Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main estimate of expenditure of 1982-’83 amounted to R18 237 million, comprising the following:

The Bill now before the House makes provision for the augmentation of the amount voted by approximately R797 million, or some 5,1% Savings of R75 million are, however, anticipated on all Votes, which will reduce the gross amount of R797 million to a net increase of R722 million, or 4,6%.

I shall now deal with the most important items in the estimate of additional expenditure.

Of the additional amount of R54,7 million to be voted for Transport (Vote 6), fully R46,4 million is a further contribution to the account for Black, Coloured and Indian transport services. Hon. members are aware that the losses of bus operators on commuter services are subsidized according to an agreed formula. The proposed increase has been calculated strictly per formula and reflects higher passenger loads and escalating operating costs. It is, therefore, entirely unavoidable. When one adds this figure to the existing provision in the main estimate—R90 million—the total subsidization of bus passengers will amount to R136,4 million. Together with some R80 million provided for the subsidization of train passengers, the State is therefore assisting non-White commuters to the tune of R216,4 million in 1982-’83.

Vote 7, Finance, requires augmentation to the extent of R106,8 million. Nearly three-quarters of this amount, that is R75 million, will be deovted to deferred payments of provincial subsidies—R60 million—as per the agreed formula, and to essential fiscal aid to South West Africa for protection services—R15 million. Here, too, the additional expenditure must be seen as unavoidable.

Under the generic heading of Protection or Security Services, additional funds to be voted total R267,5 million, comprising—

The bulk of this expenditure is ascribable to the filling of vacancies and related cost escalations. As such, it reflects notably improved recruitment results and the success of the policy of occupationally differentiated dispensations. In addition, operational exigencies and the general scale of operations during any one year clearly make it impossible to estimate in advance precisely the amount that will be required for defence. In these difficult times I submit to hon. members that the R267,5 million called for is essentially unavoidable to maintain external and internal security and law and order.

In so far as defence is concerned I must explain that the additional estimate makes no provision for an expected deficit in the Special Defence Account—the reason being current uncertainty over the precise cash position of this account. It is, however already clear that underexpenditure will not be of the magnitude of R300 million anticipated and reflected in the main estimates in March 1982. Furthermore, estimated funds available in the account are likely to fall short of the R100 million expected and indicated at the same time. The mechanism created in 1982 through section 1A of the Defence Special Account Act, 1974, will be utilized to correct the situation once the picture is clarified.

*Vote 15, Health and Welfare, shows overexpenditure to the tune of R44 million, of which R42,4 million represents the increased employers’ contributions made by the State to several pension funds during the financial year. It involves absolutely no adjustment of the prescribed rates of contribution and once again merely reflects the filling of vacancies arising from unusually successful occupationally differentiated dispensations.

In the same way, I wish to point out to hon. members that the bulk—R28 million— of the additional appropriation of R35 million which is being requested for Vote 24, Community Development, is attributable to increased interest subsidies to public servants under the existing housing scheme, and is a reflection, not only of rising mortgage rates, but also of the increased number of appointments made to vacant posts. Both these increases in expenditure must therefore be regarded as a part of the inevitable price that is being paid for the absolutely essential consolidation of the Public Service after so many years of staff losses.

Agriculture and Fisheries—Vote 20—requires an additional R142,9 million. Of this amount, additional agricultural financing— mainly as a result of poor farming conditions and the resultant financial predicament in which many farmers find themselves—accounts for at least R66 million.

The Government is concerned about the extremely difficult position of the agricultural industry. The Department of Agriculture as well as the S.A. Agricultural Union and the Jacobs Committee keep the Government informed of conditions in the respective areas and make suitable recommendations from time to time. The existing aid to farmers will be kept up as long as it is necessary in the drought-stricken areas. It is expected that the Jacobs Committee will soon report on certain financing problems in the agricultural sector, and its report will be thoroughly studied by the Government at an early stage.

Of the remaining R72,5 million, which is intended for industrial subsidies and assistance, R57 million will go to millers and bakers according to formula. Once again, hon. members will readily concede that the Government is effectively committed to this. The alternative would be further sharp increases in the price of bread during the year, a possibility which has been found to be unacceptable.

Of the proposed augmentation of Vote 21—Industries, Commerce and Tourism—by R44,3 million, Industrial Decentralization and Export Trade Promotion together account for R38,8 million. It is difficult to estimate in advance the potential demands on these facilities in any given financial year, and the Government is contractually committed to the settling of accounts rendered.

Finally, an underestimate of R55 million has to be made good in respect of Vote 25— Improvement of Conditions of Service. Here, incidentally, there is no question of any increase in the percentage approved and announced by the Cabinet for the general adjustment of salaries with effect from 1 April 1982.

To sum up, therefore, I wish to state that the above-mentioned amounts, which were dealt with seriatim, and which account for R676,1 million, or 84,8%, of the proposed Additional Appropriation of R797 million, are absolutely unavoidable.

If there is any possibility whatsoever of any further curtailments—which there is not, in my opinion, because the additional funds are to be used exclusively for covering unexpected cost escalations and financing unforeseen services—it can only be applicable to the remaining 15,2% of the Additional Appropriation, amounting to R120,9 million. This R120,9 million represents less than 0,8% of the amount voted in the main budget of 1982-’83. This testifies to remarkable conservatism and control over State expenditure on the part of the departments and the Treasury, respectively. I should like to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation to my colleagues and the departments for the excellent co-operation experienced over the past year. We shall all reap the benefits of that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to anticipate in any way my main budget speech, in which Government accounts for 1982-’83 will also be fully revised. I shall conclude, therefore, by assuring this House that adequate funds are available to finance on a sound basis the additional appropriation which is now being requested. I can assure you that the Treasury has carefully scrutinized the requests by departments for additional funds and has restricted these to the absolute minimum, with the wholehearted co-operation of departments. You may accept that every rand of this Additional Appropriation is necessary in order that services already approved by this House may be properly financed up to the end of the financial year.

Mr. Speaker, since the Additional Appropriation Bill is basically a measure which will be discussed in greater detail during the Committee Stage, I now move that the Second Reading of the Bill be agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, in seeking the approval of this House for the additional amount of R797 million, the hon. the Minister of Finance has told us that this amount represents 5% of the original budget. However, before shrugging this off as an insignificant sum, I think one must comment that it is approximately double the amount of last year. The savings remain the same, but the amount is double what it was. It is worth making the comparison that of the 22 Votes, each of which is discussed at length in this House, only five exceed in value the amount of this additional expenditure. I do not think it is out of place therefore to give the additional expenditure some consideration. 40% of the Votes account for 96% of the total additional expenditure. The problems really lie in one area. Obviously the Votes will be discussed individually just now and I do not want to anticipate those discussions, but it is pertinent to look in broad outline where and why the extra money which the House is asked to appropriate is required.

We have had our share of natural disasters—floods and droughts—but what has occasioned the bulk of the increases which we are asked to approve? At least half of the increase comes directly as a result of inflation. This expenditure is not for more work done, it is not for unforeseen contingencies which had to be met, but it is a direct result of inflation. This is the background against which we must view this request for increased funds and we must also remember that part of this background is the hon. the Minister’s question just the other day—

The additional expenditure on the Defence Vote highlights this.

Inflation is the only reason—there is not one other reason given—for the increase of R227 million.

The Klue Report took five years to be produced, and I hope that hon. members are going to take the trouble to read that report. The message which comes through very clearly is the importance of capital as the factor of production which will affect the growth rate of South Africa, which will decide whether we can create enough job op potunities for new entrants into the labour market each year and whether we can increase our standard of living regularly. Again and again the report makes the point that we have to go for exports in order to accumulate capital. And obtain foreign exchange.

What do we see in microcosm when we look at the set of figures before us? We see a high rate of inflation and an apparent lack of concern for it. This I believe is disastrous for the development of a long-term competitive industry. We see the beginnings of a massive allocation of funds for the decentralization of industry. To this the House must pay particular attention, because it is something that year on year we are going to see increase. If decentralization is injudicious, it will not only be decentralised industry itself that will be unable to compete on the export market, but it will have a contaminating effect on industry right through this country and inhibit its ability to compete. If one reads the Klue report, one will see the importance of export industry endorsed.

There is support for strategic industry in these estimates. When I refer to “strategic industry” I have in mind things like the Atlantis Diesel Engine plant which directly undermines our ability to compete on export markets. In a peculiar counterthrust the amount budgeted for the promotion of exports has risen from R100 million to R132 million. These two things are actually working in contrary directions, and one must expect to see the amount which we allocate for encouraging exports increase all the time as our own economy and industry becomes less capable of standing on its own feet and competing on even terms with foreign industrialists.I would suggest that the policy that lies behind these figures has certain priorities. First of all there is its ideology, that of separate Black States with decentralization of industry, secondly there is defence, which in our circumstances is essential and, only lastly, sound economics.

There is another small matter I should like to touch on. Yesterday in the House the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated that I had not quoted him fairly or correctly. I should therefore like to quote him exactly. He said—

He said that was what other people had said to him when talking about GST—

That is correct, is it not?

You did not say that on Friday.

Here I am quoting the hon. the Minister exactly so that he cannot say that I am misquoting him. My reply was that that was the sort of partial truth that we should not have from the hon. the Minister of Finance because he is in a very special position. The House wants to feel that figures coming from that hon. Minister and his department are above reproach.

What was wrong with that statement I made?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows what value-added tax in Britain would be if one removed those factors.

What is the answer to that?

Does the hon. the Minister know? [Interjections.]

Stick to what I said when you quote me.

If the hon. the Minister does not know that figure, this is a half-baked statistic he has given us in maintaining that our tax is far and away the lowest tax in the world. [Interjections.] It might well be, but all I am saying is that the hon. the Minister does not know anymore than I do, because that calculation has not been done.

It is a half-cooked statistic.

It is a comparable figure to the one he gave on unemployment, which he knows is a cock-eyed figure, because that figure does not include anybody who has not sought employment in the past month. This also applies to the figures he gave comparing the wealth of the poorest part of our population to that of the populations to the north of us.

As a new member in this House, I want to believe every figure that comes from that hon. Minister. I do not mind what figures come from other people. If we disagree, we argue, and that must be based on principle and on fact. It is my belief that there is an absolute obligation on the part of the Department of Finance and that hon. Minister to ensure that the figures that come from that source are beyond reproach.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister of Finance said, it is mainly in the Committee Stage that we can ask questions and obtain further information. For the moment I just want to mention a few general matters. Firstly, I want to thank all the officials for the great task they have performed in making this explanatory memorandum available to us. I think it is very helpful indeed. I hope they will continue to do so in future. I thank them sincerely on behalf of the CP.

There are three points in particular which I want to refer to in support of certain of these items of expenditure. I have nothing negative to say at the moment. The three points are related to the consumers, the agricultural sector and export promotion.

In the first place, I want to express my gratitude on behalf of the CP for the additional amounts that have been appropriated to assist the consumers of South Africa, who are battling against a high cost of living and high inflation. It is a fact that over the past two years, the Whites have lost ground compared with the other groups. Because of inflation and high costs, our people have been impoverished. Therefore we express our sincere gratitude for the additional assistance which is now being provided. A poor man finds it very difficult to keep the wolf from the door these days. Hon. members will recall that I said during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote last year that the appropriation for the farming community was inadequate, because we knew at that stage that the prospects for the farming community were not very encouraging. I am very sorry that provision was not made at that time, but we thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the ample provision that is now being made for this sector of our population, which is having a hard time and which obviously needs assistance. I only hope that no pamphlet will be distributed in Waterberg and Soutpansberg, as happened in Parys, saying what the NP is doing for the farmers. The assistance that is being rendered comes from the State. During the by-election in Parys, however, a pamphlet was published which said: This is what the NP does. [Interjections.] We want to have it placed on record that this is what the State does. It comes from the taxpayers of South Africa.

Another point I should like to raise is the fact that the hon. the Minister has again provided for assistance today with a view to export promotion. We must be able to promote exports in South Africa. If we fail to do so, we cannot pay for our imports, etc. The subsidies and other forms of assistance were discontinued as from 1 April last year. Now that the hon. the Minister is re-introducing this assistance, I think it will be a great help. This is an aspect of planning which I have taken cognizance of and which I have requested in my last few speeches. I said that the hon. the Minister had to plan ahead and to say what he was going to do for the future. I think he has given a practical demonstration of that in this House, and we of the CP are in agreement with it and we thank him very sincerely.

We shall ask further questions under various Votes during the Committee Stage. I do want to refer, though, to the explanatory memorandum on Vote No. 4, Manpower. The very first point made in this memorandum is the following—

I do not find this anywhere else. The Minister of Manpower is the only one who is getting anything extra. Did the other Ministers get it too, or what is the situation in this connection? It is not clear to us. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could reply to this. The other questions we have we shall ask under the various Votes during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunny-side has made certain remarks about a statement by the Minister concerning the additional appropriation in respect of agriculture. The hon. member said that he had sounded warnings in the past concerning the drought situation that was developing. It is extremely difficult to make adequate and proper provision in the main budget for the agricultural estimates, especially when one is faced with the agricultural situation which we have in South Africa. In this country we are continually having to deal with problems which could not have been foreseen.

However, the hon. member for Sunnyside adopted a positive attitude, and I am grateful for that, for one of the last things I should like to do in this House is to turn an extremely problematical situation which we have in South Africa into a political issue. I hope that the Opposition parties will support me in this.

Since this is a very topical matter at the moment, I think I should say something about the development of the drought condition in South Africa. It is topical because people are hoping and praying for rain. So far, however, there have been no widespread rains, in spite of positive forecasts by the Weather Bureau. During December, the drought condition was such that the producers in the summer rainfall areas in particular, and especially in the grain areas, began to feel concerned. As a result, inquiries were made and my department and I were requested to visit some of these drought-stricken areas. We availed ourselves of this opportunity and visited several of these regions, in co-operation with the S.A. Agricultural Union, and we talked to the people there, not only about the drought itself, but also about their inputs in dealing with the drought problem. The reaction of the farmers was largely positive, with the result that my department obtained the co-operation of these farmers on a large scale. Agricultural co-operatives were also involved. As hon. members will know, they play a very important role in the financing of agricultural activities these days. In the light of the fact that this is the second successive year in which poor production circumstances have prevailed, a situation has developed in respect of the co-operatives in particular where a great deal of their operating capital is tied up in members’ debts, with the result that they are seriously hampered at this stage in the performance of their task of rendering services to agriculture.

The department got seriously involved at this stage, and it was decided that the extent and intensity of the drought would be properly ascertained in a scientific manner. The department therefore decided to develop a drought index system in terms of which one could determine on the basis of different variables how serious the drought in South Africa really was. Several indexes are used, including those for rainfall, temperatures, soil moisture, etc. In all, 14 factors were used to ascertain the actual drought situation. The results of this scientific investigation have proved to us beyond any doubt that we are not faced with a normal drought, but that we are faced at the moment with an abnormal drought, in the sense that a normal drought, what we call a seasonal drought, is a drought which the agricultural sector can deal with under normal circumstances. Our relief measures were introduced accordingly.

However, when one is faced with a drought of this magnitude, new situations develop as a result of which the Government is forced to review the situation. Natural resources are affected in the process. The natural pasturage, which is a very important asset in agriculture, water sources, as well as basic herds, are affected, and one has to take certain measures to protect these important resources and sources of food to the best of one’s ability.

Naturally, droughts have a very serious economic effect on farming operations as well. A farmer is a businessman just like any other, and when he is faced with natural disasters, it is bound to disrupt his activities in the economic sphere. The farmer’s business institutions, too, his own enterprises, such as agricultural co-operatives, are affected, and they too experience problems. In addition, the suppliers of inputs into the agricultural industry—I am referring in particular to fertilizer and agricultural machinery—have also been faced with major economic problems as a result of this condition.

I also wish to refer to the production shortage with regard to certain basic grains which we need in this country, such as maize. It is most likely that we shall find ourselves in a situation this year where, for the first time in many years, our production will be less than our consumption in South Africa. However, our stores left over from the previous season will be enough to tide us over. I may just mention that the Maize Board has decided to slow down and, if necessary, to abandon its export programme as a result of this state of affairs.

The drought also has a social effect, i.e. the depopulation of our rural areas. This could strike at the very heart of the agricultural structure and therefore it is necessary that we should also consider the effect of the drought in the social sphere. As regards the question of agriculture as an employer, I want to point out that 1,2 million people are involved in the industry. If the agricultural industry found itself in economic difficulties, therefore, it could create major problems for us in this field as well.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the Government regards the prevailing drought condition in a very serious light. I have already issued a statement in this connection. The existing relief measures—I am going to discuss them briefly—were designed for specific droughts such as we have experienced in South Africa from time to time. There are drought relief measures in respect of stock grazing regions consisting of various phases and involving subsidies, transport rebates, etc. As the drought becomes more severe, the relief measures go up to phase 5, in terms of which the subsidy is up to 70% of the fodder loan and the aid goes up to as much as R5 per sheet. This is a type of aid scheme which is very popular among farmers when they are involved in this scheme, because it can keep them in production. In the same way, there is the debt carried forward scheme which was introduced last year and which is effective in the case of a seasonal drought.

However, we are reviewing the existing drought relief measures to see whether they can be adapted to these particular drought conditions. The Government has decided, therefore, that the drought relief measures available to us at the moment are not adequate for the present drought conditions. For this reason, the matter has been referred to the standing committee on the economic position of the farmer and agricultural financing in general, i.e. the Jacobs Committee, which is to submit additional proposals for the rendering of aid to agriculture before the end of March. The recommendations will probably be of a twofold nature: firstly, in the short term, i.e. for the protection of our resources, the economic position of the farmer as well as his institutions, i.e. the agricultural co-operatives. In the second place, the general conditions in agriculture will be considered. Certain other aspects have also been highlighted, for example, the need for additional guidance to be provided by the department during this period. The department is equipped to do this and as an aid to agriculture has made a whole list of drought guidance measures available which can very readily be listed by the farmers. We have experienced certain short-term problems, as hon. members will understand, such as marketing problems. There has been tremendous marketing pressure from the various areas and talks have been held with the Meat Board on several occasions so as to be able to accommodate this product as well. It has been possible to find alternative marketing channels, for example by arranging for third-and second-grade meat to be sent to the canning factories instead of the normal abattoirs. We hope to can up to 2 000 and even more carcasses per week during this week and next week. In this way we are trying to liaise with one another and to achieve co-ordination in the various spheres.

However, there are certain long-term aspects as well which the department will have to examine. Hon. members will understand that when one finds oneself in such a situation, one cannot solve the problems by means of short-term aid only. Short-term aid is mainly intended to put agriculture back into production, but there are certain long-term aspects as well which we shall have to examine. We shall have to examine our basic agricultural policy and we shall have to introduce certain measures to enable the production capacity to recover in the long run and to make the agricultural industry more vigorous and more viable so that it may be less vulnerable to drought conditions. Aspects which are likely to be scrutinized are the serious financing problems of the farmers and their agricultural co-operatives. We shall have to create opportunities and to devise methods which will enable them to build up their reserves more satisfactorily in good times. The high and constantly rising cost of inputs is another aspect which will have to be examined. We shall also have to look at certain physical aspects, such as the carrying capacity of our veld, and our soil conservation measures. One learns more from such a drought situation than one sometimes realizes. I think the time has come for us to re-examine the Soil Conservation Act in South Africa and its implementation. We shall very definitely have to improve our research and guidance in South Africa in the long run. These are matters we shall have to investigate.

It is clear that because of the importance of agriculture in our national economy, there will have to be a revaluation of the structural problems in agriculture. A long-term solution will have to be found for these. The Department of Agriculture will do all it can in this connection.

Finally, Sir, I just want to say that the spirit which prevails among the farming population of South Africa in the face of these difficult circumstances is one which South Africa may be grateful for. This country has reason to be grateful for the quality of farmer we have.

Hear, hear!

I have encountered a spirit of optimism among them. Wherever I went, I have encountered a spirit of optimism among the agricultural entrepeneurs— after all, they are nothing but entrepreneurs, like those in any other field—so much so that they are already planning for the future. We have reason to be grateful for having farmers of that quality in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as spokesman for the official Opposition on agriculture, I should like to welcome what we have just heard from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He has expressed the Government’s concern about the drought situation in the country. As we in these benches are also particularly concerned about the situation, we have approached the secretariat of the House with a request for a special debate so that we can discuss this matter in full. I hope it will be possible for such a debate to take place in the near future. Everyday we are receiving distress calls from the farming community. One senses almost a degree of panic among the farming community about the impending winter, and about the conditions generally in agriculture today. It is as the hon. the Minister has said: We have abnormal drought conditions in the country today and this has given rise to all kinds of problems among the farming community. This, coupled with the other problems that have beset the agricultural industry, has given rise to perhaps the worse prospects for the farming community certainly this century.

Another important area on which the hon. the Minister did not touch, but which I am sure has not escaped his notice, is what is also happening in certain of the Black trust areas, where conditions are anything but promising.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that at a later date we will be able to go into the whole question of the drought in South Africa and its implications in much greater detail. I hope that from the Government side we will have all the facts and figures so that the farming community can be given a full picture as to what the drought relief programme is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I only came into the Chamber during the latter part of the adress of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I missed the earlier part of his address. But I want to say how much we appreciate the efforts that are being made at the present moment to alleviate the situation in agriculture. We in these benches have been very much aware of the fact that we need a stronger long-term policy in regard to agriculture, and I was very pleased indeed to hear the hon. the Minister say that greater attention was going to be paid to research and to conservation. I think that this is in the interests of the whole country. It is an aspect which should have been receiving the attention of the department for a very long time.

Let me touch on one specific aspect. That relating to financing accommodation for farm employees. The present allocation for this is completely inadequate and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this his urgent attention.

Mr. Speaker, as you will realize there is very little to which I need reply. As far as the hon. member for Sunnyside is concered, I just want to comment that there is nothing peculiar about that reference to the increase in the salary of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. Each department and each Minister draws up his own memorandum for the purposes of this debate. The same applies in the case of all the other Ministers. However, what it does not explain, is that this year all of us, including the hon. the Prime Minister, paid our salary increases back into the State coffers. I think it is proper to say it once again. I believe that it was a fine gesture on the part of the Cabinet, if I may say so myself.

†I was very sorry that the hon. member for Walmer, who was the first hon. member to speak in this debate, should have got off on such a very poor note. [Interjections.] I said very clearly in my speech the other day that our rate of GST was 6%, and I added that it was the lowest in the world as far as that tax went. I said too that the average for most countries was something between 15% and 17%. That is what I said.

I went on to say that a number of Ministers of Finance from other countries had in fact told me in recent years how much they regretted that theirs should be so high as a result of all the exemptions that had crept into similar taxes in their respective countries. I said that quite clearly. The hon. member for Walmer—when I was not here on Friday—did not say that. He said in the House on Friday—and let us get this clear— that I was guilty of a half-truth because I had not said that in the United Kingdom there had been exemptions granted and that that was why the value added tax was so high. [Interjections.] I did say exactly that. It is recorded in my Hansard. For the hon. member for Walmer to insinuate, as he did, that information he obtained from the Treasury or from me was not scrupulously honest is I believe a disgrace to this House. I am very sorry that the hon. member who is still a new member of this House, should have started off this debate on such a poor note. I shall defend myself against that type of reflection on every occasion. [Interjections.] I remind the hon. member of the fact that a few years ago an hon. member from his party adopted the same tactics and accused me of misleading the House. There was a Select Committee, and that particular member disappeared soon after the appointment of that Select Committee, and he has never been seen here again. [Interjections.]

Very touchy, hey?

I am very touchy when it comes to a question of reputation and straight dealing. I believe the hon. member for Walmer owes me an apology … [Interjections.] … and The Cape Times should publish it because that newspaper singled out the hon. member’s utterings. It did not publish anything else in connection with that debate on inflation, nothing else that was said by any other hon. member of this House. It only singled out the false statement by the hon. member for Walmer in connection with what I was supposed to have said. I believe it is a great pity that what should be an important debate should have started on that poor note. Be it as it may, this House will remember who started it all. [Interjections.]

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

No, certainly not. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Vote 4.—“Manpower”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to programme 1 under this Vote—“Administration”. There is an explanation in this regard that has been provided in the explanatory memorandum so I shall not ask the usual formal question. My question relates to item (a) under this programme—“Increased salary and allowances payable to the Minister of Manpower from 1April 1982”. I do not find this item under any other vote or with reference to any other Minister. I know that the Cabinet rejected their increases last year and they asked members of Parliament to follow their example, which we declined to do. I make no bones about that. My query is simply why this item appears in respect of this hon. Minister’s Vote only and not in respect of the Votes of any other hon. Minister. Does this mean that the increases were in fact not rejected as we were led to believe?

Mr. Chairman, I thought that I had dealt with that point in my reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside a short while ago. This increase was in fact available to each Cabinet Minister but we decided not to make use of it. It has been shown as an increase but the amount has in fact not been drawn. The adjustment item will reflect something else. I can assure the hon. member for Durban Point that this amount has not been used and that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has not drawn this sum.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for his reply. Does it mean, then, that the words used here, viz.—

should not then include this amount because this amount is in effect not an additional item?

Mr. Chairman, it is actually a question of bookkeeping. That is the gross amount and this item could just as well have been shown as a deduction and a net amount of nil shown against that item. It will, however, be reflected somewhere else as a deduction.

Mr. Chairman, we should like more clarity in this regard. Last year the members of the Cabinet said they would forego their salary increases and that the money should then be used for some commendable purpose or other. As this item now stands it seems as if this amount was in fact paid out because the amount of R348 000 is given as the increased amount. As it stands here, it looks as if that amount was paid out. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance could tell us whether this amount was in fact paid out to the hon. the Minister of Manpower or was paid over to some other body. I should like us to have clarity on this.

Mr. Chairman, provision was made for increases for all the members of the Cabinet, but the money was not paid out to them. I agree with the hon. member that this could have been done in a different way. As far as the actual statements are concerned I can however, assure the hon. member that the correct net amount does in fact appear in those statements. Although the amount is given there as an increase it is deducted again elsewhere. The adjustment was made. The amount was not paid out but provision was made for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Manpower in regard to programme 6—“Utilization of Manpower” where the increase budgeted for is R5 335 000. This amount has been ascribed in the explanatory memorandum to an increase due to the fact that the hon. the Minister’s department has taken over from the Department of Co-operation and Development the expediting of the employment of Blacks. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Manpower whether he is going to be compensated by the Department of Co-operation and Development for this increased expenditure. I notice that while the hon. the Minister’s department has taken over this function, there is no decrease in expenditure by the Department of Co-operation and Development reflected under Vote 5.

Secondly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why it was necessary to increase expenditure by approximately R5,335 million? Has he taken over the total new infrastructure or was he required to create a new infrastructure to warrant or justify an increase of expenditure of more than R5 million? Thirdly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this saving, this decrease in expenditure under the heading “Training” is not a reflection that the department has not been able to fulfil its intended objective to train unemployed people. In the present economic circumstances where there are masses of unemployed people one would have thought that the amount of R5,682 million which is reflected as a decrease in expenditure should have been expended during the current financial year. Is this not an indication that the department has in fact failed in its objective to train unemployed people?

Mr. Chairman, the decrease of R5 682 000 can be ascribed mainly to the fact that clear guidelines for the training of work seekers first had to be formulated and after that they had to be cleared with the National Training Board, the Minister of Manpower and the Minister of Finance. Only then could arrangements for the training of work seekers be implemented. As the hon. member will understand, the reason for this is that this is a new service that will take time to get into its stride. The two group training centres where training was initially started first had to make arrangements for the courses and candidates could only be accepted as unutilized capacity became available. As the hon. member will realize, another reason was that they had to be fitted into existing centres where other activities were in progress with regard to other people who are being trained. Because the scheme is the first of its kind, the department had to ensure that it was properly implemented and therefore it was initially implemented for a trial period of six months with the number of work seekers being trained at each centre being limited to 60 per intake. Since 1 August 1982 a third group training centre that was established and developed with financial assistance from the State, and that had unutilized capacity at its disposal, has been allowed to train work seekers under the same scheme in view of the experience gained at the first two centres. The number of unemployed persons that are being trained at these centres cannot be increased without taking into account the possibility of their being placed in employment after completion of their training. As a result of the recession the placement of trained lower-level work seekers has, for obvious reasons, become more difficult and the scheme cannot simply be expanded. However, expenditure on this scheme will increase in due course, because in spite of any upswing there may be in the economy that could improve the possibility of finding work, unemployment will remain a problem. Further expansion of the scheme will therefore take place in the near future as circumstances require. Thus far training of this nature has been restricted to unskilled persons up to the age of 30. Changing circumstances could, however, necessitate the department extending the scheme to other categories of work seekers as well in the near future, which could lead to greater expenditure.

I trust that I have replied in sufficient detail to the hon. member in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, all the hon. the Minister has actually done is to quote to us from the explanatory memorandum. We have that in front of us. All I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether the reasons he referred to could not have been foreseen when the main budget was submitted to this House in March 1982.

Mr. Chairman, it could definitely not have been foreseen for the simple reason that the board decided that it would begin training unemployed persons at that stage. In the first place the board had to take a decision on the matter which could not be spelt out before the time. We had to decide where they would be trained. In the second place we had to decide what courses they would receive training in. At that stage no one knew what the reaction would be, how many would have to be trained and whether the necessary people for training could be obtained and selected. In other words, this is a new state of affairs, a new project started by the department. As such new ground had to be broken and there could not be exact advance estimates as to where this would lead and what the reaction would be. However, it has now been reported to the board that a large number of people have been successfully trained. When the board took a decision on this last year, it could obviously not predict what the probable course of events would be in future. In other words, it could not predict exactly what the situation would be, and for that reason it could not decide right down to the last cent how much capital would be needed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to complete his answer to us. I am referring to an explanation about the increase in expenditure of R5,335 million under the heading “Utilization of Manpower”. Let me just point out to the Minister that in the explanatory memorandum the increase is given as R6,335 million, whereas in the document tabled in the House the figure is R5,335 million. Does the hon. the Minister expect a credit to be passed on from the Department of Co-operation and Development?

Mr. Chairman as regards subsidizing of services of partially fit persons who are working in sheltered employment, the department does in fact train people and once they are trained the department tries to employ them or find them work in the private sector where they are of course exposed to cut-throat competition. For many years now assistance has been given by supplementing their wages. In other words, if, for example, a partially fit person is placed with Mr. X, he employs that person and we subsidize his wage. The Treasury votes an amount for us every year for this purpose. In this specific case work seekers from various Black nations, who first had to be placed in such service by another department, were transferred to this department. This was another case in which we did not know at what rate we would have to render the service. The rate at which these people had to be assisted just happened to be much lower, and R1 million was therefore not used. The R1 million was then added to the other R5,335 million to total R6,335 million. I trust the hon. member now understands where the additional amount came from.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 5.—“Co-operation and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think that the explanatory memorandum that the department issued is helpful and that we appreciate it. There are, however, still some questions we should like to put to the hon. the Minister. One thing I should like to know relates to compensation to administration boards for services rendered, viz. health, welfare and aid centres. The amount involved is a large amount, i.e. R15 746 000. I should like a breakdown of those figures from the hon. the Minister. We would like to know how much of that is to be spent on health, how much on welfare and how much on aid centres. We would be interested to hear that.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister where the savings come from. There is an amount of R12 501 000 under the heading “Savings Utilized”. I should like to know where there have been savings. In a department that so urgently needs every last cent, every last cent voted should obviously be spent. [Interjections.] Well, yes, that is what the hon. the Minister says.

There is also the question of bridging finance which my hon. colleague will deal with.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the amount of R15,746 million, I may say that it concerns a new sub-programme, i.e. “Compensation to Administration Boards and Community Councils”. The amount is required as compensation for services rendered by these boards and councils, for example, inspection services and health, welfare and aid centres. The hon. member will have this in front of her. The background is that the Administration Boards perform certain functions and services which are in fact the responsibility of either the central government or a provincial authority and for which they receive no compensation. These services include inspection services and health, welfare and aid centres. The administrative costs involved have also been taken into account. The matter was raised in the report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities in South Africa, the Browne report, and was further investigated by the Croeser working group. The amount of R15,746 million in the Additional Appropriation does not represent the full extent of the services being rendered. These are services which will be phased in over a period of three years.

This is the background. It is a new service, for which we are very grateful. It will be extended and will be phased in over a period of three years. However, I am not able to give the hon. member a “breakup” of …

A “breakdown”.

Very well. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

She is hoping for a “break-through”.

Then I want to refer to the saving of R12,501 million under the same programme, i.e. “Labour and Residential Regulation”. The saving is attributable, firstly, to an overestimate of personnel expenditure. In this regard I also want to refer to programme 3 in respect of which personnel expenditure was underestimated. It more or less balances out. I can furnish an explanation of the reasons for the estimates having been out to some extent, if the hon. member is interested. In any event, it represents a saving of R2,501 million.

The remaining R10 million is a saving with regard to the provision of subsidies in connection with the upgrading of Soweto. In future this will fall under the Finance Vote. The Treasury decided that this amount of R10 million should be included in Soweto’s budget and that it should be borne by the Treasury itself. It relates to interest subsidies paid by the State in respect of loans raised by the Community Council of Soweto for the upgrading of services. The Treasury decided that the Department of Co-operation and Development could keep this amount of R10 million and could utilize it to cover additional expenditure which would have amounted to R38,5 million, but which, in consequence of this very friendly and helpful gesture by the Minister of Finance, has been reduced to R28,5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to programme 5, namely “Development of Black areas towards self-determination”, with particular reference to the additional funds required “for settlement of population at Inanda”. The explanatory memorandum states—

Could the hon. the Minister give us some indication of what is involved in the R5 million which we are being asked to vote? Does it have any connection with the Government’s master-plan for Inanda? Could the hon. the Minister also tell us at this stage whether that master-plan is already in his possession? We know that consultants have been employed by the department to go into this matter. I should like to know precisely what is involved in the R5 million.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R5 million is for a sub-programme for development towards self-determination. In consequence of the influx of people to Inanda, additional funds have to be made available for the settlement of those people in that area. The hon. member is acquainted with matters in this regard and will know that we are facing a thorny problem there. The amount of R5 million will be spent as follows: R2,5 million for water supply; R1,5 million for three schools; R500 000 for a clinic and R500 000 for sanitation.

†The hon. member also asked whether it was part of the new big plan. As I have indicated it is not part of that big plan. This is purely an additional amount to alleviate the circumstances which we are dealing with there. That plan has been drawn up. It is an excellent and very expensive plan, involving as it does many millions of rand. The kwaZulu Government is at the moment having an in-depth look at the plan and as soon as they have dealt with it, I hope to make the plan known to the public because it is quite an impressive document.

Mr. Chairman, most of the points which I wanted to raise have already been raised, particularly by the hon. member for Houghton. I am glad to hear from the hon. the Minister’s reply that the savings of R12 million are represented largely by R10 million which is now going to go to another account and that he has not lost the use of it as a result of the department being unable to put it to use. In respect of the total budget of R1,1 billion the additional amount asked for does not reflect a great sense of urgency in relation to some of the problem areas the hon. the Minister has. Having any savings in that regard was in fact quite contrary to the direction we would have liked it to go.

I would, however, like to raise one additional point, and that is that I find that the explanatory memorandum leaves one none the wiser than the original estimates. In fact, the explanatory memorandum hardly amplifies the estimates at all. It is virtually a reprint. I really think that with this vital portfolio where so many things can be debated, the hon. the Minister could take a leaf out of the book of Vote 16, the Department of Education and Training. Many of the answers which the hon. the Minister has given could have been given in the explanatory memorandum, thus giving us a better chance to come to grips with the facts.

Mr. Chairman, it is the first time in the 20 years that I have been in Parliament that we have laid such a document on the table. So, we learn by experience. I take the hon. member’s point and we will try to do it in the fashion he wants.

Mr. Chairman, under programme 2, an extra R2,5 million is asked for loans for bridging finance to the Western Cape Administration Board. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, firstly, why it is such a very big amount— 38% more than the original estimate—and, secondly, what is the nature of the services for which this money is going to be used?

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R2,5 million represents the additional amount required by the Administration Board, in addition to the amount of R6,5 million already provided in the main budget, as bridging finance for covering budget deficits. The total amount of R9 million will be utilized as follows: To cover the deficit on services, i.e. water, sanitation, power, etc., R7,5 million; and to cover health services, R1,5 million. This makes a total of R9 million.

Now I come to the problems being experienced by the Administration Board. It behoves us to take cognizance of this for we are dealing with a colossal problem in this regard. It is not a matter of nothing being done about it. A great deal is being done, and slowly but surely we are making progress. It is still not possible to take the Western Cape Administration Board and the Community Councils under its wings, which suffered major losses as a result of the 1976 riots, viable, mainly because of the policy of giving preference to Coloureds and the consequential restrictions of that policy on people of the Black population groups, both as regards numbers and settlement. Consequently the housing burden in the Cape Peninsula is so much heavier in that the Board, unlike the other Administration Boards, has no nearby Black national States from where commuters can travel to the area. Consequently housing has to be provided here for all Black workers. There is virtually no other place of which I know where one has to deal with similar circumstances. I do not wish to elaborate on that now. It is, however, an important issue. It became apparent that the amount of R6,5 million included in the original budget was quite inadequate and consequently a request was received for a loan of R2,5 million to be made available to the Board as bridging finance to enable it to continue essential services. I can now tell hon. members, without beating about the bush, that even with the amount of R9 million which is now being included in the budget in this way, the need is simply appalling, and every endeavour is being made to meet the requirements as soon as possible. We understand, and I possibly far better than anyone else—and I am saying this modestly since I did, after all, accomplish what I accomplished at Crossroads here in the Cape—the problems very well, but in this regard we have to contend with an issue that has quite a number of facets which are absolutely unique in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Consequently I say thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions with reference to programme 6, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how the amount of R1 million for assistance to kwaZulu for combating cholera is to be utilized. Is it to be utilized for water supply, for boreholes, for staff, for medicine or is it to be forwarded by the Department of Health as agent for the department?

Next I want to put a question in connection with the amount of R4,6 million, particularly with regard to medical staff. Is this money to be utilized in an attempt to fill the vacancies in medical posts amounting to virtually 30% in kwaZulu or not?

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R1 million as assistance to kwaZulu for combating cholera is mainly intended for water supply and especially for the sinking of boreholes. The amount of R1,5 million as assistance to Lebowa, too, is mainly for water supply. The hon. member will realize that we are dealing to a great extent with cholera conditions and particularly with the supply of clean water. That is the position there.

The amount of R4,629 million is mainly due to an increase in the expenditure in connection with second officers, particularly medical and teaching staff. These high estimates were revised by the departments from which officers were seconded to the national States. Under another Vote, also contained in these Additional Estimates, provision is in fact being made, specifically at the request of the Department of Health, for high costs in respect of medicine and other related matters. Consequently the aspect raised by the hon. member is not covered by this item. There is another item which does cover it.

Mr. Chairman, in the explanatory memorandum under programme 5—“Consolidation of Black areas”—an additional amount of R10 million is being requested. Since the total amount to be spent now comes to R84 million, we should like to know form the hon. the Minister whether the original estimate was adequate for the planned programme of action for the current financial year, or whether it was inadequate? Is the additional amount of R10 million, to be voted now, required because the original estimates were incorrect? Or has the additional amount of R10 million been obtained after entreaties to the hon. the Minister of Finance? Is the hon. the Minister of opinion that the total amount now to be spent in the financial year, i.e. R84 million, is adequate to complete the proper consolidation of the homelands within a reasonable time?

Mr. Chairman, the position is that an amount of R54 million was initially granted for consolidation. It was completely inadequate. We then made special representations and after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing we eventually succeeded in having this amount of R10 million included in the Additional Appropriation. The correct position is that it was envisaged at the time since it was not possible to include a larger amount in the main budget, that an additional amount of R10 million would be included in the Additional Appropriation. This is what is being done now. This amount is required for the purchase of properties in the Elliot and Maclear districts which are to be added to the Transkei, as well as Chalumno for absolutely compassionate cases in the Ciskei in the Chalumno area, as well as in Natal, at Uvombo and the High Flats. It is not possible to delay these offers; otherwise revaluations will have to be undertaken.

The final question of the hon. member was whether this amount of R10 million was adequate. Of course it is not adequate. We hope that in the main budget, which is soon to be presented by the Minister of Finance, more generous provision will be made for consolidation than the provision it was possible to make in the last budget.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us how many boreholes were sunk with this R1 million?

I cannot tell exactly but I can tell the hon. member this, that as many boreholes were sunk as could possibly have been sunk with this amount of money.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw attention to item No. 3— “Administration of justice”—which shows an additional amount of R2 705 000. The White Paper tells us that this is due to personnel expenditure that was underestimated. The original amount that was voted amounted to R3,5 million. With the Additional Appropriation now the original amount is almost doubled. Can the hon. the Minister give us the reason for that?

Mr. Chairman, during the past year we experienced a problem with the internal arrangement of our budget in connection with expenditure for officials. This is one amount which relates to that problem. In some cases estimates were too high and in other cases too low. There are numerous reasons for this. For example, the distribution of the salaries of officials at district offices between programmes 2 and 3 was made in terms of more recent data and this resulted in internal transfers from one programme to another programme. In the case of one group there was a deficit, whereas there was an overestimate in the case of another group. The department has more than 60 operating points all over the country. Each one of them has to forward information. Owing to numerous factors the information originally forwarded by them was not quite correct. For example, the appropriation for enlarging the establishment and the filling of vacancies was incorrectly estimated. The same applied to leave gratuities and car allowances. We have these 60 district officers on which the main office is dependent for information. In addition, there are large numbers of officers who receive overtime and bonuses, some of whom spend part of their time on the Bench and do administrative work the rest of the time. Under the circumstances it is extremely difficult to make a correct estimate. These things gave rise to this additional amount. Let me point out, however, that the amount which was overestimated and the amount which was underestimated to not differ much. Having regard to all the circumstances, I think the department came out of this matter rather well. Nevertheless, we admit that there were shortcomings in this regard, but we have already done everything in our power to prevent a recurrence of large overestimates or underestimates in future.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us why there has been a decrease of almost R7¾ million in regard to welfare promotion. In which areas did he manage to save money on welfare?

The hon. member’s question relates to the decrease of R7,8 million in regard to welfare promotion. The saving in respect of social pensions results from an overestimate of the increase in the number of pensioners. When the draft budget for 1982-’83 was being prepared, estimates were based on the rising trends of the preceding periods of payment. The actual increase in numbers, however, was actually lower than anticipated, particularly as regards the aged. The number of aged pensioners was 214 281 on 31 August 1981. On the basis of increases during the preceding period of payment—an increase of 3 830 over a period of two months—it was calculated that the total number would increase to 229 600 on 31 March 1982 and to 244 600 on 31 March 1983. However, the increase levelled off, with the result that the actual increase was 219 000 on 31 March 1982 and 226 800 on 31 March 1983. If the hon. member were to make a little calculation, she would more or less arrive at the amount indicated here as a saving.

†Seeing that this department comes under heavy flak so often, let me point out to the hon. member that we budget rather progressively for pensions because if a pensioner comes along you must have the money to pay him or her. So please give us some praise for that at least.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 6.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman. I should like to draw attention to item No. 3 relating to the contribution to the Account for Black, Coloured and Indian Transport Services. Here an amount of almost R46,5 million additional is asked for, which is almost 50% of the original appropriation. Could the hon. the Minister please give us a breakdown of the additional amount required? How is it to be utilized, particularly in respect of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians? Are amounts allocated to any particular areas of the country?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member for Berea as fully as possible. The actual expenditure in respect of this item for the 1982-’83 financial year was R108 million. In view of the fact that there is an estimated annual increase of 15% in the number of passengers and increased subsidies, the amount estimated for the 1983-’84 financial year was increased by 15%. That means that the estimated amount for the financial year 1983-’84 was put at R123 million. The final allocation by the Treasury was cut down to R90 million.

Since the allocation of R90 million proved inadequate, ad hoc approval for an amount of R20,5 million was obtained from the Treasury for the financial year 1982-’83, the intention being that the department would utilize it to meet its obligation towards Putco. The full amount was not used, but only R13,6 million of it. The full amount, i.e. the original allocation of R90 million plus the additional appropriation of R46 million, is being utilized, firstly, to pay an amount of R13,6 million to Putco in respect of an amount owing to a delay in the process of approval of fares, and, secondly, an amount of R122,4 million to all other bus companies together in respect of subsidies payable.

The amount of R46 million is being utilized for the purpose of paying subsidies. Firstly, an amount of R13,6 million is being paid to Putco and, secondly, an amount of R32,4 million goes to all other subsidized bus companies.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the same programme, programme 3. In the explanatory memorandum one reads as follows—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why this was so. Was this owing to some dilatory action on the part of his department or on the part of the bus companies? R46 million, I must say, is quite a considerable amount. Surely there should have been co-ordination between the time when the bus fares were put up and the time when the subsidies were increased. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the State is now paying part of the fares that should have been paid by the passengers.

Mr. Chairman, when we negotiate in connection with bus fares, such negotiations take time. Meanwhile the price of petrol may go up or salaries may be increased. All these things can cause delays. Such delays are not caused by the department but are normally the result of protracted negotiations. Ultimately, however, everybody concerned is paid money in the form of a subsidy. Those are the subsidies in respect of Coloureds, Indians and Black people. There is nothing irregular about it. This happens every year. We do, however, have to conduct negotiations in connection with bus fares increases. The bus companies have to decide about fares increases, and that is something which takes time. Although there is a time overlap in this case I cannot see anything irregular in it at all.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well, but this delay is costing the State R46 million, and I think that somebody should jack their ideas up.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with programme 5, “Government Motor Transport”. The net increase here is R4,13 million, and yet, in respect of the Health Vote it is stated that the Department of Transport could not supply the required number of vehicles resulting in its planned extensions not being fully executed. Does the hon. the Minister think that this amount is more or less as a result of his apparent inability to supply the vehicles they required to the Department of Health?

Mr. Chairman, this amount definitely represents an increase. I shall explain it fully to the hon. member.

*The acquisition of equipment is one of the reasons for the increase of R400 000 in this amount. Additional provision is being requested for the acquisition of motor vehicles to be allocated to the Department of Health and Welfare for use in the family planning project of that department. Because of the shift in the provision of standard item transfer payments according to allocations to date in respect of replacements and new allocations of subsidized motor vehicles, the existing appropriation of R1,4 million is totally inadequate. Then there are increases—the additional demand for the purchase of motor vehicles for judges. There are several items. The Cabinet decided that with effect from April 1982 Government motor cars, for official as well as private use, will be allocated to judges on a permanent basis. No provision for this was originally included in the vote. There was also an additional demand for the purchase of new motor vehicles to be made available to the Department of Agriculture. This relates to the extension of the activities of the department. There was also an additional demand for the purchase of new motor vehicles to extend the fleet of vehicles to be made available to the Department of Health and Welfare. These vehicles are required for conversion into mobile clinics to deal with priority services in the Northern Transvaal. That gives us the total of R3,1 million as indicated on the programme.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to page 1 of the explanatory memorandum. Under programme 1: “Administration”, in respect of item 1.1 the following is said—

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this under-estimate in respect of the payment of leave gratuities means that officials retired earlier or at an earlier age? What does this item mean? Why did this underestimate occur?

Mr. Chairman, additional appropriation of funds is required for the payment of leave gratuities. More officials retired from service during the year, inter alia on medical grounds, than was intially anticipated. It was not anticipated that officials would retire in that way and more officials retired for medical reasons.

Mr. Chairman, did these officials retire earlier or was the estimate of the leave gratuities wrong? Did people perhaps say that they did not want to work any longer?

Mr. Chairman, medical reasons resulted in the earlier retirement of certain officials.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 7.—“Finance”:

Mr. Chairman, the question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister of Finance relates actually to the staff. In the explanatory memorandum there are a few instances where reference is made to a staff shortage. I want to refer in this regard particularly to three programmes, namely Programme No. 2 dealing with internal accounting staff, Programme No. 8 dealing with Inland Revenue and Programme No. 9 dealing with Customs and Excise.

The question that I should like to ask is: What is the staff position at the present moment? I ask this question because these are three critical departments in that if the Treasury is not operating properly no other sector of the Public Service can operate effectively. In addition, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are profitable.

Flowing from this, I should also like to ask whether Inland Revenue had sufficient staff to collect donations tax on the gifts that the Cabinet made.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale has raised an important question. As the hon. member knows, a great deal of publicity has also been given to this whole matter— in fact, even beyond my department. The position is that over the past years we have experienced a considerable shortage of staff for all sorts of reasons. As a result, the Government and the Commission for Administration hit upon the idea of job differentiation—an occupational pay adjustment scheme. The idea of this was to try at least to bring conditions somewhere closer to parity with comparable professional posts outside the Public Service. This scheme has been implemented at a far better tempo than we had hoped. Considerable progress has been made and just looking at the figures, I can say that this is the main reason for this increase which we could not foresee say last March. The position has certainly improved, and it is still improving, I am glad to say. No doubt from the point of view of recruiting I should say a good type of person has become available to render these services. I should even go so far as to say people of the best type. This has been a highly successful scheme.

As far as the Treasury and the Department of Finance as such are concerned, there have been several appointments made of very satisfactory quality. As far as the two really important revenue collecting departments are concerned, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the introduction of the scheme of occupational pay differentiation has been completed in both of them, earlier in Inland Revenue and more recently in Customs and Excise. The results are most encouraging. The department has been able to recruit on a scale and on a basis of quality which has not been done for quite a long time. I must say that I am much more sanguine about the position now. The Commission for Administration points out that in so far as the whole Public Service is concerned, the same tendency prevails there. There is a substantial improvement as a result of this. It is of course costly, but I think the hon. member for Edenvale would agree with me that it probably is a very good investment.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the situation is improving. I think it is partly the result of job differentiation and partly the result of the economic conditions in which we find ourselves at the moment. I want to know, however, whether studies will be done so that in 1984 we shall be able to keep these people. I can see that we can attract people now—I think it is important that we do—but what concerns me is what will happen when we have the improvement in economic conditions in 1984. We hope there will be an improvement; in fact, I am sure we shall have an improvement in the economy in 1984, but shall we then find ourselves losing those people?

I should like to know too whether studies are being done as to what it would cost us if we actually fill all the posts in the Public Service. This is now beginning to worry me that maybe we have become used to running an understaffed Public Service and for budgeting purposes we may have to continue with that.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the first part of the question I would say that in so far as the Commission for Administration and in fact my department are concerned—my department is a very large one—there is a continuous study being made of employment trends. We are also trying to assess the sort of implication of a—to put it like that—strenghthening of the economy and what effect it could have in terms of competition. This of course is not an easy study and it depends on the degree of improvement, but it certainly is something which is very much with us.

In so far as the actual cost of filling all posts in the Public Service is concerned, I do not think we have a figure at the moment, but let me just check. No, we cannot give an actual aggregate figure at the moment, but this is something which is being studied carefully, also by the Commission for Administration. Perhaps we shall be able to throw a little more light on that during the discussion on the main budget.

I should just like to amplify my earlier reply on the question of staffing. I have just received a note which indicates that in the Treasury as such apparently at this stage there are no vacancies. This is a completely fantastic position as far as I am concerned. In Inland Revenue there is a very great improvement, but the overall position is not yet as satisfactory as it might be. In Customs and Excise there is again a great improvement, but they are looking for still further improvement. As far as the State Purchases and Tender Board is concerned, it is said that there is need for more improvement, although again there is, in fact, an improvement. As far as Public Debt Commissioners are concerned, I am glad to say that there are no vacancies. The Public Debt Commission is actually a very big bank. It is operated by a small handful of people, but it is a huge banking operation. The position in the Office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions is certainly one that is still causing us concern. We, on our side, are in constant touch, and we are hoping, very soon, to have a substantial improvement, particularly in some of the senior posts. At the moment, however, I would not like to say that the position of Financial Institutions is satisfactory. The overall position of the Mint is not bad, but there are still certain vacancies in the ranks of the artisan staff. I think that is the overall position.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister would explain something about programme 7 to me. This involves an amount of R6 398 000 in respect of “Secret services” transferred from the Prime Minister’s office. Let me quote from page 4 of the memorandum, where it is stated—

I can only, however, find about 12% of that in the Prime Minister’s Vote. Could the hon. the Minister please explain that?

Will you just repeat that last point?

It is stated that a large portion of the above-mentioned increase will be financed under the Prime Minister’s Vote. Let me quote—

Only 12% of the approximately R6 million, however, seems to be financed in that way. There should be an equivalent amount, a large portion, brought across from the Prime Minister’s Vote, to make sense of the last portion of the text.

Mr. Chairman, I have two amounts listed here, one of R3 154 000, and for “Secret services” an amount of R6 398 000.

That is the one.

Is the hon. member’s question related only to the “Secret services”?

And the explanation on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum.

Yes, can we perhaps just run through that and then I shall try to amplify it. I quote—

It is also said—

That we do not find.

I have here a figure of R1 718 000 for the Secretariat of the State Security Council. The figures I have are R1 718 00, R800 000 and R450 000, giving a total of R2 968 000. Then, according to a note I have here, about 50% is “vanaf die begrotingspos van die Eerste Minister”. I hope that is clear. Does that satisfy the hon. member? [Interjections.] This is so secret that I am afraid he has got me as well. What I want to do is to set this out meaningfully for the hon. member. I shall do that as soon as possible. If I can, I shall do it at the Third Reading stage, if we have a Third Reading. Otherwise I will let the hon. member have it direct.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to programme 10. I think that the minting of Kruger rands must be the most profitable way we have of actually selling gold. In this way we can actually sell it at a premium. What I want to know is whether we cannot adopt a more market-orientated approach towards the Mint by allowing it to sell particularly platinum, which is being sold overseas by non-South African producers at a considerable profit. It just seems to me to be a great pity that the Mint is not allowed to get into this market.

Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting question. In my humble opinion the Mint is extremely efficient. It is an extremely efficient organization and enjoys a very high standing abroad. I can say that from personal experience, having spoken to people about this in some European countries and in the USA. I think the Director is doing a splendid job, despite certain shortages of staff.

The question that has been raised is important. We have been thinking for some time of extending the scale of operations of the Mint and whether we should consider placing this organization more on a business footing. This is something to which we are giving attention. I should not like to make any forecast or prediction as to when something like this could be done, because it needs a good deal of work, but I fully agree and we, too, feel that, where the Mint is doing this very good job and is in fact to a substantial degree paying its way and, in many respects, more than paying its way, this should become an entity more closely related to a business and marketing operation. I should like to discuss that with my hon. friend.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 9.—“Internal Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, under the programme in respect of immigration I see an amount of R6 233 000. Could the hon. the Minister explain to us what the reason for that large amount is? Which immigrants does it apply to, where did they come from, and what does that amount entail? Could he give us further details in this respect?

Mr. Chairman, the position is that the original estimate of the number of immigrants we were expecting was too low. In fact, there was a very marked increase. Originally 35 000 were expected, whereas the actual number at present is estimated at approximately 43 000. This was accompanied by an increase in hotel expenditure for initial accommodation as well as an increase in tariffs for internal transportation. It was also estimated that approximately 28 500 immigrants would have to be assisted financially in terms of the schemes, whereas this number is at present estimated at 35 000. There has therefore been an increase in costs as well as in the number of immigrants.

Mr. Chairman, arising from the reply given by the hon. the Minister, I should like to know where the immigrants came from. Did they come from Africa, from Europe or from other countries?

Mr. Chairman, these immigrants come from various countries in Europe, from all over the world in fact. They come from those countries where the pinch of recession conditions is felt the most. However, I think this is a matter which we should rather discuss under my Vote. I do not think that the question as to which countries these immigrants come from has any financial implications.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make sure whether the hon. the Minister understands me correctly. Is he saying that an additional 8 000 immigrants—apart from inflation and other increased costs—virtually caused the amount budgeted for this purpose to double? Has immigration become more costly that we envisaged?

The increase in the cost of air transport, hotel expenses and internal transportation does not apply only to the 8 000 immigrants; it applies to approximately 43 000 immigrants. In other words, it is an increase distributed among the total number of immigrants. Therefore the hon. member’s inference is not entirely correct.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are going to discuss this matter further during the discussion of his Vote. The question I asked was whether the immigrants came mainly from countries in Africa or whether they came mainly from European countries. If the hon. the Minister wishes to reply to this question at a later stage, he may do so. The point is simply that there are inevitably going to be greater costs involved when immigrants come from Europe than when they come from Africa. However, we shall leave the matter at that.

According to page 3 of the explanatory memorandum there has been an increase of approximately 50% as far as publication control is concerned. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why there was such an exceptionally large increase in respect of publication control.

Mr. Chairman, the increase in respect of publication control is due to quite a number of factors. Firstly, there was an underestimate of salaries during the changeover to the financial management system. There was a misunderstanding in that the administrative staff of the Publications Board were not budgeted for. This factor is responsible for R69 000 of the increase. Furthermore, there were increased tariffs and an underestimate with regard to telecommunication services. The amount involved here is R16 000. Telecommunication services are used a great deal in this department. There was also an increase in expenditure on advertisements, printing and stationery due to increased tariffs. This figure amounts to R41 000. Furthermore, more people were appointed to committees to investigate video casettes which are entering the country in large quantities. These members are reimbursed for the use of their private vehicles. The increased number of journeys which have to be undertaken also leads to greater expenditure. In this regard, I may mention that these members have to travel to approved venues in Cape Town and Johannesburg in particular, and they are reimbursed per kilometre according to the Government tariff. The allowances payable to committee members were also increased by 50% with retrospective effect from 1 October 1981. No provision was made for this additional expenditure. These two items are responsible for R26 000 and R135 000 respectively.

Mr. Chairman, the explanatory memorandum does not specifically mention that additional members have been appointed to committees, but it does mention that additional committees have been appointed. I do not know whether this is a typing error, but I should like to know, if additional committees have been appointed, whether this is for the purposes of carrying out specific specialized services for the Publications Board or whether additional committees have been appointed merely for geographical reasons.

Mr. Chairman, one cannot appoint a committee without members. I think we are being a little semantic now. The fact is there has been an influx of video casettes. This industry has experienced a boom which has made heavy demands on our manpower. This has resulted in an increase in activity whether by adding members, or by using members more frequently. Committees sat more frequently and this resulted in increased expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to discuss programmes 8 and 12 with the hon. the Minister because there is a unique situation here in that we have three different Ministers involved with pensions, namely the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance. We have a situation here where we seem to have a little money in the kitty, which surprises me because the number of aged people is increasing and yet we are below budget. The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister under programmes 8 and 12 is: seeing that we have some money in the kitty, could we not introduce a uniform means test? I am not talking about a uniform pension at this stage. I am talking about a uniform means test for Coloureds, Indians and Whites. If one looks at the replies to questions that I have put in the past, there are actually very few Coloureds and Indians who are refused pensions. I think it would create tremendous goodwill, seeing that we do have this money, if we applied the same means test to all the groups.

Mr. Chairman, the real reason for the decrease under these programmes is to be found in the fact that we received fewer applications than we envisaged. If I follow the hon. member correctly, he is arguing that if we adapt the means test we shall receive more applications. That might be so, but once again the financial implications of a new means test are not part and parcel of the budget of last year. It is something that we can argue under the budget for next year. The means test with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians is operating fairly satisfactory at the moment. I have recently called for figures, and I can say that, with the means test as it is, a higher percentage of the total Coloured population receives pensions from the State than Whites with their higher means test. But I think a better case can be made out for a new means test during the discussion of next year’s budget.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to come back to programme 5 and to the subprogramme dealing with the registration of newspapers and imprints.

†I am a little puzzled. The amount voted for this purpose was originally R2 000, and the revised amount will now be R7 000. When one talks in terms of making provision for a library, this amount is a pittance. So I should like to know what the nature of the service is that is being provided. Is it a proper reference library or merely a cutting service library? If the hon. the Minister can give some explanation of the fairly extensive increase compared with the original budget, I shall be pleased.

Mr. Chairman, this is a large percentage increase. I think the original appropriation was reasonable, but afterwards we found that as far as the equipment of our departmental library was concerned, in order to carry out the department’s terms of reference effectively, we would have to make certain purchases. The additional amount of R5 000 includes catalogue cards for R650, a cabinet for R500, book labels for R1 750, sets of Butterworths statutes and amending pages for R1 770. This is all basic equipment of a library to equip us to assess applications in this regard and to enable us to perform our statutory duties.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether, when the original budget was drawn up, it was not envisaged that such a library service would be introduced. I put this question bearing in mind the small amount budgeted for it. Was something of this kind not envisaged at that stage?

Mr. Chairman, a few of the specific purchases I mentioned were not envisaged at that stage. One should probably attribute the fact that no prior thought was given to these specific smaller items which had to be purchased, to an oversight.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister speaks of the departmental library, I should like to know—seeing that this item appears under this particular heading—whether it is a library which serves the department in all its facets, or whether it is a library which is only connected with this sub-programme under which it is indicated.

Mr. Chairman, it is a library which does not merely render a service in this narrower context, but which also renders a service in the broader context. The specific items I mentioned refer more specifically to the needs with regard to this sub-programme.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to page 5 of the explanatory memorandum, to paragraph 4.10 in particular, which relates to tertiary education. The amount here shows an increase of R800 000. I just wish to know from the hon. the Minister whether he could perhaps tell us what amount was originally voted for the erection of the sports stadium and whether this additional amount of R800 000 is needed because there was a delay in the building of the stadium, or whether it merely represents an inevitable increase in the prices of building materials, etc.

Mr. Chairman, the erection of the sports stadium to which the hon. member for Rissik referred is progressing more or less according to plan, but because of a tremendous increase in building costs, this additional amount of R800 000 is needed in order to continue building. Unfortunately the construction of the entire structure is such that it is not possible to slow down the process in order to keep the expenditure within the budget.

However, at the same time it must be said that even if it were possible to slow down the process, such a delay would perhaps cause the cost of construction to escalate even further. As far as the hon. member’s other question is concerned, I just wish to point out that the original estimated cost of the total project would have amounted to R1,8 million. That amount is now increasing to approximately R2,6 million, of which only 85% is being carried by the budget, whereas the remainder is, of course, being supplied by the University of Durban-Westville itself.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, and the sub-programme “Administration of the South African Indian Council”, I note an additional amount of R184 600, which has been utilized inter alia, in respect of increased allowances payable to members of the S.A. Indian Council. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what part of the amount is the result of a rise in costs, and what part of the amount has been allocated towards increased allowances to the members of the S.A. Indian Council.

Mr. Chairman, this amount has been sub-divided into a number of sub-headings. All the amounts together total R184 600. The increased accommodation allowances, which were payable from 1 April 1982, account for R26 000. Then, too, members of the council were also reimbursed for the use of their private vehicles when undertaking official journeys, an amount which was previously only payable to members of the executive committee. This figure amounts to a further R41 000. Members of the S.A. Indian Council make use of air travel to a greater extent nowadays when attending meetings of the council, of the executive committee and of the sub-committees, just as in the case of hon. members of this House. This accounts for R42 600. Due to the extension of the establishment of the Secretariat of the S.A. Indian Council, there has been an increase in salaries. This represents an amount of approximately R58 000. Furthermore there have been increased printing expenses and increased communication tariffs, which were responsible for the amounts of R11 000 and R5 000 respectively.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 11.—“Mineral and Energy Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to page 2 of the explanatory memorandum and specifically to item 3.2—“Contribution to the Mines and Works Compensation Fund”—in respect of which an amount of R3 200 000 was overbudgeted. In view of the fact that the rate of decrease in the number of pensioners has been greater than during the previous three years, can the hon. the Minister tell us why increases for current pensioners were not considered during the financial year? I ask this question in view of the large amount involved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is referring to the contribution to the Mines and Works Compensation Fund. The reply to that is that it is expected that this Vote will have to subsidize the State Account of the Fund, established under Act 78 of 1973, by only R5 900 000, as against the amount of R9 100 000 voted. This decrease is mainly to be attributed to fewer applications than anticipated for conversion of “pension” benefits to lump sum benefits, as well as the present trend for current “pension” benefit expenditure to be less than was expected, as a result of a more rapid rate of decrease in the number of pensioners than for the previous three years.

Mr. Chairman, the information the hon. the Minister has just given us is set out in the memorandum. If one takes into account the fact that there was a decrease in the number of pensioners entitled to pensions, why was it not possible to increase the pensions of current pensioners during the financial year?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are awaiting the Nieuwenhuizen Report.

Order! I just wish to point out to the hon. member for Durban Central that the matter raised by him does not fall within the scope of the Additional Appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that he is awaiting the Nieuwenhuizen report. The Nieuwenhuizen report was tabled as far back as June last year. It was subsequently sent to the various departments for consideration. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s reply to that question.

Mr. Chairman, we were awaiting comments on the Nieuwenhuizen report and, of course, this budget is in respect of the current financial year.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister when we can expect the Government White Paper on the report of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission?

Mr. Chairman, the matter is still under consideration but I am of the opinion that within a reasonable space of time we shall be able to make the White Paper available.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 12.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with programme 3. This programme relates to training, and there is a 31% increase in the amount to be voted. Could the hon. the Minister give us the reasons for this increase? He says in his memorandum that there were no fundamental changes in the policy and activities of the S.A. Police. Was additional training given or additional equipment purchased that would account for the almost R6 million increase?

Mr. Chairman, these additional funds are in the main required to finance the many vacancies which have already been filled and which are still to be filled during this financial year. At the moment there are about 1 100 more students who will undergo training during this financial year than during the previous financial year. It is mainly due to that exceptionally good increase that this expenditure has to be incurred.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the filling of the posts of teachers on which the money is being spent? The hon. the Minister says that more people are going to be trained, and I should like to know whether the money is being spent on the filling of vacant teacher posts.

Mr. Chairman, the expenditure relates to new members. It is the increase in the number of new entrants into the Police Force which is the basic reason for this amount.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with programme 2, I notice that there is an ex gratia payment, which was paid by the S.A. Police to Mr. H. A. Murray for an injury sustained when he tried, at the request of the Police, to arrest a fleeing Black man. The amount came to R27 000. Did this payment result from a claim lodged by the legal advisers of Mr. Murray, and if so, does the payment also involve legal costs?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the payment of the amount results from an incident in which Mr. Murray assisted a member of the Police Force in an attempt to arrest a thief. In the process the alleged thief assaulted Mr. Murray by stabbing him in the eye with a knife. As a result Mr. Murray lost his left eye. The alleged thief was later convicted in court of theft and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. He is serving his sentence at the moment. The S.A. Police felt that Mr. Murray had to be compensated. The amount in damages was calculated at R27 000 and application was made to the Treasury through the usual channels for the approval of the amount and the payment thereof. That is why it is shown here. As far as I am aware, there is certainly no question about legal costs being part of the amount, because it was an action initiated by the S.A. Police to compensate Mr. Murray for the loss he had suffered.

Mr. Chairman, I have only one question. Was there an action instituted by Mr. Murray? That is actually the question the hon. the Minister has been asked. Did this payment arise out of an action instituted by Mr. Murray? One of the factors here is that it happened a long time ago—in 1980.

Mr. Chairman, this incident took place on 6 December 1980 in East London. I have no information to the effect that Mr. Murray instituted a claim against the Police and/or the State. My information is that it was the ordinary, normal course of this type of case. It was felt that Mr. Murray had to be compensated for the loss he had suffered and the contribution he had made to the arrest of the alleged thief. It was merely the normal course of events that the amount was eventually paid out to him.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 15.—“Health and Welfare”:

Mr. Chairman, my first question to the hon. the Minister relates to the increases in salaries of nursing staff, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. Obviously we welcome this, but the question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is: What are the indications at the present moment with regard to nursing staff? Is there still a shortage, or is the situation improving? I know that job differentiation has only recently been implemented, but is it working?

Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter which concerns this item directly, but I can nevertheless tell the hon. member that there is a considerable improvement as regards the provision of staff in the nursing profession. Of course, it varies from city to city and from province to province. In some parts there is still a shortage. However, in other parts the position is much better.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister. The first relates to programme 6 with reference to “Family Planning”. The estimates and the explanatory memorandum show a saving of just over R3 million. The reason given is the inability of the Department of Transport Affairs to supply the required number of vehicles. In the discussion of an earlier vote, Vote 6, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, referring to an additional amount of R4 130 000 under programme 5, attributed a portion of this to the Department of Health and Welfare. That hon. Minister specifically said it was transport for “Gesinsbeplanning”. One hon. Minister therefore says there is an additional amount required, which this House has approved and voted, yet this hon. Minister’s reason for failing to spend R3 million is that his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, was not able to supply the vehicles, and I quote from page 5 of the explanatory memorandum—

Here is a specific explanation indicating that the department could not get vehicles, when we have just approved an increase of R4 million to the Department of Transport Affairs to include these additional vehicles for this very purpose, yet this hon. Minister says there is a saving because vehicles could not be supplied. I should therefore like to ask him to explain the conflict between himself and his hon. colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

That is called rationalization, Vause.

A colleague of mine says that is called rationalization. I have always thought that rationalization meant more people doing the same number of jobs. It apparently applies to vehicles too.

I should now like to refer to programme 9 involving “Military Pensions”. Here there is a decrease of R3 184 000. The reason given in the memorandum is—

This is understandable and I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that there are deaths, because the youngest person who could legitimately have fought in the First World War would be 83 years old this year. If he cheated a couple of years, he would still be at least 80 years old. I have been corresponding for over a year with the hon. the Minister, and with his predecessors before him, pleading to have those First World War pensioners, who are now over 80 years of age exempted from the means test for a war veterans’ pension. This applies, I know, to military pensions. Those people are dying out, to the extent that in this year alone, despite planning for their deaths, there is a decrease of over R3 million, over and above that for the anticipated number who would die. The number left is so small that I believe this House could honour the people who served South Africa and fought for it in the First World War—sometimes in terrible conditions—in that holocaust. In this year, 1983, when the youngest legal veteran of the First World War is 83 if he joined up in the last year of the war, I ask the hon. the Minister to take this opportunity of announcing that those veterans will be honoured by the Parliament of their country by no longer having the means test applied to them, just as it is not applied to the veterans of the war of 1899 to 1902.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the reduction in respect of family planning first, I shall furnish the main reasons for the decrease. Firstly, as a result of the pruning of funds in the budget of the Department of Transport Affairs, vehicles could not be supplied and accordingly, planned extensions of the family planning programme could not be fully implemented. Treasury approval was obtained for making R400 000 available to the Department of Transport and the suspension of an equal amount in the budget of the Department of Health and Welfare. Secondly—this is the reason for which the hon. member asked—the delay in obtaining tenders and implementation of the conversion of 10 Kombis into mobile clinics: The units are only now being delivered, with a resultant saving in running costs. Thirdly, the delay in respect of the leasing of and alterations to 30 premises for use as clinics by the Department of Community Development, resulting in a saving of operating costs. Fourthly, delays in the expected extension of sterilization services by provincial hospital services: Only after the provinces have decided to extend existing services are applications made for equipment, transport allowances and subsidies. Fifthly, only 30% of the posts for Black male motivators are filled due to salaries that are not competitive. Sixthly, R1,7 million was voted for the extension of guidance and development work and for clinical services in the rural areas. Procedures such as work study investigations and approval for the creation of posts by the Commission for Administration have meant that the posts can only be created at the end of the financial year.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply. Does this mean that as far as the request of the Minister of Transport Affairs for an amount of R4 130 000 is concerned, these vehicles which were delayed will be taken into account in another financial year? I cannot see how it can happen that the one Minister can purchase vehicles in a certain financial year for a certain purpose, while the other Minister says that he did not receive the vehicles. What is wrong between the two departments?

Mr. Chairman, this whole budget has been before the Committee, and to the best of my knowledge the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has been disposed of. The hon. member for Durban Point must not, therefore question me about it now. He could have asked the Minister involved beforehand. I do not know what goes on in the Department of Transport, nor can the hon. member expect that of me. I am giving the hon. member the facts as they affect the Department of Health and Welfare.

Have you, then, not received those vehicles?

We received the vehicles at a very late stage with the result that we were unable to utilize the running costs which had been voted. That is what I said.

The hon. member also asked me a question about programme 9. As far as military pensions, programme 9, are concerned, the position is that the estimates for 1982-’83 were based on the amount voted for 1981-’82. Because there was an overestimate in respect of the latter year, the overestimate was carried over. In addition there was a decrease as a result of the deaths of beneficiaries in respect of the First and Second World Wars, while citizen force cases have not increased as rapidly as anticipated. This is the force situation.

The hon. member also made another request, which does not really belong here. However, I shall give it very serious consideration, but I want to tell him that it is not my department which determines the means tests for pensioners. This, too, must be directed elsewhere.

However, you can do it if you want to.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we now know whom we must attack. It is obviously the hon. the Minister of Finance whom we must attack for more money for pensions. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to programme 7 in regard to the pensions of people of religious orders who have had their pension delayed by five years. I would just like to get confirmation from the hon. the Minister on the number of people involved. It seems to me that it is about 600 people. I would just like to find out whether I have done my calculations more or less correct. That is my first question.

That question is not clear to me.

What I would like to know is how many people are receiving the total amount of R857 000 in pensions.

What programme is that?

It is programme 7. In the explanatory memorandum, on top of page 7 there is an amount of R857 000 in regard to the payment of social pensions five years after retirement to persons who rendered voluntary services to their employers. This is something about which a lot of us feel very strongly and we actually welcome it. I would just like to find out how many people have benefited from that.

My second question relates to the increase of R47 million in programme 8. I think it might also affect the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister of Finance actually said that most of this was as a result of vacancies being filled. In other words, it was not an increase for existing pensioners but an increase which arose because of the percentage of the salary which is contributed by the State. What is the total contribution of a person’s salary to the pension fund? What percentage is he contributing and what percentage is the State contributing? Flowing from that, perhaps either of the hon. the Ministers could just tell us whether the State’s funds are actually fully funded or whether there are any actuarial unfunded liabilities.

Mr. Chairman, it is funded by the State. However, I can assure the hon. member that we are intending, as soon as we can make the necessary arrangements, to have a proper actuarial valuation done of the whole pension fund. In fact, we have already started arrangements.

Will it be tabled in Parliament? If you look at the rest of the world you will see that they have actually had tremendous problems. Los Angeles is a good example where half of their budget was used to pay municipal employees’ pensions.

Mr. Chairman, obviously when we get a report like that it is something I would put to the Cabinet. However, as far as I am concerned, at this moment I can see no reason why we should not table it.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I do not have the exact number. The position is that these people are being paid the same amount as the social pensioners. Therefore they have received an amount of R122 per month up to 1 October, and from then on an amount of R138 per month. I therefore do not think it is quite feasible to calculate the exact number, but the hon. member could have a rough idea of what it is.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 16.—“Education and Training”:

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the very comprehensive explanatory memorandum we received. There is, however, an element of disappointment that the amount for this Vote, Education and Training, has not grown the 5% that the overall budget has. There are some disturbing features that are apparent from the Additional Estimates and the explanatory memorandum. In fact, in the memorandum at one point they refer to “crisis situations which arose” during the year. Some of these disturbing features are related to budgetary control and some to priorities.

I should like first of all to deal with budgetary control. There are two instances of serious overspending upon which I should like the hon. the Minister to comment. The first one is under programme 4 in the explanatory memorandum with regard to Mabopane East Technikon, where there was an amount of R6 million budgeted for capital expenditure. The amount now requested is R10 million, namely an increase of R4 million or 67%. The reason for the increase is “to enable them to cover their capital commitments.” That is an enormous variation and I should like some explanation if possible.

The second one has to do with Vista. A relatively small amount of R400 000 was budgeted for and that has now been increased to R4,5 million, which represents a more than 1 000% increase. In particular, the capital expenditure, which was put at a nominal R100, is now being increased to R1 million. This would appear to be very bad budgeting or else there has been a fundamental change in what was envisaged for this year.

I should now like to move on to my other questions because I think they are actually more serious ones which possibly have to do with neglect of priorities which are shown by decreases in expenditure under various programmes. I refer to the priorities of more classrooms, more and better teachers, school dropouts and developing the potential of adults.

First of all, I should like to deal with the question of classrooms. In January last year, the Director-General of the department said that the provision of buildings was “our first priority”—to use his words. Under programme 2, namely pre-primary and primary education, there is a decrease of R7 387 000. Besides vacant teaching posts, the memorandum refers to “a purposeful curtailment of capital expenditure.” On the one hand it was said to be a first priority, but we now have a considerable reduction and a curtailment. I should like to ask whether that indicates a change in priorities and I shall be sorry to hear it if that is so.

The second priority is the question of teachers, and I refer here to programme 7 where the amount budgeted for for further teacher training was R1,77 million and it has now dropped by 63% to R648 000. One can get these figures from the explanatory memorandum. What effect, may I ask the hon. the Minister, is this going to have on the number or the quality and qualifications of teachers if we are cutting their further training by such a large amount?

Then, under programme 9, relating to teachers—subject specialists—an amount of R858 000 was budgeted for. It states now that the vacancies could not be filled, so there is now a budget of R531 000. That, compared with the previous year, shows a difference of R1,2 million. In other words, the budgetary expenditure this year is now more than 50% less than it was last year. I believe it is a vital area, and that the quality of education here is of great importance, particularly in the light of the fact that this relates to specialist subjects and specialist teachers. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done in order to rectify the situation.

In the fourth instance I should like to refer to the question of school dropouts, under programme 9. Examination services expenditure is down by nearly R2 million, and the Explanatory Memorandum says that this is owing to the fact “that only about 45% of the Std. VIII and Std. X pupils who entered for the May/June 1982 examinations actually wrote their exams.” At first glance this is an stonishing situation. I think we need an explanation. It would appear to be an abnormal situation, and I should like to know what action is being taken in this regard.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the question of developing the potential of adults. Programme 8, “Adult education”, is down by nearly 50% to R5 million, which again is less than the amount budgeted for last year of R6,1 million. While I accept some of the comments in the explanatory memorandum—and we do not suggest either inefficiency or wastage even in an important area such as this—I must ask, however, what alternative programme or activities are involved because I am sure we all believe that adult education is critical.

Mr. Chairman, we went to a great deal of trouble to make available to hon. members as much information as possible in as concise a manner as possible, with the aim of course of enabling them to react fairly meaningfully to it and also to analyse it. I feel the matters raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, particularly with regard to the over-expenditure of R10 million on tertiary education, also received our attention in the budgeting process.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will allow me briefly to explain our position with regard to this over-expenditure. Mabopane East, Vista, Medunsa and the University of the North are developing tertiary undertakings, which undertook certain building and certain development programmes, for which contractual obligations had to be entered into. Because the demand for the availability of these facilities became increasingly pressing, certain of these programmes were completed earlier than expected, and more rapid progress was therefore made in making these facilities available than was initially anticipated. In a moment, when I discuss Vista University, I shall give a wonderful example to illustrate how great the pressure has become because the students simply must have these facilities available; owing, of course to the ever-increasing number of students. As a result of the more rapid progress that was made, we had to make R10 million available for tertiary education. In the case of Mabopane East the additional amount we had to make available was R4 million. This had to be done so that they could meet their contractual obligations.

We therefore had two options open to us. We could simply have written the additional sum of money needed into the Additional Appropriation or we could have tried to finance it ourselves by means of the transfer of certain amounts from one programme to another. After careful consideration, however, we came to the conclusion that as a result of the state of our building programmes in respect of primary and secondary schools, as well as planning problems and problems in connection with the availability of sites, and also because of contractual problems, we did not in fact delay the building programme of primary schools but carried on with it in the normal way. However, we found that we could make available that amount for the tertiary building programme in the entire programme, without adversely affecting the progress in the building programmes in the primary and secondary education sectors during this specific financial year. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in this analysis of our entire financial building programme we did not for a moment lose sight of the absolute priority placed on the availability of schools. The availability of both primary and secondary schools still remains our highest priority. I want to assure the hon. member that we are at present investigating a programme in which we have far better control over the projects implemented by the tertiary institutions to improve their facilities as far as the time scale of those projects is concerned. I think the problem in this connection was basically a time scale problem. We hope that in the years to come we shall be able to control the time scale of projects implemented by the tertiary institutions far better and more effectively and in that way prevent there being the kind of acceleration in building programmes that happened this year.

As far as teacher training is concerned, if one looks at programme 7 of the explanatory memorandum one sees that as far as basic training is concerned we made an additional amount of R366 000 available. Hon. members will also note that the amount of R1 123 000 made available for teacher training in terms of programme 7 has been transferred to programme 4. This means that that sum of money is still available for teacher training but only at Vista. I should like to give hon. members an example of pressure being brought to bear on us to make these training facilities available. I want to deal with the case of Vista.

The first amount of R400 000 made available for Vista was intended basically to launch the planning of Vista on a permanent site. As a result of the fact that there was a tremendous need at certain of the centres, for example at Bloemfontein and Mabopane, we made existing buildings and facilities available so that we could begin earlier with the implementation of Vista. That is also the reason for the additional amount of R1 million made available to Vista earlier on to enable it to begin its activities sooner.

As far as teacher training is concerned, I can just mention that Vista initially intended to train 1 000 additional teachers. We have a large number of teachers with Std. 8 and two years of academic training. By means of private training programmes for adults most of these teachers have obtained their matric certificates. Now they have their matric certificates plus two years academic training after Std. 8. We now want to train these teachers further at Vista so that they will have their matric certificates plus three years training, after which they can be categorized and therefore come onto the parity scale. Vista has now introduced this programme to train this category of teachers further. We had planned on only a thousand of them applying to Vista this year to start this additional two year academic programme. I think we were rather surprised by the applications and the number of students now enrolled at Vista. The number of matriculants that are going to receive three years training, now totals 2 300. We accepted all 2 300; not a single one was refused. This proves that with the money channelled to Vista we have created a major asset for the teaching profession with a view to the future.

The hon. member also asked questions about programme 9. His first question in this connection concerned subject specialists. The reply to his question is basically that we could not fill the posts. The posts for which the money was provided with a view to the appointment of subject specialists simply could not be filled.

He also asked a question about examination services for Std. 8 and Std. 10. His question concerns the second paragraph of programme 9. I do not know what the department can do about this. These people are studying privately. This year there were 104 000 enrolments for one or more matric subjects. The people enrolled for the May/ June examinations and they paid the enrolment fees, but did not write the examinations. We have no control over that. There is really nothing the department can do to force these people who have enrolled to write their examinations. I think all we can do is to appeal to them to write their examinations when they enrol. There is little else one can do about this. I think we can have a further discussion on this when the Vote is discussed later. What we can specifically discuss are the Std. 8 and Std. 10 students who failed the one year and want to re-write the examination the next year.

As far as programme 8 is concerned, the hon. member also asked questions about adult education. I do not think I have any more to say than is stated in the explanatory memorandum. The fact remains that we are engaged in rationalisation in order to ascertain whether we cannot introduce a better programme for adult education. In the second place fewer people are coming forward than did in the past. This year we experienced a smaller demand for adult education than in the past. I do not know what the reason for this is. The programme, nevertheless, remains of cardinal importance to us. We are in fact engaged in rationalization projects so that we can provide a better service.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the 45% of private students who pay for the examinations and then do not write constitutes a normal percentage? Was it abnormally high this year?

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member whether it is a normal percentage or not. I think it is a normal percentage because this year nothing happened that did not happen in previous years when they did not write. The question papers were available, the halls were available and the registration fees had been paid. There was therefore no reason for the percentage to be abnormal. I think this may be a matter worth going into. Perhaps one could ascertain what causes this.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 17.—“Environment Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, the explanatory memorandum says that under programme 4 an amount of R4 million is required to retain the services of construction workers who will become redundant as a result of the delay of certain projects. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can explain why the increase of R4 million is required to retain the services of personnel whom he has presumably budgeted for and who were on his staff when the budget came into effect at the beginning of the financial year. Secondly, is it in fact necessary to retain workers who are, by definition, redundant when there are shortages in other sectors of the Public Services? Furthermore; there is an amount of R321 000 provided as an increase for exchange rate variations and computer time. Could the hon. the Minister please enlarge upon why this amount arises?

Mr. Chairman, the position with regard to construction work is such that at present the department, as a result of quite a few thousand workers having been paid off, has highly skilled workers at its disposal, in other words people who know the work, people who have acquired expertise over the years. This holds good not only for White but also for non-White workers. Consequently, if sufficient funds for schemes were again to become available, the department would be faced by major problems because of the fact that it would no longer have construction workers at its disposal. The reason for our trying to do everything in our power to transfer the present available labour force to other works, for doing everything in our power to effect transfers so as to retain workers, is that we in this department cannot afford to lose any further workers. I was unable to hear the hon. member’s second question clearly. I think it related to the amount of R321 000 for computer services …

And exchange rate variations. I refer the hon. the Minister to programme 14.

The increase of R321 000 is due to the less favourable rate of exchange of the rand to the dollar with the purchasing of extremely essential computer equipment ordered prior to the devaluation of the rand. This is the one aspect. Then there is an increase of R201 000 as a result of the unexpected high use of computer time with the costs involved in that. We are making increasing use of computer services, and not only with the planning and design of projects within the department, including dams, canals, etc. We are also making increasing use of computer services for the design of construction material, etc. The engineers have ascertained that it is much better, also much quicker, to use computer services for a determination and design of equipment and materials.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to programme 3, involving the postponement of the plans for the Lesotho Highland project. Is it the intention to defer this once again?

Mr. Chairman, as regards the Lesotho Highland project certain conditions were stipulated to Lesotho by the countries and bodies that were prepared to make money available for the preliminary investigation. This resulted in inevitable delays in the eventual planning and design of the entire scheme. On the other hand, also in consequence of the fact that it is a joint project, South Africa had of necessity to be satisfied with certain of the requirements laid down for the smooth progress of such a scheme before a start could be made. I am in a position to say that we have now made a great deal of progress and that we are very hopeful that the investigation will be completed in the coming year. The next phase will then be proceeded with.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a question relating to his reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia. Is it not compulsory for Government departments dealing in the foreign market to cover themselves against loss on foreign exchange with the Reserve Bank, or do they not have to do that?

It is not compulsory.

I see. Would it not be advisable if they did do that?

Mr. Chairman, if I may just comment on that, I want to say that, just as the Government does not normally insure all sorts of things that might be insured, so in this case too we do not make it compulsory. Quite honestly, I do not think it is advisable to make it compulsory.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 18.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the additional amount of R500 000 that is to be voted and one compares it with the revised amount of R632 million that was voted, then one realizes that this department did well and was very close to the mark with its budget. We shall be satisfied with an explanation from the Minister with regard to programmes 2 and 3. In the first case there is an increase of just over R500 000 and in the second case there is a decrease of R72 000.

Mr. Chairman, the underestimation in the case of the programme for university training can actually be ascribed to a miscalculation or incorrect anticipation with regard to the so-called ad hoc subsidies. As the hon. member knows, the universities are subsidized according to a subsidy formula. However, there are a number of items that have to be calculated on an ad hoc basis every year. These are in connection with housing subsidies, non-pensionable allowances and, in particular, interest on and redemption of capital loans. Consequently there was an underestimation as far as these ad hoc subsidies were concerned.

The opposite happened in the case of post-school education. This concerns technical colleges and technikons in particular. In that case there was excess provision. One reason for this excess provision was that there were in fact more vacancies than expected, particularly in technical colleges. In the second place, too much money provided for technikons and technical colleges for contributions to the interest on and redemption of loans they raised, either from the State or under Government guarantee from the private sector, because both last year and this year there was, at the request of the Treasury, a slowing down on the implementation of existing projects or programmes in connection with building works for new facilities. These are the two main reasons.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 19.—“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, if one considers the additional amount that is to be voted for the Defence Force and one compares this with the total of the additional amounts requested, one sees that it is an exceptionally large amount. It is no less than 28,5% of the total amount that is being requested. There are a few questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister in this regard.

If we look at the Special Defence Account and also at the explanatory memorandum it would seem that it was expected that approximately R300 million would be carried over to the pesent financial year and that it was also expected that an additional R100 million would be added to this account. This would therefore have totalled R400 million.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 74.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill and I think all parties have had the opportunity to state their case very clearly, in particular the official Opposition who have felt aggrieved because of the conditions of service appertaining to migratory workers.

They also had a complaint about the association of staff associations vis-à-vis external trade unions. We believe, like the official Opposition does, that all the circumstances surrounding migratory labour practice should be investigated. However, the important difference in our stand is that we believe it should not mean only singling out the SATS but that a full investigation into the whole migratory labour system should be undertaken for all industries throughout South Africa, and preferably an in-depth investigation by the Manpower Commission or a relevant body appointed by it. Ultimately the country will have to recognize that all workers in South Africa will have to have equality before the law and therefore also equality in terms of opportunities and, particular, employment opportunities. If we can justify giving a worker from England, a foreigner, the opportunity to work in South Africa for five years after which period he is entitled to take out South African citizenship, we believe the same facility should be made available to citizens from non-Western countries as well; in other words, also citizens from Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana, Mozambique or any other African country. Those equal opportunities should be made available to those people.

What about people from the East?

My hon. friend from Rissik asks: “What about the East?” Exactly the same should apply. If that man is good enough to come and work in this country, to work for South Africa in the interests of South Africa, and he wishes to stay here and take out citizenship, that privilege should be afforded to him, except for normally accepted legal and criminal reasons. If he passes the normal test for citizenship, then that should be made available to him. Otherwise let us tell the man immediately before he comes here that he cannot take out citizenship in the long run. So although we believe in principle that the official Opposition is correct in saying that a migratory labour system for the SATS is inappropriate, inefficient or not correct, we believe the investigation should be spread across all industries right through South Africa. Then, when it comes to the staff associations, we stated earlier on during the Second Reading debate and at the Committee Stage of the Bill that we believed that there should be a freedom to associate and a freedom to disassociate as well. Should the majority of the members of the staff associations of the SATS show a dissatisfaction with the staff associations by way of a motion on the agenda of the annual general meeting, or perhaps by way of a special referendum, then they should be afforded the opportunity to form a link with trade unions outside the SATS. But the initiative must come from the employees in the Railways, the Harbours or the Airways; it cannot come merely because politicians feel that they should be allowed to go to other trade unions. We believe that that initiative should come from the members themselves. They must show dissatisfaction with the staff association position. We are aware of the fact that during the recent disturbances in the Eastern Province the hon. the Minister and his department would not allow outside arbitration. We are also aware of the fact that a certain trade union agitated to become involved in the negotiating position. The hon. the Minister, I believe, quite correctly said at that stage that it was an internal matter and that it should be discussed there. The gravamen of our standpoint is that the kind of initiative for disassociation and association in trade union matters should come from the members themselves. I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree with us that if the majority of members of a staff association indicate that they are dissatisfied with their own associations, he will not stand in the way to their joining other trade unions outside the SATS.

In conclusion, allow me to say that the conditions obtaining in this Bill are essentially the same as those we had in the previous Bill of over 20 years ago. We believe that it will serve its purpose as the present legislation has its purpose for the past 20 years. The hon. members of the CP say that this will change the political complex in South Africa, but that, of course, is mainly a supposition or a prediction based upon a possible new constitution in South Africa. That, of course, is still something that lies ahead of us and we shall have to see what the future brings for us. We shall be supporting the Third Reading subject to the reservations that I told the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have now discussed this Bill in great depth. I cannot argue with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North when he says that we must give the employee the right to decide to which staff association he wants to belong. I have already spelt out to the hon. member that it is the employer’s right to recognize a trade union. The same goes for the hon. member for Durban North, who has just spoken.

†The hon. member said that we are going to discriminate and that we must give the Black employees permanency. I told the hon. member during the Second Reading debate what the problem was in that regard, but I also said that eventually these things will come right. He said that he was going to use this in Waterkloof and I welcome him to take this Bill to Waterkloof and see what the results will be there.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to improved staff control. He cannot understand why the Opposition wants to incite people of colour. He thinks that there is better evaluation of our staff and he also asked what was wrong with the prohibition on strikes. I agree one hundred per cent with the hon. member for Rosettenville. When we impose a prohibition on strikes in a key industry like Transport Services, anyone who wants us to legalize strikes should really have his head read. I thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his contribution.

The hon. member for Langlaagte once again referred to the tricameral parliament, This legislation has nothing to do with a tricameral parliament. This House has not yet approved the introduction of a tricameral parliament. I repeat that those who drafted this legislation certainly did not have any tricameral parliament in mind. The hon. member for Langlaagte also slighted me. He argued that the new Minister would be a man of colour. He said that the new Minister would be a Coloured, an Indian or an expert, and that therefore I would no longer be the Minister. The hon. member carried on in this vein. However, he cannot show me a single existing Act in which it is explicitly provided that the General Manager of the SATS could be a person of colour. Indeed, there is no Act since 1910 that provides that the General Manager of the SATS should be a White person. That is not stated anywhere in any Act. Why is it that the hon. member for Langlaagte, when he was still a member of the NP. did not exert pressure for the Act to be amended so that we could incorporate the provision that it should only be a White person? It is not our intention to create confusion with this kind of thing.

When I was still in the NP, these things were safe. [Interjections.]

The official Opposition asks me what I am going to do about salary parity. In reply to that question I said that salary parity would now cost us R400 million. That is what I said. Hon. members can go and read it in Hansard. I do not want to start an argument today. However, what did the hon. member for Langlaagte do? He contended that I had reserved R400 million for salary increases for people of colour, whereas I was doing nothing for Whites. Now I ask whether I should let that pass. When I say that salary parity is going to cost R400 million, the hon. member for Langlaagte tells me to my face: “You are reserving R400 million for salary increases for people of colour, but you are giving the Whites nothing.” Surely this is flagrant political manoeuvring. It is aimed solely at creating confusion. I must mention these things, although people have told me that I should ignore the hon. member for Langlaagte. How can I ignore the hon. member? I must rectify these things in Hansard because it …

Are you offering something to the Whites? [Interjections.]

I have a great deal for the Whites. I do not wish to go into details again at this point, details which I have already referred to in any event. In addition, I have already stated the standpoint of the staff associations of the SATS. The main budget of the SATS is in any event to be introduced tomorrow; we can therefore discuss these matters further then.

The hon. member for Kroonstad said that the hon. member for Langlaagte had insulted the officials of the SATS. I did not want to use the word “insult” here today. However, I have no alternative but to agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad that those who drafted our legislation, and the staff associations, have beén insulted by the hon. member for Langlaagte. They do their work with sincere intentions and strive to provide only the best for the employees of the SATS. Then, however, we get that kind of reaction from the hon. member for Langlaagte.

The hon. member for Kroonstad also referred to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who said that he did not speak on behalf of the General Workers Union. In fact he did speak on behalf of the General Workers Union. After all, he championed their cause here. Therefore I cannot but agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad.

†The hon. member for Durban North suggested that the practice of migrant labour be investigated in order to avoid discrimination. That will be the ideal. We shall pay attention to that in future. Attention will also be given to all the other problems we have with the practice of migrant labour. I do agree with the hon. member for Durban North, however, when he says that this whole practice should be investigated. A major problem is, however, the availability of staff to organize these people into the appropriate staff associations. I believe, however, that this is a matter we can discuss again during the Second Reading of the main appropriation of the SATS.

*Nevertheless I thank the hon. member for Durban North and other hon. members of the NRP for their support of this legislation.

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

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us at the moment the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and the Bill itself. I do not wish to deal with the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech because one of my colleagues will do so at a later stage. I wish to deal with the Bill itself.

Expressed very briefly, what this Bill seeks to do is this. It provides that any policeman may search any vehicle on any public road and seize certain articles. The power to search has always been a necessary power for policemen, and policemen in South Africa have always had that power in the same way as police have the power to arrest, to charge or to imprison people. However, all these powers involve a necessary intrusion upon the rights of ordinary people although that intrusion is accepted in the interests of law and order. The rank and file of White people have, through Parliament, accepted the fact that the police must have this power and the right of search and so Parliament— which is the place where the ordinary White man in the street is represented—has passed laws entitling the police to have those rights. Before going on any further in this regard, I just want to point out what the Chief Justice of South Africa has said about the power of search. In the matter of The Minister vs Desai in 1948, vol. 3 of the S.A. Law Reports at page 395, in the Appellate Division the Chief Justice said—

He went on to say that consequently it was the duty of the courts to scrutinize it very carefully. The point I want to make is that in this Bill the police are given an absolute right. Never before in our legal history, as far as I have been able to ascertain, except in one limited example with which I shall deal, have the police been given an absolute right. In fact, even in respect of detention under the Terrorism Act and even in respect of detention now under section 29 of the Internal Security Act a police official is required to have reason to believe that the person whom he is detaining has committed or intends committing an offence or, alternatively, to have reason to believe that such a person is withholding information. Therefore, the Act requires that certain criteria be met before a person can be detained. As far as I have been able to ascertain Parliament has never said that any policeman may arrest anyone or that any policeman may imprison anyone, that any policeman may charge anyone or that any policeman may search anyone, just starkly like that. Parliament has never expressed itself in that manner. The circumstances within which a power may be exercised have always been strictly and clearly defined so that if an arrest or a search is not made in terms of the circumstances prescribed by law, it is illegal and the citizen has a right to go to court for damages. That is why Mr. Justice Harcourt said—

The point is that in this Bill no circumstances are contemplated by the law at all. The Bill simply says any policeman may stop any vehicle and may seize any article.

When the law is passed it lays down and sets out the circumstances in which an intrusion of the individual’s rights may be exercised, and in that way the courts are the guardians of our liberty because in that way the police are accountable to the courts and they do not have unlimited power. The exercise of their power is always very clearly defined.

At the moment, before the passing of the Bill which we are asked to pass, what is the position? At present the powers of the police to search are restricted to circumstances where the police believe on reasonable grounds either that there is an article concerned in an offence on those premises or in that place or that an article is there which affords evidence of an offence or that there is an article there which is intended to be used in an offence. That is the position in terms of the Criminal Code; i.e. Act 51 of 1977. I also mention section 22 of the Code which provides that if a policeman believes on reasonable grounds that a delay in obtaining a warrant would defeat the object, then he can go in and he can search without a warrant. There is one more section that I must mention because it is relevant to the Bill. Section 25 of the Code provides that if a policeman—this is an additional power given more recently—on reasonable grounds believes that State security is threatened or the maintenance of law and order is likely to be endangered, then he may search. Again there must be reasonable grounds. These are very wide powers given to the police, but they are all subject to the limitation that there must be reasonable grounds.

Throughout our legal history we have had these principles that policemen are accountable for their actions and that the police may invade one’s rights but always according to the law. That has been so since the Union of South Africa came into being in 1910. I have very briefly mentioned this because one can see in the history that what we are actually asked to approve in this Bill constitutes a fundamental departure from our criminal law right from the moment of the inception of this State, first as the Union of South Africa and later as the Republic of South Africa.

The Criminal Procedure Act of 1917 was the criminal code of this country from 1917 to 1955. The position was as follows: A policeman who was a sergeant or who had a rank higher than that of sergeant could search without a warrant if he had reasonable grounds for believing that there was an article which was either concerned in an offence or which could serve as evidence of an offence. He could also search without a warrant if he had reasonable grounds for believing that a delay would defeat the object of obtaining a warrant. Then in the 1955 Criminal Code that power was slightly extended so that not only a sergeant, but any policeman could search if he had reasonable grounds. Later, in the 1977 Criminal Code, that power was further extended, as I mentioned earlier, to any policeman, not only if he had reasonable grounds for believing that an offence might have been committed there, but also if there were reasonable grounds for believing that State security or the maintenance of law and order would be endangered. So that is the position we have at the moment. All these powers of the police require them, first of all, to have reasonable grounds before such powers are exercised. In that way—as I have said—policemen can be called to account.

I must make mention of one final amendment, and this time it was a 1979 amendment to the Police Act. It did, in a very limited sense, give policemen an absolute right to search vehicles. What the amendment amounted to was that policemen could search vehicles within 10 km of the border of South Africa, and they had an absolute right to search those vehicles. There was no stipulation that any reasonable grounds were necessary.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree that the point he is raising has already been decided in the Act itself? The Act, as it now stands, does not provide for reasonable grounds. That principle is already embodied in the Act. Does the hon. member agree that the principle he is now arguing is already embodied in the relevant section in the Act?

That is the whole point I am making. We have never before had this principle. The only time this was ever allowed was in a very limited sense on the borders of the country. The existing situation is that on the borders of the country a vehicle can be searched, and this can be done within 10 km of the border. That is an understandable power for the police to have, because particularly since the 1960’s we have been creating, in this country, very long borders. It is therefore obviously necessary, at times, for people leaving the country or entering at those borders to need to be searched in a hurry. Hence that very limited power. That is, however, a very different principle to that involved in saying that any policeman can search any vehicle anywhere in South Africa, on any public road. If one looks at the cases involving public roads, one sees that almost anything is a public road.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member know—is he prepared to admit—that that very power is already contained in section 6(4)(a) of the Act which states—

his duty. That refers to “any member of the Force”, irrespective of his rank.

What Act is that?

I am talking about the Police Act, Act No. 7 of 1958. I refer the hon. member to section 6 involving the “Powers and duties of members of the Force”. More particularly, I refer him to section 6(4)(a) and what follows on that.

The section the hon. the Minister is referring to is the section that allows a search to be made within 10 km of the border. [Interjections.] That is the point I have now made twice. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Minister understands that there is a fundamental difference between searching people on the border and any policeman searching anybody on any public road in South Africa. It has been customary, throughout the civilized world, for people to be searched on borders. They do not have to be searched, but they can be searched. Anybody crossing from one side of a border to another can be searched. [Interjections.] It may very well be necessary to search people on public roads, but then all one has to do is to say that if a policeman has reasonable grounds, he may search anybody on a public road, but to say that he may search anybody without any grounds, without reference to any law, criterion or other legal justification, is a …

Why not? [Interjections.]

Because they are sinners. Just like us. [Interjections.]

Why not? Let me carry on. Then it might become clearer to the hon. the Minister. I will accept that the police have an absolute right to search people within 10 km of a border. As I have said, that limited right is perhaps understandable in view of all the borders we are creating. What does the hon. the Minister want to do now, however? He wants to establish the right to have cars searched anywhere without any accountability, without reference to any law or any legal criterion, and no court can inquire into it. Let me give a very simple example. Let us assume it is polling day in Waterberg and the cars are pouring into the towns from the country at half past eight. An enthusiastic policeman may then stop a whole line of cars and spend two hours searching them. If someone then asks him “What right do you have to search those cars?”, he can reply “I do not have to have any right; there it is in the law.” If he is asked “What did you suspect?”, he can reply: “That is irrelevant. The laws says I can search any car. It is totally irrelevant what my object was. Any legal criteria are totally irrelevant. I can stop cars and search them.” The point really is that, if one passes a law phrased as this one is, the courts are ousted and the police are actually placed above the courts. The courts will then have no power to investigate the actions of the police in a matter like this.

Let me give a further example. Last week a man was shot in a motor-car in Pietermaritzburg. Now, if this Bill had already been passed at that time, the policeman could not have been called to account for stopping the car. If that policeman had then been asked “Why did you want to stop that motor-car?”, he could have replied “It has nothing to do with you; I can stop any car I like.”

You are talking nonsense.

In terms of this Bill he would have said: “I can stop any car I like on any public road without any suspicions and for no reason whatsoever.” He would simply have said: “I have the power to stop any car I like. I have an absolute right to stop any car.”

His powers are limited by section 5 of the Police Act.

There is then nothing further the courts can inquire into.

The policeman already has that right in terms of the criminal code.

I can deal with only one at a time. I think the hon. member for Roodepoort said the policeman can do it in terms of section 5.

I said his rights are limited in terms of section 5 of the Police Act.

Section 5 of the Police Act is an empowering section. It is merely an empowering section. It does not limit rights in any way. It merely says that the police must act to prevent a breach of the maintenance of law and order, and so on. It says he must act to limit crimes in South Africa, and so on. It is not a limiting provision. If one considers that sort of argument, then one asks oneself: Why have we bothered since 1910 to prescribe in what circumstances police may search and in what circumstances they may charge or arrest people? Why have we bothered? Why did we not simply say the police can arrest anybody, they can search anybody, they can walk into any house and they can charge anybody and no reasons need be given? Why did we not simply do that? The reason why we did not is that we have always believed that one ought to be governed by law: The policemen ought to be governed by law; the Parliamentarians ought to be governed by law; ordinary people in the street ought to be governed by law; newspapers ought to be governed by law; and everybody ought to be governed by law. We do not believe in government by people in South Africa, but by the law. It is not for a person to decide what the law is today. The policeman does not decide what the law is today and what it will be tomorrow. He is governed by an immutable law, until it is changed by Parliament. That is how it works and that is what we believe in.

Now we have this extraordinary Bill before us. The hon. the Minister said in his speech it was done on the advice of legal advisers. Well, Sir, they are not elected people, so I can understand how they can produce a Bill like that. It is, however, just not a Bill we can accept.

It is an interesting fact that under the old Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 there was provision made for the power to search vehicles. In fact, it was contained in section 43. Section 43 allowed police to search vehicles when they had certain reasonable grounds for doing so. That section reads as follows—

That is an entirely acceptable power of search, because the policeman has to have reasonable grounds and the court can inquire into it. The court can say that it was unreasonable for the policeman to stop all the cars going into a town in Waterberg on election day. It can say he had no reasonable grounds for stopping those cars. Then damages can be awarded.

That applies to Waterkloof too.

Yes, Waterkloof too. An extraordinary thing was that in the 1977 Act the words “or vehicle” were taken out and it does not appear in section 22 of the present Criminal Code. What the hon. the Minister ought to have done is to have put the word “vehicle” into section 22 of the present Criminal Code. Instead he wants to pass a law which amends the Police Act to give the police an absolute right to stop any car. However good the police are, however necessary the powers of search are, we in this party cannot accept an absolute right given to any citizen or any member of the Executive of South Africa. Those rights, however ineffectively but preferably effectively, must be curbed by law. If the hon. the Minister wants to give the police the power to invade the fundamental rights of individuals and the House passes the law, then it is fine. However, this House must know what it is doing when it passes that law. This House must know that it is giving an absolute right such as has never been done in South Africa before.

That particular point is already law. [Interjections.]

I think I have already made the point. I really do not want to be more than a minute longer. I simply want to say that it is the attitude of this party that putting the police above the law on any public road in South Africa as a general proposition is a principle which we do not accept. We therefore oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that in discussing this Bill we place it on record here and now that in recent times the police have set up roadblocks on various occasions and that there may be doubt as to whether they acted within the framework of the Act. The intention is to clarify that questionable interpretation of the legislation. I think it is important that the exceptional appreciation that everyone has for the way in which the public have reacted at these roadblocks should be placed on record. To the best of my knowledge the South African public have accepted those roadblocks as an essential aspect of the duties of the police and they have complied with them in an extremely obedient and responsible way. When I say this, I must hasten to say at once that the conduct of the Police Force has been equally irreproachable. When we have before us as facts the law-abiding conduct of the South African public, irrespective of the population group or descent of the driver on the one hand, and on the other, the irreproachable conduct of the Police Force, then we cannot but take issue with the PFP concerning its basic philosophy which leads them not to want to support this legislation.

What is the PFP’s argument? Their argument is that when they come to power they will convene a national convention and on that occasion will abolish all limitations on people relating to movement and the freedom of association. From that we can draw the conclusion that one of the first measures which the hon. member for Pinetown would abolish if he were to become Minister of Law and Order would be this measure that we are debating at present. I shall discuss his argument further in a moment.

What do we on this side of the House seek to achieve by means of this measure? It is quite clear that there are two things in particular that we wish to achieve. We could argue about our philosophy with regard to why we want to achieve these things and why we regard them as necessary. On the one hand there is sufficient evidence that increasing quantities of arms are being brought into the country and that there is an increasing onslaught by people who have given up hope for the process of peaceful change. That is a fact. One need make no particular study of this, nor need one display any special expertise, to draw the conclusion that this is indeed a fact. On the other hand, it is purely a matter of good policing to attempt to prevent crime wherever one can. But we differ with the official Opposition on the basic facts. Last year we debated South Africa’s security legislation in detail, and it is our view that that security legislation was based on a specific factual foundation. This factual foundation not only compelled this side of the House to take specific steps; it also compelled a person with the status of an appeal judge and others to recommend such measures. Therefore we regard it as of cardinal importance that we should act as we in fact have, in the interests of the country and in the interests of security.

What is the argument advanced by the hon. members of the official Opposition? They contend that an inflexible constitution which makes provision for human rights and so on would prevent acts of terror from taking place in South Africa. According to them, under an inflexible constitution and a charter of human rights, people would refrain from transporting bombs in cars and committing deeds of terrorism. That is the philosophy of those hon. members. However, that hon. member is creating a mistaken and malicious impression when he creates the impression that this measure authorizes the S.A. Police to act outside the framework of the law. For example, they could supposedly stop cars taking voters to the polls and ask the people what they were doing, and so on. Then the hon. member quoted section 5 of the Police Act in a way which, in my opinion, did him no credit. He did not say that section 5 of the Police Act, Act No. 7 of 1958, expressly stipulates that a police officer on the street cannot do as he likes. His powers are prescribed. Although these concepts are broadly defined, they are most certainly susceptible to finer interpretation. After all, a policeman can only act in the interests of the internal security of the Republic and to maintain law and order. Surely a policeman can only act if an offence or an alleged offence has been committed. Surely a policeman can only act to prevent crime. What else can a police officer do but perform the four tasks I have spelt out? Therefore the impression that the hon. member tried to create is an incorrect one.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take issue for a moment with the hon. members as regards the philosophy underlying a charter of human rights and an inflexible constitution. I think I am justified in saying that I have been schooled by people who put forward these two constitutional instruments as models to be followed in this country. I certainly do not think that I take second place to that hon. member as regards commitment to the fundamental legal principles of this country. However, there is one major difference between that hon. member and myself, and that is that I have reached the conclusion that concepts in jurisprudence such as human rights cannot guarantee law and order in this country. For that reason we are trying to do our best, within the limitation of the factual circumstances, to comply with the demands of the principles of law. But then we must not examine every action of the police and of every Minister of Law and Order in a malicious spirit when they come forward with a measure such as this.

I have no hesitation in recommending to hon. members opoosite that they support this measure. I do so because this measure is in the interests of ordinary, sound police administration, in that a policeman is now being put in a position, within the limitations of the relevant legislation, to establish a roadblock further away than 10 kilometres and to search vehicles. After all, the hon. member must concede that this legislation does not authorize a policeman to search a person. Only vehicles may be searched without a warrant. People must be searched in terms of other legislation.

May I just refer to two statements made by the hon. member for Pinetown. In the first place, he said that the legislation which exists already was adequate. He says that it is correct that the police should have authorization to search a vehicle within 10 kilometres from the borders of our country. But, he said, anything further than 10 kilometres was not acceptable to him.

I did not say that the present law was completely sufficient. Did I not suggest that the word “vehicle” should be added to section 22?

Sir, that hon. member is arguing here as if he is arguing a case before the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. That is not the right thing to do here. We are engaged in laying the foundation for legislation which is rooted in a philosophy. What the hon. member’s standpoint amounts to is that roadblocks are in order within 10 kilometres from our borders, but no further. We in South Africa have sufficient precedents and evidence to prove conclusively that several incidents take place far further than 10 kilometres from the border. For example, it is general knowledge that a heavily armed terrorist was shot dead by a Black policeman four kilometres from the city council of Krugersdorp last year. If the police had been aware that that terrorist was travelling in a vehicle in the vicinity, why should they not have the power to set up a roadblock? The second argument advanced by the hon. member was that if the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that a person had committed an offence, a roadblock and the searching of vehicles was in order. But if the police want to take preventive action, they need stronger measures than those that authorize them to act on reasonable grounds.

Are you in favour of repealing the procedure a policeman has to go through when searching an individual?

How can we equate searching a vehicle with searching an individual? When it is a matter of searching a person, there are several factors at issue, e.g. the integrity of that person … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we on this side and the Opposition will ever find one another as far as this legislation is concerned, and this is so because we interpret the threats against South Africa and the methods South Africa must employ to counter them, in different ways.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to make the remark that I believe that this Bill will be known in the history of legislation as the “Roadblock Bill”. Everyone in this House who wants to be fair and reasonable fully realizes why the hon. the Minister came to this House with this specific amendment of the principal Act. There is very good reason for it.

I want to add at once that I believe that the hon. member for Krugersdorp has effectively replied to the standpoints advanced here by the hon. member for Pinetown. Of course, I have one problem as far as hon. members of the PFP are concerned. It is that they are always inclined to give the rights of the individual a higher priority than the rights of the community. I believe that we must draw a distinction in that regard. In given circumstances it is always necessary that the rights of the individual should be subordinated to the rights of the community. In this particular instance I believe there is sufficient reason for this. When we consider how essential and desirable it is that these specific measures, in terms of which our Police Force is being given the right to take action and set up roadblocks in certain circumstances …

No, not in certain circumstances; in all circumstances.

… then I believe it is essential that we should also take cognizance of the powers and duties of the Police Force as set out in sections 5 and 6 of the existing Act. I should say that we have there a fairly comprehensive definition of a policeman’s duties, activities and powers. As I said, this is contained in sections 5 and 6 of the Police Act.

Now, the fact is—and indeed, the hon. the Minister said this in his Second Reading speech—that where there is any doubt about the statutory authority of a policeman to take action in certain circumstances, it is also the duty and the task of the authorities to see to it that the policeman in question who, in the execution of his task, has to do certain things, should also enjoy the necessary protection and that there should be a due legitimization of his position in the execution of his task and of his responsibilities. However, I do not believe that we can discuss this whole piece of legislation meaningfully if we do not take into account the fact that circumstances in our country have developed in such a way that it has become essential for us to amend the existing Act again and not be obsessed by the provision relating to an area 10 kilometres from the border of a foreign State.

We must take into account the fact that the winds of change that have blown over Africa have not left this country unaffected either. Because this is so, it is essential that we should also take cognizance of the fact that the duties, the responsibilities and the powers of the members of the Police Force have also been considerably expanded and that he is also being entrusted with new responsibilities, and that nowadays he is also primarily someone who is held responsible for the protection of internal security. Therefore, taking all this into account, this legislation which the hon. the Minister has introduced in this House is a more than reasonable step, because it vests in our Police Force those powers to act not only on international borders within a specific area, but also in the areas to which those borders have shifted; in other words, to all places in our country—at Soweto or at any other place. It is essential that our Police Force should have the necessary powers there, too, to act in the knowledge that he enjoys due protection. He must not only have the responsibility to perform a task; he must also have the certainty that in the execution of his task he will be protected by the legislation. It is for that reason that we say that it is essential and reasonable that this legislation be introduced in this House.

When we do so, we must also take cognizance of the service rendered by our S.A. Police in the execution of this task. Roadblocks are no novelty for us; to tell the truth, they are virtually a daily experience, particularly those of us who come from the remote areas and have a lot of experience of roadblocks. We really regard it as a necessity that this legislation, too, should define afresh the powers of our Police Force, and do so in clear terms. For this reason, too, one can only agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that the conduct of the S.A. Police to date in the execution of their task as regards the establishment of roadblocks is really deserving of appreciation. We know that they perform this task in a reasonable and fair way. What is more, there is sufficient evidence in our country to prove that the general public reacts with the same understanding. In my experience I have never known a member of the public to act in an unreasonable way when stopped by the police and his vehicle searched, etc.

Except the crooks.

Except the crooks, and I shall come to that. Therefore one cannot but pay tribute in this House today to our people for their tolerance and understanding, as I have already said, and also to make special mention of the way in which the S.A. Police carry out their duties. Here I also wish to include the police reservists. We on the platteland are aware of the role played by the police reservists in this regard as well. At present the Police Reserve consists of between 25 000 and 26 000 men. This is a very large number and it has also been said that the increase in this force in recent times has been approximately 119%. Once again, one must take cognizance of the fact that the ordinary farmer makes his contribution, too, by joining the Police Reservists and plays his part in that regard, often making great sacrifices and taking great risks, to look after the security of our country in this respect as well. We take pleasure in supporting this legislation, because at roadblocks one does not only encounter members of the S.A. Police Force but members of the Defence Force and the Commandos as well. Wherever one travels by road in our part of the world, one encounters many members of the Defence Force who assist the police. In this regard I shall be obliged if the hon. the Minister would explain something to us. When the members of the Defence Force are involved at a roadblock, they are subject to certain standing orders relating to discipline—I think the section in question is 103bis—which limit their actions there to an extent. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is of the opinion that the members of the Defence Force who assist at the roadblocks have sufficient protection, because when a member of the Defence Force is present at a roadblock where terrorists, for example, are encountered, he may fire at such terrorists in given circumstances. In such a case he must enjoy certain protection. I am now referring specifically to our commando members, because this is a matter of importance to them. They serve with the S.A. Police. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister were to give us clarity in regard to that point as well.

When we think of roadblocks in South Africa today, we think mainly of the establishment of road blocks which are primarily aimed at promoting the security of the country; that is to say, to catch saboteurs, terrorists and arms smugglers. However, this is not all because after all, there are other criminals as well. In particular, organized crime in our country makes large-scale use of stolen motor vehicles. Accordingly it is essential to note that we want to use our roadblocks not only for the purposes I have mentioned, but also to combat other crimes. Therefore this is a service to our community that is just as essential as the others. Then, too, there are the drug pedlars.

Looking at all these factors in general, one is amazed to note that the official Opposition does not lend its sympathetic support to the acceptance of this Bill. We must not be obsessed by the rights of the individual in specific circumstances; in this situation, and bearing in mind the reason why the Bill was introduced, we must take a broader view and try to determine what is in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with legislation that empowers the S.A. Police to search motor vehicles, but I shall return to this in more detail later. The hon. member for Pinetown touched on certain matters, and in my opinion the hon. member for Krugersdorp gave him a good reply to them.

It seems to me that this is just another method being used today to get at the police as such. The arguments of the official Opposition have nothing to do with the legislation as such because if one listens attentively to what is actually being said one soon realizes what is at issue. I notice an hon. member opposite is shaking his head, but surely that is the case. They cannot get away from it. The hon. member for Houghton has just left. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp said weapons were being brought into the country, her first reaction was: “why?” I now want to ask what reason she had for asking “why”. What did she mean by that?.

The hon. member for Berea can reply to that question right now. [Interjections.]

I heard an hon. member say they have no objections and that is actually what it amounts to: They have not objection to weapons being brought into the country. That was the only conclusion I could arrive at after that question was put.

Nico, if it had not been you speaking we would have become angry.

That hon. member may as well keep quiet now; he will be given an opportunity to speak.

A few days ago the hon. member for Houghton had questions on the Order Paper in connection with the Police Service. She wanted details concerning people who were arrested near Piet Retief and that is why she put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. I should like to know from her whether she is the “godmother” of all those people who are supposedly being ill-treated by the police. I had hoped she would remain here so that she could reply to this.

There is another question I want to put to the hon. members. It is in connection with the bomb explosion in Bloemfontein. The hon. member for Green Point can reply to this. Suppose the S.A. Police had cordoned off Bloemfontein and had set up road blocks after the explosion at the offices of the Administration Board in Bloemfontein, would he have objected to that?

Why? Of course not.

It amounts to the same thing. It is exactly the same thing. The police are the people in the first line of defence. They are also the people who protect the hon. members opposite while they are sleeping.

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

I do not have the time. The hon. member can participate later.

You have half an hour.

You can have some of my time.

That hon. member can speak later. I repeat: What objection would they have had if road blocks had been erected in Bloemfontein? They would not have had any objection because the explosion had already taken place.

Under what law would they do that?

Our S.A. Police is approximately 70 years old and I can give this House the assurance that, as far as I could ascertain, use has always been made of road blocks. Why has this been done? It is used as a crime prevention measure. The hon. member for Pinetown will grant me that.

But we have nothing against road blocks.

Then why are you opposing them? I want to take this matter further. Over the years road blocks have had very good results.

Then why is the Act being changed?

Why do you want to get rid of civilized principles?

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He knows nothing about the police.

I want to go further. Hon. members must listen carefully now. It has already been said here that weapons are being brought into the country. They are being brought in in large quantities. This cannot be denied because it has been proved to be the case. How are arms being brought in? How are they being brought across our borders?

In the same way as dagga is.

I am coming to dagga. Is the hon. member opposed to searches taking place? Must these things now be allowed in freely? Certain of the weapons being brought in cannot be carried over one’s shoulder. They are brought in in vehicles. Surely that is the case. The only way in which this can be prevented is to set up road blocks. Hon. members will grant me that. We cannot get away from that. Searches must be undertaken to find the weapons. This must simply be done for the security of our country and for the security of our nation. However, these people are opposed to it.