told the hon. member for Yeoville, this applies to new undertakings. I assure him that I will come back to Parliament; so there is no problem.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a tradition that estimates are only changed after the matter has been referred to a Select Committee of Parliament and the Auditor-General. This is not, however, contained in clause 4(2), nor is it contained in clause 4(4). In clause 4(2) reference is made to “Estimates of expenditure” being “in the form determined by the Minister”, and in clause 4(4) reference is again made to “Statements of estimated revenue and expenditure, in the form determined by the Minister…” I should like an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that, if there are changes to the existing forms of estimates, that will only come about after consultation with his Railway Select Committee.

I give the hon. member that undertaking.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, when a similar provision to this was debated when the Exchequer and Audit Bill was before the House, we disapproved of it and we did so because it actually had the effect of limiting parliamentary control. This provision has exactly the same effect. In fact, if anything, this makes it much worse. We do not mind money being transferred between subheads under a Vote in a normal set of Estimates, because that creates no problems, but bearing in mind the type of budgeting that is now going to be undertaken by the SATS, one sees that this provision reads that once the money has been appropriated by an Appropriation Act—

The effect of this, therefore, is that, if this were to be applied to the Government as a whole, one could use money voted for Defence for environment purposes, one could use money voted for Agriculture for Finance—one could do as one pleased. What is happening now is that, because of the new way in which SATS budgeting is going to be done, there will actually be no financial control at all by Parliament. Once the money has been voted and it appears in the schedule, that is the end of all parliamentary control. Concerning this a fight has been going on between the Executive and Parliament ever since the time of Cromwell. It is one of the reasons why one of the kings lost his head. I do not know how the hon. the Minister’s neck is feeling at the moment …

Very bad.

Very bad, is it? I can tell you, Sir, that this is a traditional fight between the Executive and Parliament. The only weapon Parliament has is to keep control of the money. We have been told quite openly: “I have got the power and can do what I like; I am the boss.” The only thing Parliament has is the ability to withhold funds. In the past one could deal with specific aspects of funds, but if this legislation is passed, it will mean a free-for-all and that, once the money has been voted, it can be moved around and spent as the Minister likes. That may be all right for this hon. Minister, because he is quite a good businessman. He is quite careful and maybe he is the sort of chap whom some of us would trust. [Interjections.]

Careful!

However, the principle exists that one cannot allow parliamentary control to disappear, certainly not without protest, which is what we want to register here.

Mr. Chairman, it is definitely not the idea to side-step parliamentary control. The Select Committee and also the Auditor-General have agreed to this clause. We have cross-subsidization now. We can take profits from A and carry them over to B. We must, however, come back to Parliament and last year for instance some hon. members gave me …

A difficult time.

Yes, some hon. members gave me a difficult time here—I thank the hon. member for helping me. I can give the undertaking, however, that in future it will still be the same; I will have to come back to Parliament. Next week, for instance, I have to come back, I have to come with a tragic budget.

What?

Well, not tragic, but a bad one, a stupid one.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this is another control measure of Parliament over the executive. Here the hon. the Minister says that he wants to have the freedom to spend 2% of his budget rather that the 1% as hitherto. In the days gone by there was no power to do any of these things at all, but gradually Ministers, the executive, is taking more and more power to spend money without parliamentary control. Two per cent of the hon. the Minister’s budget is, however bad, tragic or sad it may be, still a lot of money, too much money to spend without parliamentary control. That is why I move as an amendment—

One per cent is enough, actually too much. However, I think that is the maximum that we can agree to in the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. Two per cent of the hon. the Minister’s budget is just about R100 million, and we believe this is too much. We will thus be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I explained last night, we have to come back to Parliament. We have a 2% clause also in the Post Office Act and this is to bring us in line with any sound business undertaking. I do not think it would be farsighted to keep the figure at 1%. It is practical to make it 2%, and we have to come back to Parliament in any event to approve all this expenditure. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, there is a principle contained in this clause which worries one. If one looks at the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act in regard to overdrafts, particularly section 9, one will see that a State department cannot have an overdraft with a private bank. But now the SATS will be able to go to private banks to get overdrafts. The hon. the Minister can say to me that the SATS are an independent organization and that they are not in the same position as another State department. However, the reality is that we all know that nobody can afford to let the SATS go bust. The State cannot. Even though the State does not guarantee it, even though the State does not have any legal obligation, the reality is that the State actually has to stand behind the SATS. It is exactly the same if one were to try to raise a loan overseas if it were not to be guaranteed by the South African Government. Mr. Chairman, do you think for one moment one could allow the SATS to default? One never could, because our whole reputation is at stake. To allow the SATS to borrow on overdraft from banks is to my mind an utterly unacceptable principle. What I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me is why it is that State departments cannot borrow from banks. When the hon. the Minister was Minister of Agriculture his department could not run an overdraft at any bank. It was not allowed to do so. Why should the SATS be allowed to do that? I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister before I move the deletion of paragraph (c) of clause 8(2) because to my mind it is a very, very important principle as to whether the SATS should be able to have overdrafts with banks.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture need not have the power to borrow money because he gets it from the Minister of Finance. But the Minister of Finance compels the Minister of Transport Affairs to incur loans overseas and at local banks and institutions. We must have the power to borrow by way of overdraft, otherwise we cannot run this business. We cannot get all the money from the Minister of Finance in the same way as the Department of Agriculture. One cannot compare the two. The hon. member for Yeoville was a director of several banks and so on and he knows the business. He knows that I cannot do this job without the possibility of having an overdraft. Without overdraft facilities we shall have to close our doors.

What is wrong with the Reserve Bank? The Reserve Bank gives an overdraft.

That is right. The Reserve Bank can help us, but they cannot give us all the money we need.

If the Reserve Bank is short of money no other bank can have money.

No, but the Reserve Bank has enough commitments with other institutions such as the Land Bank etc. Many institutions are borrowing from the Reserve Bank. If the hon. the Minister of Finance says that we must borrow money from a foreign country in order to meet specific financial problems in South Africa, I cannot see any problem.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting indeed that the hon. the Minister is talking about foreign banks in this particular regard and I should like perhaps to probe just a little further as to what actually represents an approved bank. How is it decided that a bank is approved or not approved? Is it approved by the SATS or is it perhaps approved by the hon. the Minister himself? Is it approved by the Reserve Bank or is it perhaps approved by the hon. the Minister of Finance? How is this to be decided? We know that we have had an unfortunate period of history, a time in South Africa when there were some banks that ended up going insolvent. We certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will not be doing business with any banks that do happen to go insolvent. I think it is a matter of great importance to know that if we are going to do business with approved banks, we should in fact know who approves those banks. I hate to bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention, but State institutions, he might recall, a few years back in one particular insolvency, lost something to the tune of R31 million. There are still moneys outstanding although a little dividend comes through from time to time. This is a most important question and if we have to deposit money with these banks then, of course, the situation can get even worse.

Mr. Chairman, I find the hon. the Minister’s’ reply quite fascinating because he was actually talking about borrowing from banks overseas. I find it fascinating because he was actually talking about the present Act. Section 8(2)(c) states that he can borrow from an approved bank situation outside the Republic of South Africa and the Territory of South West Africa by way of overdraft. That makes sense because the Minister cannot go to the Reserve Bank. In other words, he can go to a German Bank or to another bank. What he said is absolutely right in terms of the present Act, but what is happening is that the Bill does not say “banks outside the Republic of South Africa”. The Bill refers to any approved bank, which means a bank inside South Africa as well.

No.

Do not say no; it says so here. The hon. the Minister agrees with me, but his legislation is against him. How does one deal with a Minister like that? Then what is interesting is that the hon. the Minister says that the Minister can agree. That is fine. The Minister is the person who is accountable here. In terms of this provision it is not the Minister who has to agree; it is the General Manager. The hon. the Minister does not even have to know about it. Theoretically the General Manager can in terms of this go to any bank in South Africa and raise a tremendous overdraft without the hon. the Minister or Parliament knowing about it, while we would have to pay the bill ultimately because we can never allow the organization to go bust. Is that not right? That is a reality. So the change the hon. the Minister speaks about he has not noticed yet. He is still talking about the old Act in terms of which he may borrow from overseas and do not have to go to the Reserve Bank. Nobody in this House has said why you should go to a private bank to borrow and not to the Reserve Bank. Under the existing Act, the principal Act, one has to go to the Reserve Bank. Why now all of a sudden does the hon. the Minister want to go to private banks in order to borrow money? Why does he want to take away the restrictions in regard to borrowing overseas from banks other than the Reserve Bank? That is the real answer that we need.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening the hon. member for Sundays River also wanted to know from me what an “approved” bank was. Today the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked the same question. An approved bank is a bank which meets the requirements set by the Registrar of Financial Institutions in South Africa, or a similar institution abroad. That is what an approved bank is.

I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that in the past we only borrowed money abroad. In terms of this amendment we shall also be able to borrow money on the domestic market. Consequently we are now able to approach a local banking institution as well. But, Sir, the S.A. Transport Services is a business undertaking and as such we must be able to borrow money both in this country and abroad. The powers the SATS is requesting here are powers that the Postmaster-General already has. Is there something bothering the hon. member for Yeoville?

Why are you not going to the Reserve Bank any more?

But what if we can borrow money elsewhere at a lower interest rate?

That is in terms of the existing section.

The hon. member now wants to know why we do not borrow money from the Reserve Bank. But surely the Reserve Bank will not always be able to meet all our requirements. The Minister of Finance has agreed to our introducing this clause here to authorize us to borrow money in this country and abroad. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is seeking the right for the S.A. Transport Services to obtain an overdraft from an approved bank within the Republic. I do not see what the hon. the Minister’s problem is vis-à-vis the Reserve Bank. It does bring something to mind, and that is that in times of a economic boom there is tremendous competition for funds, and the private sector, the banks, very often have difficulty in meeting demands for large overdrafts from companies wishing to expand their business or for current working capital. What this means is that the SATS will now also be competing with the private sector for funds from the normal banking sector, not from the Reserve Bank to which the private sector does not go but from approved banks, which could be any commercial banking institution.

What is wrong with that?

This competition with the private sector for funds can definitely give rise to big problems. For the benefit of the hon. member for De Kuilen let me point out that a certain size of funds is available at a given moment. If the public sector takes too much of those given funds in terms of their requirements, it means that there is not sufficient money available for the expansion of the private sector to the extent to which it should extend. There is another reason why we should not allow SATS to be able to borrow moneys from these banks. That is because they do have other sources. They have the public debt commissioners. They have the Reserve Bank from which they can borrow funds. Yet, they are encroaching now on the private reserves from which the private sector borrow their funds. Moreover there is no limitation here. They could borrow enormously vast sums of money from these so-called approved banks.

As I have said, it is probably not a problem right now because there is a certain amount of liquidity in the market. There are times, however, when we do not have the excess liquidity that we have at the moment. Such times do occur, times during which competition between the SATS and the private sector could become extremely worrying.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that the one problem I have with the hon. the Minister is the following. If the Reserve Bank should indeed have no money, nobody else can have any money either. That is how the banking system works in South Africa. If the Reserve Bank has no money, I can promise the hon. the Minister, we will really be in trouble.

What about the interest rates?

The interest rates of the Reserve Bank to State departments are much lower than those of commercial banks. The hon. the Minister can ask the people from the Reserve Bank; they will confirm this. If he is prepared to pay them the same rate of interest that he pays to a commercial bank, they will jump. The hon. the Minister knows that.

With great respect, Mr. Chairman, this thing does not make sense. The hon. the Minister is quite correct when he says that it may suit them to borrow from an overseas bank. That is what is also stipulated elsewhere in the Bill. There is, however, no logic in allowing the SATS to borrow money from banks inside South Africa other than the Reserve Bank. That is why I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether what he has just said implies that the Reserve Bank has sufficient money to meet South Africa’s requirements.

If the Reserve Bank does not have money the other banks do not have money either.

No, Mr. Chairman, now the hon. member is disappointing me. Surely he knows that is not the case. He knows that there are banks with ample capital resources, whereas when we wanted to erect grain silos for the Department of Agriculture, we were repeatedly told by the hon. the Minister of Finance that there was no money available at that stage. As a matter of fact the hon. the Minister of Finance himself has already urged the private sector to borrow money abroad.

Yes, abroad. Of course that is another matter.

Yes, but then the S.A. Reserve Bank still does not have sufficient money to meet the local demand.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this matter. I cannot understand why we cannot leave the clause as it is.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he limits himself to three months in this instance, while State departments have a time limit of five months. Why is he so hard on his people? Why do they have to work in order to produce their accounts and statements within three months, when State departments have five months in which to do that. Surely, we should allow them the same period?

Mr. Chairman, the reply to that question is a very simple one. The staff of the SATS are a bit more efficient than the staff of State departments. That is why they can complete this task within three months. We find a period of three months to be a practical arrangement, and it works very well.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly? Does he say that the SATS are more efficient than other State departments?

They are a bit more … [Interjections.]

Order!

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, when we look at the relevant section of the present Act, section 13(2)(b), we see that it provides as follows—

When we look at the Exchequer and Audit Act, we find the following provisions in section 42(6) and (7)—

In other words, even if there is an exemption, the Auditor-General still has the right to audit the accounts. Subsection (7) reads as follows—

This means, therefore, that this will only be when there are confidential matters that are involved in these particular circumstances. However, in terms of the Bill before us authority will now be given to remove it from that ambit and no longer restrict it to matters of a confidential nature. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why it is that he wants this power to exclude from audit matters which are not of a confidential nature, matters which should be audited? Why does he want the Auditor-General to have fewer powers in respect of the accounts of his department than is the case in respect of any other State department? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to those questions.

Mr. Chairman, my objection to this clause is to the words “the Minister may, after consultation with the Auditor-General” in paragraph (b) of this clause. As it stands here, the Minister can simply decide that he is not going to have certain accounts audited, and then the Auditor-General will have no say. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to delete the word “after” and to substitute the word “in”. If this change is made, then the Auditor-General will still have a say. This will indemnify the Minister against complaints that may possibly be made against him at a later stage to the effect that he did not have certain accounts audited. I call upon the hon. the Minister to make this change.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to reply to the matter raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside. From a legal point of view there is a fundamental difference between “in” and “after”. “In” means joint decision-making, whereas “after” indicates that the statutory authority rests with the Minister. His decision is his own and he is only obliged to discuss the matter with the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has other powers of control. In terms of subsection (2)(a) the State President may exempt the whole or part of the accounts from audit after he has been requested to do so by the Auditor-General who decides in consultation with the Minister to make such a request. When accounts or a part thereof are exempted by the State President, subsection (2)(b) provides that the Minister may nevertheless, after consultation with the Auditor-General, order certain auditing to be done. This is the advice I was given in connection with the problem of the hon. member for Sunnyside.

I should say the hon. member for Yeoville is in fact out of order, because there is not a single amendment to the existing Act; it is just a question of terminology, because the principles are still exactly the same as in the existing Act. It is just the terminology that has been changed, and my officials assure me that there has definitely not been any change in principle; it is still the existing Act in which other terminology is now being used, while the principles remain the same.

Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that the argument of the hon. the Minister is out of order because, with great respect, it is of no substance. The hon. the Minister knows this will be new legislation and therefore, if the hon. the Minister’s arguments were valid, they are now invalid because in new legislation one can rediscuss every principle. I am sorry that I have to say this to the hon. the Minister; you Sir, of course know that.

It is a new piece of legislation with an old section.

No, it is not. The clause which contains the old section changes the terminology used in the old section.

The question to which I want an answer and to which I have not received an answer is: Why is it that in the Exchequer and Audit Act it only applies, as I have quoted, in terms of section 42(7) because of the confidential nature of the account, while here the Minister can exclude anything he likes?

It may be that there are sensitive matters in his department. I accept that he might have an arrangement with some other foreign State which may be desirable not to be made public. I have no problem in this regard, and it would be covered if the same wording is used that appears in the Exchequer and Audit Act—

Those are the words which should be used instead of the word “If’ in clause 10(2)(b). The wording will then be—

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept such an amendment because it is clearly only when there are confidential matters that there should be exclusion; there should not be exclusion in the case of any other matters. In no other matters should the hon. the Minister seek to impose that. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this.

Mr. Chairman, I would have been prepared to accept such an amendment but my officials tell me this is the wording they received from the Auditor-General.

Well, I am going to move such an amendment; I just want to put it in writing.

Sir, while the hon. member is sitting writing over there, I wonder whether an hon. member is not supposed to warn a Minister in advance that he is going to move an amendment. Moreover, I have to read the amendment before I can react to it. I suspect that they do not want the Police Amendment Bill of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to be discussed today and that is why they have too much to say about this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I do not want to discuss across the floor of the Committee what I have discussed before today with particular officials, but I want to say it is an unfair criticism that this has not been discussed with people at the highest level before today. I do not want to mention the names of those people, but it is a fact.

Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister. Let us consider clause 10(2)(a) which provides—

Then follows paragraph (b) which is separate. The procedure in paragraph (a) has been completed and as an afterthought we have paragraph (b) in which there is no part for the State President to play—

In whose eyes must it appear desirable? In the eyes of the hon. the Minister. I quote further—

ditor-General, the Minister may, after consultation with the Auditor-General, determine to what extent the audit thereof shall be carried out and what vouchers shall be made available to the Auditor-General.

I want to make this quite clear. The first part is correct, i.e. the State President may say it must be done, and then it takes place in consultation with the Auditor-General. However, in terms of the second part the hon. the Minister can negate the first part. The two provisions are totally conflicting. This simply does not make sense. It is wrong. If the second provision is changed to “in consultation”, then it makes sense and is right. Then the Auditor-General is not deprived of his powers and authority. If “after” remains, he is in fact being deprived of his powers and authority. Then he cannot take action later if it is deemed desirable to give him a certain directive, because then he will have no say.

Mr. Chairman, the Auditor-General went through all these matters with us. He says he has other powers of control and that this does not bother him. He says he still has the powers to fulfil his function. This is why I cannot accept the hon. member’s proposal.

It looks like a typing error.

No, we went into the matter specially with the legal advisers. That is why I have just read out that document to the hon. member. That, too, is why I thanked the hon. member for warning me yesterday.

We have now considered the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, but unfortunately we cannot accept it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a couple of things with regard to this. The first concerns a matter that was raised in the Second Reading debate. I do not want to go back to things that were discussed and debated then, but I just want to make the point that, whether there are guarantees by the Government or not, the reality is that a loan raised by the SATS will have to be backed by the Government if it comes to the crunch. It is not possible for the Government to walk away from such a loan. I think that the people who invest in the stock issued by the SATS know that. Even if there is no guarantee, they know that that situation arises. The question, therefore, is whether in fact in the capital programme, which is formulated as indicated, it is enough to have mere consultation with the Minister and whether the approval of the Minister should not be obtained in these circumstances.

The second point I want to make relates to subsection (3). I believe Parliament should be made aware of the money that is needed in order to repay loans. The whole question of making provision for the repayment of loans and the amortization of loans, if left open, actually to a large extent makes the budget meaningless, because the question of having to repay large amounts of capital is a vital aspect in any budget whatsoever.

The third point I want to make concerns subsection (4). Not intending any reflection on the General Manager or any official, I want to say that I believe that the power to draw, accept and endorse these negotiable instruments, when they can involve large sums of money, should be exercised only with the approval of the Minister, because it is the Minister who has to account for it in the House and no one else.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.