Mr Speaker, the purpose of the additional estimates is to authorize expenditure which was not foreseen at the time of the main Budget. Therefore, the first question we have to ask and which I believe has yet to be answered by the hon the Minister, is whether the expenditure which he now seeks to have authorized was in fact unforeseen. I think the hon the Minister’s proposal, even on his own admission, failed to pass this simple test.

Firstly, I have certain relevant quotations from Hansard in front of me which I could give to the hon the Minister, although I am sure he remembers them, regarding our warning to him that the arbitrary 2% cut would not work. We repeated that warning, and as late as 16 June he stood up in this House and said that he thought it would work. It was quite apparent, however, that when one implements an arbitrary cut in expenditure without having scientifically applied one’s mind to each and every department, it cannot work.

What happened was that when the hon the Minister presented the Budget, he sought to present the image of a new, financially disciplined administration. He sought to give an indication that the lack of control and credibility that had characterized past budgets, was now a matter of history and that here was a finely tuned, disciplined and carefully prepared budget. As we now know, the 2% cut was actually a piece of fiscal window-dressing. As we also know, and as today’s figures demonstrate, the much-vaunted new system of controls obviously has not worked. What the figures do show is a need for a new kind of discipline and a new element of control to be introduced into State expenditure. It is quite clear that even then or within a very short time of the hon the Minister’s telling us in June that the 2% cut still had a chance of succeeding, it may already have been happening that this administration was not only failing to keep to it but was being allowed to incur expenditure which would result in the 2% being exceeded. The reality is that these additional estimates demonstrate the failure of the much-vaunted claim to new fiscal discipline in South Africa under this administration.

The Budget and this particular additional estimate have shown a continuation of the history of a lack of credibility in regard to the Budget, something which has become a characteristic over the years, so that no-one in South Africa can actually plan on the assumption that the figures that are presented in a budget by the Minister of Finance will actually be adhered to.

The question of special expenditure in order to stimulate the economy is also somewhat interesting. Surely the amounts to be devoted to low-cost housing should not be regarded as “special stimulatory expenditure” in the true sense of the term; on the contrary, we should be dealing with the housing problem, which is by common accord a major problem in South Africa, on the basis of a planned scheme. Funds should be made available on a regular, normal basis and in accordance with a long-term plan. No-one is going to argue that the lack of adequate housing for the low-income group is not a major social problem or is not a cause of instability in the country as a whole. It cannot, therefore, just be regarded as something to which the authorities devote extra money on an ad hoc basis to stimulate the economy. It should be part of an overall plan.

What is more disturbing, in dealing with these estimates and with the planned expenditure for this year, is that not all of the money which has been voted for low-cost housing has been spent, either directly by the State or even indirectly through the housing trust. I think an explanation is required by the taxpayers of South Africa in regard to what is actually taking place.

We believe—the hon the Minister may contradict us if he has evidence to the contrary—that bureaucracy, particularly in regard to the availability of land for Black people in South Africa, is probably one of the major causes for the delay in the expenditure of the money which is voted by Parliament and for which our authorisation is sought here today.

The funds pertaining to work creation and relief activity have also apparently not all been spent and neither will they be spent during the current financial year, even though we are now being asked to authorise further amounts. The reality is that, whereas we do have major unemployment which is a major cause of instability in South Africa, even the inadequate amount of money voted to deal with unemployment is not all being spent.

It is interesting that, when I made the original appeal in February, an appeal which I repeated during the Budget Debate, that there should be more money made available for job creation and for the relief of the unemployed, the hon member for Turffon tein interjected that I was a socialist. It was not long before the hon the Minister of Finance also became a socialist because he then voted some of the very money that I had asked for. Apparently, in the eyes of some members of the NP, to vote money for bringing relief to the poor, to vote money for low income-group housing makes one a socialist. So the hon the Minister also became a socialist by that definition. However, he has been an ineffectual socialist because he and his colleagues have been unable to spend the money in order to bring about such relief.

Unless we come to grips in a more meaningful fashion with the unemployment problem of South Africa, beautiful constitutions and nice political schemes will be of no avail. We will be overtaken by a mass of people in South Africa who will be frustrated because they have no jobs and no hope of getting jobs. To my mind job-creation needs to receive the greatest priority possible. For that reason I am disappointed at the amount of money that we are spending on job-creation and even more disappointed about the fact that the full amount voted is not even being spent.

When one talks about unforeseen expenditure, for example aid to farmers because of the drought, one must realize once again that being able to foresee what is going to be needed is part of the task of good government. If one says at the end of the year that one did not foresee that the farmers were going to need more money I do not think one is fulfilling one’s function in respect of being able to forecast what is going to happen on a balance of probabilities in one’s own country.

When we take the stimulation package as a whole we see that it is conceded even by the hon the Minister that the amount of R193 million is not going to be spent during the current financial year. As regards the housing trust we are concerned that while the Exchequer may physically pay out the money during the current financial year, there is every indication that the housing trust will certainly not be able to spend the money during this current financial year.

The impact of the stimulatory package has not been adequate. What is interesting is that when the stimulatory package was announced the hon the Minister said—if I may quote his words again—said that this would bring about a 3% growth rate for the year. Of course, he was wrong again. It is interesting that he conceded at that time that we had been right when we told him during the Budget Debate that the stimulation was inadequate and that he would never attain that growth rate.

One of the difficulties is that the Budget we had last year, while it may have displayed good intentions—I do not doubt the good intentions of the hon the Minister—it was not based on good, accurate forecasting of the realities of the situation in South Africa. It did not take the political effects on the economy into account. That was why we found ourselves both politically and economically in a mess—if I may use that term—last year having I think the highest rate of unemployment we had ever had, the highest rate of inflation we had ever had and the highest degree of unrest in South Africa that we had ever had. With great respect, had the administration been more effective in the presentation of the Budget some of the consequences—I am not suggesting all—of that serious situation could have been avoided.

Today, taking the Budget as a whole, we were supposed to provide for an expenditure of approximately R37,5 billion. That figure is now expected to exceed R40 billion and will be approximately R40,25 billion. What is interesting, too, is that the 1986 Budget Speech presented by the hon the Minister provided for an increase of 13,9% in expenditure over the previous year. He loudly and proudly proclaimed that this would be below the inflation rate. Now he loudly and proudly proclaims that he is only just above the inflation rate. The actual increased expenditure was not 13,9% but 22,2%, however much he juggles with the figures. Those are the real figures. It was 13,9% in the Budget; now it is 22,2% and we can really ignore the stimulatory packages. It is quite clear that the Budget has no credibility; the expenditure figures have no credibility either.

However, I can understand the hon the Minister’s problem in some respects. In this regard I want to quote what he said last year (Hansard: Assembly, 14 April 1986, col 3275):

Hon members must now listen to the following. It will give them an interesting lesson in economics:

Is that not a fascinating statement? [Interjections.] It is a most remarkable statement!

Why do you not improve on it?

Improve on it! The facts actually prove it.

Prove everybody else wrong.

The hon the Minister’s economic policies set certain monetary targets which were related to the expected growth and inflation rate. The monetary targets were not reached; in fact, we had a growth in the money supply far below the inflation rate. What happened was that the inflation rate went up! If anything can be shown to have been wrong, it is his predictions. He is shaking his head and one can hear it rattle all over the House and South Africa. [Interjections.]

At least it is not empty.

Yes, it has little pips in it.

His Budget initially did not provide the stimulation; his forecast of growth was wrong; his forecast in respect of the money supply was wrong; and his forecast in respect of inflation was wrong. That is, unfortunately, what has gone wrong with this whole Budget and our situation.

Let us go a little further. One of the major reasons for the lack of growth in the economy of South Africa has been the fact that there has been a lack of confidence. There has been a lack of confidence from abroad for reasons which we cannot go into in the this debate because, Sir, you will rule that I am out of order. Obviously I would not dare to transgress that rule. [Interjections.] There has also been a lack of confidence locally— this is within the ambit of the debate—on the part of both business and the consumer. This factor does relate to the lack of growth. This lack of confidence locally is of course due in part to economic factors but the major factor in regard to the lack of confidence has been political—not only the unrest but also the absence of visible and understandable long-term Government plans to solve the country’s major problems.

The question, particularly, which the people are asking is whether the Government has a workable constitutional dispensation acceptable to all sections of the community, or at least a majority of them. We can add to this the Government’s inability in the economic field to get inflation under control and to take adequate measures to enable the unemployment problem to be kept at least within reasonable limits. The reasons for the lack of confidence in regard to growth now become patently clear. It is a combination of lack of confidence in regard to economic management on the part of the Government and a lack of confidence in regard to the political planning and ability of the Government.

When we consider that lack of confidence the Government’s inability in regard to the economy, it can be readily understood that when the Government seeks an expression of confidence in itself from the electorate, it must steer away from the public opinion factors which cause the lack of confidence in the economy. The Government has to divert public attention by using emotional issues arising from foreign pressure and local terrorism and seek the confidence of people on the basis of emotional patriotism rather than on a basis of the rational and logical analysis of socio-economic political situations.

Time will tell whether the people who have expressed their lack of confidence in economic terms by not spending, by not borrowing and by not investing—because that is the reality which has brought us to this economic situation and the lack of growth—will be misled into expressing confidence for emotional reasons in those who have contributed towards their economic misfortune. That is the only hope that the Government has in regard to that aspect.

The other question traditionally asked in additional estimates debates is whether funds are available to meet the extra expenditure which is sought. We have previously expressed our views—and I do not want to repeat them—in regard to the use of the Central Energy Fund for the so-called stimulatory package. However, despite inflation, the estimated income from ordinary revenue is only about R113 million higher than budgeted which, seen in the context of the Budget as a whole, is only approximately 0,33%.

Were it not for the windfall of higher tax arising from mining, particularly from goldmining—which in turn is substantially due to another misfortune we have had, viz the depreciation of the rand—the revenue position excluding the drawings from the Central Energy Fund would in the light of the increased expenditure have been extremely troublesome for South Africa.

Of course, the Government has also aggravated the position by deciding to repay the loan levy with interest—which is a total of approximately R200 million—during the current financial year. I do not want to redebate the loan levy with the hon the Minister. I think we have had our debate on that, although I would be quite happy to do it again if he would like to. However, and what is significant about it, is that the hon the Minister decided that the repayment cheques should be issued by not later than 30 March, and the financial year ends on 31 March. What is the significance of wanting to have it in this financial year? I think that the hon the Minister has to tell us. No doubt what he would like to see is that the money is in the hands of the people so that they can feel happy about it in sufficient time to have an impact on other events. That really is something which he needs to explain: The significance of 30 March and the end of the financial year.

What has also happened, despite protestations to the contrary, is that Government borrowings have vastly exceeded the amounts provided for in their original Budget. The hon the Minister says that he has already received R400 million more than expected from the Public Debt Commissioners and that new stock and other issues and sales and bonds also show R1,5 billion in excess of the Budget. I think it is fascinating that the hon the Minister stated that it was not necessary to go to the financial markets in order to finance the loan levy. However, he has been into the financial market to a far greater extent than he ever said he would go!

Two further issues arise on which I need answers from the hon the Minister. How much of current expenditure is actually being financed from borrowings this year? What are the actual percentages if current expenditure is being financed from borrowings? What will the position in regard to financing current expenditure from borrowings be if the R1 billion, approximately, to be drawn from the Central Energy Fund is also to be regarded as a borrowing? Whether it is going to be repaid, or not, is of course a different issue altogether. We need to know this because the hon the Minister has indicated quite clearly that current expenditure should not be financed from borrowings. He has made that very clear.

Secondly, let him tell us what has happened to his target of a deficit before borrowing of 3% of the GDP. He actually said that he was going to have a Budget deficit of 2,7%. I think that has gone up in smoke. Therefore, we need to ask whether or not there has been a healthy financing of State expenditure. To some extent the answers which the hon the Minister will give, will provide a reply to that question.

The hon the Minister has chosen as a departure—if I may use the word to some extent—to highlight a number of expenditures, and I should like to deal with some of them. The first of these is one which, perhaps is close to your heart, Mr Speaker, bearing in mind your own past, and that is the question of public order and security.

I really would not know what it is all about.

You would not know what that is about. Well, Sir, we forget very quickly! [Interjections.]

The merger of the S A Police and the S A Railway Police—I prefer to use the term “merger” rather than the term “take-over” which the hon the Minister used—should certainly not result in greater expenditure; on the contrary, I think, if we take the two budgets together, it should, in the long term, produce savings through rationalization. That there would be higher expenditure due to the unrest was to be expected. In fact, I think many people who look at the figure of the extra expenditure provided in these additional estimates may well come to the conclusion that it is less than they expected it to be.

However, what needs to be considered—I hope you have some faint recollection of this, Sir—is the size of the Police Force. The extent to which the resources of the Police Force have been stretched and the strain to which individual policemen have in many cases been subjected, not only due to the tensions of their work, but also due to the long hours, and the effect of this on their personal lives and their families, should be appreciated in this House and also by members of the public.

What has also happened, is that the stretching of these resources has affected other police activities. The increase in crime has been more than double the rate of increase in the population during the past year. Crime is therefore increasing at more than twice the rate at which the South African population is increasing. The public is concerned about the number of police available for the prevention and detection of crime, and in many suburbs the level of crime has reached quite epidemic proportions. The authorities, under the former Minister of Law and Order, had a plan to increase the size of the Police Force. However, the programme was started too late and is going too slowly, and the protection against crime is utterly inadequate. More police are needed on the beats and streets of South Africa to protect our people from crime.

Especially in Hill-brow.

I must tell hon members that we, in fact, would have liked to vote more money in order to have more policemen to protect us against crime, but unfortunately I am not allowed to move such an amendment.

This brings me to the question of the provinces and the three administrations. The amount of additional money to be voted for the three administrations and the provinces is becoming very large. Decentralization can be beneficial, both politically and administratively, but the duplication of bureaucracy and the multiplicity of political functionaries is unhealthy. There are disputes about this duplication, or even triplication or quadrup lication, and more about the cost. It would therefore be appropriate if an independent business-oriented inquiry were conducted to determine the degree of unnecessary duplication, the cost of the same and the desirability and feasibility of eliminating this duplication.

I now want to deal with one last individual item; the others, I think, my colleagues will deal with later. I am referring to the Bureau for Information. Here another R3,723 is requested. Certain savings are referred to. In fact, in regard to Programme 5, over R10 million is asked for. It is said that this is, and I quote:

We regret that we cannot support this. The distinction between the State and the Government is not accepted by the Government. If South Africa is to be projected, we will be supportive. If the State is to be projected, we will be supportive. What is happening at the present moment, however, is that this bureau is being used as a propagandist for the policies of the NP and its activities. As we are sitting here now, political choices are shortly to be made by the electorate.

This is not a legitimate charge on the taxpayer. [Interjections.] It is an illegitimate charge on the taxpayer. It is an abuse of the taxpayers’ money to use it to advocate one political party in South Africa. The bureau is not solely an information bureau for South Africa or for South Africans. At least a substantial part of its activities is to further the policies of the governing party. This is an entirely unacceptable concept and it is one which brings the bureau into disrepute in the eyes of the public. The bureau should be turned into something which is designed to improve the image of South Africa, into something which is a State organisation, as opposed to a Nationalist Government organisation. Then it will have our support. However, on the basis on which it is conducting itself at the moment, we will certainly not vote for more money for this organisation. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding what the hon member for Yeoville thinks or says of the hon the Minister of Finance, I want it on record that I have a very high opinion of and great appreciation for the hon the Minister. I want to wish him everything of the best for the difficult and exacting task that rests on his shoulders.

The hon member for Yeoville said—this is how I wrote it down:

He was speaking about the PFP.

It seems to me he has not read the Business Times of 15 February. Perhaps he does not want to. I want to quote him an extract from it:

Then there is a reference to a certain table. I quote further:

It goes on in that vein. Let the hon member for Yeoville go and read it.

May I put a question to you?

I did not interrupt the hon member whilst he was speaking. [Interjections.]

It surprises me each year that with the debate on the Additional Appropriation the hon member for Yeoville stands up here and enters into a long-drawn-out, idiotic financial debate with the hon the Minister.

This Additional Appropriation Bill is actually a Bill earmarked for the committee stage, with a limited period of time allocated to it. The hon member for Yeoville has already taken up half an hour of that time. Instead of confining himself to the additional expenditure, thereby allowing each of his hon colleagues sufficient opportunity for obtaining the necessary information from the relevant Minister in regard to his own field of study, even calling the hon the Minister to account, the hon member wastes the time of the House and also that of hon members. In fact, for the umpteenth time he has engaged in an unnecessary debate here. It is a pity that I have to say, in my farewell speech, that it is unfortunately a weakness, on the part of the hon member, to continually be wanting the spotlight on every occasion, frequently at the expense of his own hon colleagues. [Interjections.]

On analysing the additional amounts that have to be voted, one finds the total additional amount being voted to be only 5,9% of the original budget. In the light of the fact that a budget has to be planned and worked on more than a full year in advance, I want to contend that an additional amount of only 5,9% of the original budget, and the fact that six departments remained within their budgetary limits—I am now referring to that 2% decrease to which the hon member referred— is an exceptional achievement for the hon the Minister and the departments in present-day circumstances, and they ought to receive the thanks and appreciation of hon members.

After a further analysis I briefly want to highlight some of the Votes in regard to which there were greater increases. The hon member did refer to some of them, but I want to advance reasons for that. The first is the Foreign Affairs Vote with a 20,1% increase. The reasons for this are: (a) the result of exchange rate fluctuations; (b) incentives for the establishment of industries in the TBVC countries and (c) the creation of job opportunities in the TBVC countries.

Secondly there is the Education and Training Vote with an increase of 36,5%. The reasons for this are: (a) a further extension of pre-primary and primary education to the tune of R8,75 million and of secondary education to the tune of R14 million and (b) new capital expenditure of R24 million.

Thirdly there is the Manpower Vote with an increase of 9,5%. The reasons for this are: (a) the introduction of special training programmes for the training of the unemployed and (b) an increase in the wages of workers and capital expenditure in the protected labour schemes and workshops which can contribute to the handicapped in the employ of the protected labour factories being meaningfully and productively employed.

Fourthly there is the Home Affairs Vote with an increase of 20,1%. This can chiefly be ascribed to the speedy issuing of the uniform identity documents.

Fifthly there is the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote with an increase of 10,4%. A variety of functions devolved to the four provinces, and the only functions for which additional funds are being requested are those in regard to local government institutions and social pensions and allowances.

We must take into account that there were very good reasons for these few major increases, as I have indicated. We must take into account, in particular, that advance calculations are based on many variables, for example the gold price, the exchange rate, the oil price, the disinvestment campaigns, the boycotts and climatic conditions. That being so, we must again sincerely congratulate the ministries and the officials on their submissions.

For each of us there is a time for coming and a time for going. My time for going has now come. It has been a privilege and an honour to have been able to represent the voters of such an exceptional constituency as Smithfield for nearly 23 years. I want to thank them very sincerely for having supported and borne with me throughout the years. To you, Mr Speaker, the hon the State President, all my colleagues and officials I want to extend my sincere thanks for the co-operation, the goodwill, the comradeship and the loyalty. May things go well with you, with the NP and with our country. I bid you farewell.

Mr Speaker …

Where do you stand now?

Mr Speaker, I make a strong stand for South Africa and I shall be coming back after 6 May. [Interjections.]

We want to thank the hon member who spoke before me, and bade us goodbye, for his co-operation in the past. If he were to return on a visit after 6 May, however, he would see what party was sitting on that side of the House. To him I say: Have a lovely rest and goodbye.

The CP does not want to speak at any great length about this Additional Appropriation Bill, because there are quite a few of questions we shall be putting to the hon the Minister in the Committee Stage. There is one matter on which I agree with the hon member for Yeoville, and that is that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information sits with a gigantic sum of money, with the department which is actually an NP propaganda machine. It is used and abused, and the money is spent and misspent. It is shocking to waste R4,3 million on a little song, whilst the people in South Africa are starving. The NP has no shame where that is concerned. They do not give a fig what happens.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

The truth of the matter is that the Government is wasting R4,3 million. Now hon members say I should be ashamed of myself because the Government is wasting taxpayers’ money while people are starving. [Interjections.] No, those hon members ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Let us have a look at what is budgeted for agriculture in the Additional Appropriation Bill. For Vote 18—Agricultural Economics and Marketing—the budgeted amount is R23,253 million. One should just compare it, however, to everything given to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

If we look further we see that Vote 28 has been completely omitted. For the Administration: House of Assembly and those matters for which a certain sum should be budgeted, a round zero is allocated. In the Additional Appropriation Bill not a brass farthing has been allocated for the Administration: House of Assembly. There is nothing, just a round zero. [Interjections.] For the Administration: House of Representatives, however, an additional amount of R46 106 000 has been budgeted and for the Administration: House of Delegates an amount of R35 629 000. Where is the hon the Minister of the Budget in the Administration: House of Assembly? Could he not get one brass bean? [Interjections.] Here are the documents! [Interjections.] I am coming to that. From a transfer from the Central Revenue Fund to the Administration: House of Assembly there is nothing in this Additional Appropriation Bill. For the House of Representatives, however, there is R46 106 000 and for the House of Delegates R35 629 000. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning cannot read.

Here it is. Here it is clearly stated.

Let us look at the Additional Appropriation for the Administration: House of Assembly. From what it has saved from its own funds, a supplementary amount of R10 200 000 is going to the Agriculture and Water Supply Vote. That is probably what the hon the Deputy Minister is referring to. That is the amount which the Administration: House of Assembly has saved from its own provision. It is only R10 million—that is all!

If we look at what is stated here, for example, we see the subsidies granted to the various provinces. These are the official documents I have here before me. If these are not the official documents, he must tell us why they are false documents.

As far as the Transvaal is concerned, for example, we see that the increase in what is being spent on local government amounts to R185 275. Here it is stated that the amount of R181 510 000 is being requested for expenditure on social pensions to Blacks and for financial assistance to Black local authorities and former development boards in the form of bridging finance.

This situation is due to the fact that the police have their hands tied because the NP’s laxity. Law and order could not be implemented. Rent and service charges have not been collected, and now we have this bridging finance. This is being hidden away in various departments—here, there and everywhere—so that the taxpayers do not see what is going on.

What is the position in the Cape? In the same documents published by the Government we also see certain amounts being hidden away. Here, for example, mention is made of “urgent needs of Black local authorities” for which an amount of R3 million is being allocated. For special local authority job-creation projects an amount of R8 million is being allocated. For financial assistance to the Office for Community Services and Black local authorities an amount of R74 910 000 is being granted. The total amount being granted for these matters in the Cape is R85 910 000, another amount that is being hidden away.

Nothing is given for agriculture as such. Must the local authorities also be financed in this way, or does the Government want events to take place similar to the ones in the Black residential areas, with uprisings and disputes, stone-throwing and arson and their also getting attention? Is that what the Government is heading for? [Interjections.]

Let us look at what amounts are going to the Orange Free State. For the provision of bridging finance to Black local authorities an amount of R52 692 000 has been granted, and for the payment of social pensions and allowances to Black people the relevant amount is R5 268 000.

Where does this amount of R52 million come from? Why is justice not done in those Black residential areas? Those people must also be looked after, but the Government must not tie the hands of the SA Police, the Defence Force and the security personnel so that they cannot take the action they need to take.

Let us look at the prevailing situation in Natal. [Interjections.] The voters must elect the CP to power and we shall then ensure that there is law and order. The hon the Minister of Law and Order accused me the other day of saying that the police do not maintain law and order. They do, but the hon the Minister, as their political head, and his people in the NP, tie their hands. What happened when the police had to take action in the Eastern Cape? A judicial commission was appointed and the police there were charged. Is that how law and order should be maintained? [Interjections.]

Let us look at the situation in Natal. For the bridging finance in regard to the former Natalia Development Board and Black local authorities an amount of R15 611 000 has been allocated.

The total amount for this bridging finance, etc, is more than R300 million. That is not right.

I now want the hon the Minister of Manpower’s attention. [Interjections.] No, he is sitting there like a corpse, Sir. He is dead as a doornail and does not hear me speaking to him. [Interjections.] The other day that hon Minister spoke here in the House as if he were being paid to act like a clown in a circus.

Is that so?

He did not say one single word about manpower, about the workers of South Africa. Let him go and have a look at his speech. He said nothing about that.

I spoke about those who run away.

No, Sir, this hon Minister is more concerned about his and his sons’ private money-making transactions than he is about the workers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

About his case for libel!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I object to the flagrant, insulting allegation which the hon member for Sunnyside has just made in such a cowardly fashion in this House, an allegation which he will not repeat outside this House … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am telling you …

Order! The hon member for Sunnyside must take note that a point of order is being raised.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

Order! What did the hon member for Sunnyside say?

Mr Speaker, I said that the hon the Minister was more concerned about the profits that he and his son could make from business transactions than about the workers of South Africa, because he did not say a word about the workers in the debate.

Order! What is the hon member for Sunnyside insinuating?

Sir, if it is a problem, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] I shall say it to the hon Minister outside the House.

Order! It is not a question of whether it is a problem or not. It is for the Chair to decide whether the hon member’s statement is permissible. I am ordering the hon member to withdraw that insinuation.

I withdraw it, Sir, because I do not want to take up the time of the House with this matter. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon the Minister to say that an hon member said something in a cowardly fashion?

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “cowardly”.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

The other day the hon the Minister spoke for the entire afternoon but said nothing about the workers of South Africa.

And you took to your heels! Why did you leave Sunnyside?

What has happened to your case for libel? [Interjections.]

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that we in South Africa are concerned about the workers. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is not concerned about the workers. What is he doing to help the workers?

Your Director-General is doing a great deal, but not you!

We shall be hounding that hon Minister in that constituency. In any event, after the election he will not be returning here. [Interjections.]

Order!

We want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that he could have provided in the Appropriation for many of these items of expenditure. We now want to know why he did not include them in the Appropriation. Why were they held back until we have come to this Additional Appropriation?

What are you doing in Wonderboom?

The hon the Minister asks me what I am doing in Wonderboom.

Running away!

No, if I go somewhere to unseat a Minister I do not think it is running away. [Interjections.] If that is running away, I really don’t know. If I stand against the Minister, and that is regarded as “running away”, I must say it is a poor little argument on the part of the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside really surprises me. I see him here in the lobby and he appears to be such a dignified person. Today, however, there was so much bitterness in his voice and in his approach to the country’s problems that I had difficulty in reconciling this with the conduct of a person I regarded as a dignified person.

Gert, he is cross because they do not want him in Sunnyside.

The hon member for Sunnyside’s conduct is, of course, characteristic of that of his party. He runs away from his constituency to another one, as he and his party run away from the realities of South Africa, refusing to address them. [Interjections.] I do not think I should spend any more time on the hon member; I think the result on 6 May will be a better indication, than any words I can utter here today, of what the voters of South Africa think about him and his party. The suggestion that he will be sitting on this side of the House is definitely the product of a flight of fancy. There are definitely few of us with such an imagination. [Interjections.]

I well remember the day when I stood up in this House a few years ago to make my first speech. I remember saying that it was with trepidation that I stood up to do so; today I am actually speaking with more trepidation. Thinking back to those days, I realise there was every opportunity to improve on what I did, to correct any mistakes I made on that occasion. Today it is different. On that occasion I had certain wishes and desires to which I gave expression, and today I also want to do so.

The first wish I have is that after 6 May hon members will obtain the secretarial services which the Schlebusch Commission recommended. [Interjections.] In this connection I want to take up the cudgels for hon members. I want to advocate that they be placed in a position to get that assistance so as to increase their productivity.

I cannot draw a better picture of this than by speaking subjectively about it. When I was a professional man and had to plan my time in such a way as to make optimum use of it, I had such assistance to support me. I never dialed a telephone number, only to hear the engaged tone, because I had a telephonist who made my calls for me, and she was the one who struggled to get through to the numbers. She spent her time doing that, and her time, of course, was quite a bit cheaper than mine.

Another simple aspect of our life here is that of filing. I, of course, had such assistance in my office, just as anyone occupying an executive position has such assistance. When I came here and had to do my own fifing, I experienced many problems. I put away documents in the wrong place, and when I wanted them, I could not find them. Sometimes I had the same document in my hand three or four times without realising it was the document I was looking for. [Interjections.] I was perhaps not a very good member of the House, but of one thing I am certain: I was a much poorer fifing clerk than I was a member of the House.

We advocate higher productivity, and when one considers the position of hon members sitting here, one cannot but describe them, to use the English expression, as “executive officers”. They are people who have executive duties. They must liaise on a wide front and how such people can reasonably be expected to carry out those duties without some assistance to support them is beyond me.

There is another aspect in regard to which I want to lodge a plea, and that is that we introduce a national contributory pension scheme in this country as quickly as possible. I remember 25 years ago, when I was elected as the representative for Port Elizabeth North—and I must express my thanks to voters such as the hon member for Smithfield who have supported me throughout the years—and came to know those people’s needs more intimately, the one aspect that struck me was the fact that whilst there were some employers and employees who systematically made provision for their old age, in many cases such provision was not made. I am thinking, for example, of people in the building industry. In those days there was no pension scheme for them. In that particular case, the present-day situation is different. There are also many small employers, but for the employees who play such a vital role in those small firms, there is for the most part no provision for their old age. No provision is made for pensions for them.

When I came to this House I found that as far back as 25 years ago, pleas were being lodged in this House for the introduction of a national contributory pension scheme. I am glad to be able to say that some of my colleagues who came here with me in 1981, for example the hon member for Witbank and the hon member for Edenvale, who is not here at present, also furnished pleas for the introduction of a national contributory pension scheme. At that stage the Government had already directed that investigations be carried out and all the reports, regardless of their findings and the difficulties encountered, were positive in stating that a national contributory pension scheme was something that should be provided.

I know that the Government appointed a select committee consisting of hon members of this House, and I understand that the report has now been submitted. When one thinks that the amount paid out social oldage pensions has doubled from approximately R500 million in 1981 to more than R1 000 million in 1986, one realises that the demands made on the Treasury in this regard are going to assume impossible proportions and that the establishment of a national contributory pension scheme is an urgent need.

I know I am not addressing some of the country’s most pressing problems, but the two aspects I mentioned are ones that would contribute to a better South Africa.

Now I come to both the most pleasant and the most diffifult part of what I want to say today. It is pleasant, because it is always pleasant to say “thank you”; it is difficult, because I am sure I do not have the words at my command to do justice to the task I am now faced with. I want to begin by thanking the parliamentary staff—the officials sitting here at the door and those working everywhere in these buildings—for their assistance, friendliness and helpfulness during the time I have spent here. I think they enrich and add to the pleasure of one’s life by the simple but essential services they so willingly furnish to us.

I also want to thank my colleagues, my hon members here. This does not only apply to hon members on this side of the House, but also to my colleagues on the other side, even though the function of some of them was merely to illustrate to me what one should not do or what policy one should not adopt. I am thinking of my bench-mates. I have always moved in the company of the hon members for Hercules and Welkom, the one who is strong and the man who is welcome.

They were good company, Gert.

Yes, they were good company, and I greatly appreciate that fact. I am very grateful for the fact that they could tolerate me for so long.

I also want to express my thanks to the hon the Ministers and Deputy Ministers. Many of them are old friends. I am thinking of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Meiring, whom I have known for so long and the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr K D S Durr. I now have to refer to them as hon Deputy Ministers. I thank them for their helpfulness, not only to me, but also to my constituency and all the voters of South Africa.

Last, but certainly not least, there is the hon the State President. I have known him for quite a number of years. I think that our NP members here, and also our voters outside Parliament, must be grateful to have such a man at the helm in these difficult times. He is someone who stands like a rock in a storm-tossed sea, a rock that tears the waves to foam.

How fortunate we are that such a man will be steering the ship of State in these difficult times to prevent it from running aground on the rocks.

But who made the sea so rough?

I also thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North spoke in what was to all intents and purposes his swansong on a subject which is very dear to the hearts of us in this party, and that is an adequate form of pension for all South Africans. We in the NRP have realised over many years that the current system by which the State is virtually entirely responsible without contributions is just a no-no. It cannot continue. One will have to establish a pension fund to which people contribute. The previous member for Umbilo, Mr Oldfield, spent half a lifetime in this House trying to get that message across. So as the present member for Umbilo, I really do know the story about pensions beause he used to bash my ear with it every time he came back to Natal.

Before I forget, I would also like to thank the hon member for Smithfield for his courtesy, consideration and understanding of my relative ineptitude as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. This will be my last opportunity to thank him for the courteous way he has always treated me in that committee. I am amazed, bearing in mind the composition of that committee, that he has always managed to keep the peace.

I would say that by NP standards the additional estimates this year are not excessively high. I had to insert the proviso “by NP standards” because there is no doubt about it that they do display a certain casualness about these massive sums of money. The hon member for Yeoville clearly indicated that from his point of view this is a very large sum of money. That is also my point of view. However, the only way I can approach this matter in terms of the global sum is to say: Thank God it was not more! It might well have been, bearing in mind the attitude of certain hon members on that side of the House.

It was accepted right from the beginning that as a consequence of the terrorism prevailing in and around South Africa the expenditure on law and order would be substantially higher than was originally budgeted for. We do not begrudge this money being spent. I have very little comment to make other than to say that it is obviously the policy and philosophy of the Government which have caused the unrest for which we have to pay so dearly at the present moment.

There is one other aspect, however, which was touched upon by the hon member for Yeoville which I should like to emphasise, viz that we are paying far more for law and order than merely the money which is being spent through the Budget. As a consequence of the police being tied up in anti-terrorist activities—and I give full credit to them for what they are doing—they are not able to devote the time and put into motion the operations necessary to control ordinary crime to the extent that they should be. There has recently been a spate of programmes on radio and TV about car theft, for example. South Africa has the highest incidence of car theft anywhere in the world; the figure for Italy which was previously the highest in the world is nowhere near that for South Africa today. As a matter of fact, they have more or less cured the situation there. It is estimated that car thefts are costing this country well over R1 billion per annum. That is big money and yet it is a very modest estimate.

A car is stolen every fifteen minutes.

Yes. As far as burglaries are concerned, the amount of money which is being spent in South Africa on putting up burglar bars, putting fences around properties, breeding special types of vicious dogs, etcetera, is very high. This is all part and parcel of the costs that the private citizen has to pay in addition to his taxes to protect himself and his property from the depredations of the lawless.

I do not blame the police because there are few enough of them. In all conscience, I believe that our ratio of policemen to the population is one of the lowest in the Western World. I believe they have an enormous job to do but I maintain that this is part and parcel of what we have to pay in addition to straight taxes because the police are tied up in other activities.

In respect of prisons I see that there are additional sums to be appropriated. Once again, this is quite obviously a corollary to the work that the police are doing. People would not be in prison unless the police put them there. This again is largely as a consequence of terrorist activities or threatened terrorist activities etcetera. Obviously, when they are in prison one has to feed, house, clothe and look after them. That costs money. However, what is the cause of this situation? It is not merely terrorism qua terrorism— people are not terrorists just for the fun of it or even for the hell of it! There are a number of reasons, the principal of which I would imagine is that people dislike the political philosophies of this Government and the way the country is run. Many of the people who are in prison are, however, also there because of the unemployment situation. People cannot get jobs, have no money, become criminals, start thieving and then they go to jail. All these things I believe are interrelated. One cannot afford to ignore this. Here again the hon the Minister of Manpower has to look seriously at the situation of unemployment because this has its repercussions elsewhere.

In passing I just wonder what our situation would have been had influx control not been removed, because annually we previously used to have an enormous number of people going to prison because of influx control infringements. However, that of course no longer is the case.

I did notice further that a considerable amount in these additional estimates is required to meet the additional costs of the provincial administrations. I do not want to be unduly parochial in this regard but it was very obvious when one looked through the figures that Natal which had previously been run by a very good administration, only needed a further 9,67%. On the other hand— I am not going to say whether it is a good or bad administration—in the Transvaal and the Free State they are needing 24% to 25%. [Interjections.] Even in the Cape Province the figure is something like 15%. However, I can appreciate that additional functions have been handed over to the provinces which were previously the responsibility of the various boards dealing with the non-homeland Blacks. They do need quite a lot of money to carry out these functions and therefore I cannot really quibble about this.

A large amount of money was also required to bring the various race groups onto a similar level and to rationalise and one does not quibble with that either. I would therefore suggest that the amount needed for the provinces was probably necessary. However, I would remind hon members that the estimates for the provinces next year are likely to be as much as they were last year. In this regard one has to bear in mind that previously all the expenditure on the educational services was included in those figures. I am just a little bit worried that the costs of running the provinces today are becoming too high.

I noticed further there was a fairly substantial additional increase in the Budget for the Vote of Foreign Affairs to cover the TBVC countries. Again I accept that this may well be necessary in the light of inflation and various other factors. However, I wonder whether we are in a position—I pose this as a question and not as a comment on what happens—to tell some of these countries that are behaving in a peculiar manner, such as Ciskei, to behave themselves or else we will not pay them. After all, the expulsion of people of Transkeian origin out of Ciskei into South Africa is causing considerable inconvenience and expense to South Africa. I believe that it is also causing a great deal of human suffering. These people should be rapped pretty sharply over the knuckles and told “play up or pay up”. I suggest that this is something to bear in mind. I wonder if we are getting full value in this regard.

I would like to remind hon members that this Budget, with the amount that is being added at the present moment, comes to something of the order of R40,2 billion. Five years ago, in 1981-82, the Budget was R15,4 billion; in other words, we have far more than doubled the Budget in five years. That is an enormous increase. I appreciate that we have had inflation; I am perfectly well aware of that. However, as I have indicated previously, I believe and have always believed that governments themselves are largely responsible for inflation. However, hon members and the public should ask themselves, in the light of inflation causing the Budget to grow by two and a half times, whether they have had a similar increase in salary. Have the people’s private bank balances increased to that extent? I do not believe so. This is making it very difficult …

Only their tax went up by that amount.

Yes, their taxes went up by that amount.

I believe that that makes it very, very difficult to justify this huge increase.

It worries me that in spite of all these new increases the situation in respect of housing, particularly cheap housing, is still not being addressed adequately. This is quite ridiculous. The need is there, obviously the money is being collected, the building industry is there, but the building industry is in decline!

Order! I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon member. Hon members must please speak more softly. The hon member may proceed.

In spite of the situation within the building industry—I have made this point before—and with everything necessary being there, including the building industry, somehow or another we cannot get this housing business off the ground. There is no doubt in my mind that if one could get the building industry really moving then, as one of the key industries, it would get every other industry going. First of all it is labour intensive particularly for low-cost housing. People would want to start furnishing their homes and this would get a lot of other industries going. For instance, the white industry—fridges, stoves etcetera—would be needed to fill those homes. Therefore, it is one of the key industries and yet, with all the money and with all the need and with the industry virtually on its knees looking for work, we still cannot get things going. It seems to me as though something is vitally wrong.

Finally, I would like to ask a question in respect of the State President’s Economic Advisory Committee. I understand that there is such a committee and, bearing in mind the difficulties we have with our economic situation, one asks if that committee is effective and, if it is, does it give advice? If it does give advice, is that advice taken? I would suggest that if its advice is no good and this is the consequence, that perhaps we need a new economic advisory committee. I know that the people on that committee are eminent gentlemen in their particular field, but we are in a state of economic difficulty. If these people are no good, perhaps we should have another set of advisers. If they are very good, it is obvious that the advice they give is not being taken. I would suggest that an answer to that question would be helpful.

Mr Speaker, this debate on the additional appropriation is, I believe, one of those debates in which Parliament as an institution comes into its own, because it is an occasion when the executive and their officials have to give account of the reasons why they are exceeding their budgets. They have to come to this Parliament— to all of us, not as parties but as the Parliament of this country—to ask us for extra money. There is always, I think, a special atmosphere in this House when an additional appropriation is debated, because the Ministers and their personnel know that they have to be on their toes for this particular debate. I think that because it is one of the great features of parliamentary government and the right of this Parliament to vote money for the running of the country that this particular Bill has some significance.

The previous speaker, the hon member for Umbilo, touched upon the Foreign Affairs Vote. Now, we are being asked to vote another R200 million plus for the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the explanatory memorandum they simply give four reasons but no allocations of costs, unlike some of the other departments. However, most of it, I venture to suggest, is in fact increased budgetary aid to the TBVC countries. If we add to that the amount which the Department of Education and Development Aid asks for similar purposes—they need R127 million for aid to the self-governing states—we are talking about an enormous sum of money which is to go to the Black states of South Africa. I believe we have to look at these costs very carefully.

The hon member for Yeoville said we should investigate—in fact, we should have an independent audit—how efficiently things are being done, and whether we in this country can actually afford some of the things we are buying or spending money on. There has been an investigation in the Post Office in order to see whether the Post Office is spending money which is appropriate to our requirements.

The hon the State President spent time telling us how much we are spending on Deputy Ministers, governmental agencies etc, and compared us to the USA. However, if we take the sums of money which we have voted these independent and self-governing states, I venture to suggest that we shall see that we are running an enormously top-heavy and expensive structure in this country. I do not believe we can really afford this at the present time. We are now being asked to vote another R300 million and more for Foreign Affairs and development aid for these Black states.

The reality is that, if we did not vote this money, those so-called independent states would be—to use a German word—“kaput”. They would be finished; they would not be able to survive any longer. This morning it was reported in the newspaper that our money—the money which we vote in this Parliament—is being used by those states apparently for the purchase of helicopters, guns and lorries to fight each other or kidnap each other’s head of state. Is that really the kind of thing we should tolerate and should be asked to vote money for? I believe we should get an explanation from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as to what is going on. He makes tough statements like “We will not stand for this”, but he must cut their money off. According to one of the morning papers two helicopters were used. The cost of a little raid like that—if we work it out in rand and cents—is quite high, and the money for it comes from this Parliament. This Parliament pays for that sort of thing. [Interjections.]

Moreover, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’s representative in Ciskei, Mr Christiaan van Aard, the Ambassador, makes the following statement about people who have apparently left Ciskei because of political pressure and are now in Potsdam in South Africa:

This is the kind of mess that this Parliament is being asked to pay for out of its additional appropriation.

Furthermore, there is at present an enquiry into hospitals and health services in Transkei. Those people who come from Natal know that we are carrying an enormous burden for the health of Transkei because the people cross the border and they come to our hospitals in Natal for treatment, which we happily provide. This enquiry shows that the money that this hon Minister is asking us for is not being properly spent. Hospital machinery is being left outside and not being properly maintained, there is no maintenance programme and I think that it is a scandal that this kind of situation goes on.

As far as the provincial sums are concerned, there is an amount of money being given as a grant-in-aid to the Natal Institute of Immunology. We support that. The Natal Institute of Immunology has played a primary role in blood transfusion services and immunological study in South Africa, not just in Natal. However, I believe that it is time that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development followed the example of the United States where the head of state and the department should formulate a clear statement and policy on the whole matter of Aids. Aids is worrying the people of the world, including South Africa, very much, indeed. A lot of nonsense is spoken about it; there is a lot of ignorance about it, but it is a matter of grave concern. The Natal Institute of Immmunology, which we have voted some money for, is one of those bodies which would be well-informed on this subject. I believe that the Government should give a clear lead to the people of South Africa; there should be some kind of publication or pamphlet distributed throughout our schools and post offices on what Aids is, what the problems are with Aids, how one can prevent the spread of Aids and what to do if one thinks that one has Aids.

Furthermore, the Natal Institute of Immunology is involved in blood transfusion services and there are all kinds of wild statements going around the world that South Africa is where Aids is endemic. In fact, even one of the British Royal Family going to visit Kenya took her own supply of plasma. I believe that people should be made perfectly aware that in South Africa that problem is being adequately and effectively dealt with.

Furthermore, there is plasma being sold out of the Orange Free State, plasma which is collected from blood taken in Lesotho. I believe that we should have an assurance from the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development that that blood is subject to the same stringent controls that our own blood transfusion service provides.

Also in the Natal Provincial Administration there is a request for money for subsidised mission hospitals. There is at a mission hospital called Umbonglawane a parentless, abandoned baby, for whom no parents could be found and who has been dumped there as a result of the magistrate in Vryheid taking him away from a happy family that was fostering him. This baby has no parents; it is like the High Priest Melchizadek: Nobody knows where he comes from and it has no ancestors. My concern is that we are being asked to pay to care for this baby. The reality is that a family was prepared to look after that baby, a happy family working in a Black community with four children of their own. The magistrate in Vryheid took that baby away because he said that it was not being adequately cared for in terms of the Act.

The only reason why that baby is now costing us money—we are being asked to pay extra money—is because that baby is a Black baby who has been adopted by a White South African family. I believe that is a scandal in South Africa. [Interjections.] I know that one of the hon Deputy Ministers of Constitutional Development and Planning is seeing what he can do. He has been very co-operative indeed. I do not believe, however, that we can afford to be spending money on apartheid in South Africa at this time, especially not on this kind of situation.

As we have made clear, we are opposed to this kind of expenditure that the hon member for Yeoville, some of my other hon colleagues and I have been outlining and we will vote against it.

Mr Speaker, according to the time allocated by the Whips I unfortunately do not have much time at my disposal. Nevertheless I will do my best to reply to as many of the hon members’ questions as possible. There will be an opportunity later on during the Committee Stage for my hon colleagues to react to the more specific questions concerning their particular portfolios.

†As far as what the hon member for Yeoville called the “arbitrary cut” is concerned, I went out of my way last year to explain to the hon member that, after the entire budget structure had already been completed, it became clear to us that there was a possibility that certain savings could be effected. It would clearly have been irresponsible of us to ignore this. Nevertheless, because of the practical implications and the circumstances involved in drawing up the Budget, it was impossible for us to go back and make an individual examination of each Budget Vote. I told the hon member that before. So, the only option left open to us with which to attempt to restrict the departments in the light of the circumstances as we construed them at that time, was to apply a 2% cut.

In the course of the financial year we experienced rather severe fluctuations in respect of various of our economic variables, and we had to adjust as we went along. We saw that we were not going to achieve our target of a three per cent growth rate and we therefore designed a stimulatory package. This package reflected some very responsible policy-making.

Yet the hon member has accused me by implication today that our allocation of funds for housing was not done according to a plan because, in our stimulatory package we allocated more funds for housing on an ad hoc basis. Before we announced it that stimulatory package was subjected to a process of thorough analysis. I have also explained to the hon member that we had a choice. We could, for instance, have announced a 2% cut in GST. We decided not to do it that way, however, even though the stimulatory effect on the economy would ultimately have been more or less the same. We wanted that stimulation to be channelled into specific sectors of the economy. We wanted not only to meet the objective of stimulating the economy but also to address the problem of certain social bottlenecks for which we did not have enough money anyway. One can never spend enough money on housing in this country, and one therefore works according to a medium-and a long-term plan.

In fact, I received support this morning from a rather unexpected source, namely, the hon member for Umbilo. He said, if we could only get the building industry going, it would help a lot of other industries as well. That was one of the basic motivating factors behind our decision to set aside a very large amount of money especially for the building industry. That was part of the stimulation process.

It has not all been spent.

The hon member must please give me an opportunity. I did not interrupt him. I am trying to address him, and he cannot listen and speak at the same time. [Interjections.] I am repeating all this to the hon member so that he can understand it.

During the course of the year, as we monitored the performance of the economy, we saw before anyone else that at a certain stage the economy was faltering in its process of recovery. Therefore on the basis of selective permission the 2% suspension was reallocated to departments after we had seriously considered the specific priority on which it would be spent.

If the hon member therefore wishes to accuse us today of having made a mistake with the 2% cut because we did not achieve the full amount, I want to say to him that circumstances change in the course of a year. It is the prerogative of the Government to respond to the changing environment, and one of the things we did was to spend the 2% cut in certain specific areas. The hon member may accuse me of inaccuracy but on the other hand I receive support from those people who are in favour of the stimulation of the economy and an adequate response to the demands of the economy.

We are not dealing with a stationary matter when we deal with the economy. The internal environment and the external environment change all the time. How can the hon member therefore expect us to take one shot only at the economy in the main Budget and then stick to our guns for the rest of the year, disregarding all the changing variables in our environment? No, Sir, this Government is a responsible government and it is responsive not only to the needs of the economy but also to the needs of the people.

To insinuate that our handling of housing does not follow a specific plan is sheer folly. We spend enormous amounts on housing in the normal course of events. When we had identified a certain amount of money to be spent on stimulating the economy, yes, in that respect housing was an ad hoc priority which addressed a number of related matters at the same time.

The hon member also accused me of “inaccuracy” as he called it, in relation to the money supply and inflation. It is the easiest thing to pull out a highly technical issue such as that for political expediency purposes, comment on it in a one-sided way and thus create the impression that the Government does not know what is happening. I undertake to ask the Reserve Bank to submit to the hon member a full memorandum on exactly how the process works and what the eventual results were.

The hon member conveniently forgot that an important factor in the money supply exercise is not only the quantum of M3—the broad money supply …

And the velocity.

… but also the velocity. Now the hon member remembers it but when he was making a political point across the floor he very conveniently forgot about it.

I did not forget about it.

The hon member very conveniently forgot about it and he tried to create the impression that our planning was inadequate and that we did not know what we were doing. [Interjections.] To further reinforce his obvious knowledge of the quantum and the velocity I will have a proper memorandum submitted to the hon member.

In my Second Reading speech I stated clearly that the money for housing would be allocated over a period of two financial years. What delayed the allocation or rather the implementation …

The spending.

… yes, thank you, the spending; sometimes the hon member is quite helpful. [Interjections.] … what delayed the spending of the R400 million was the fact that it was not an easy matter to simply launch this particular trust and get it going. The housing trust will go to the large financial institutions and ask for money.

How much?

They said they would get at least another R800 million to make it at least R1,2 billion.

The whole structure will be brought about in a very responsible way. Legal procedures etc delayed the matter and it took longer than we originally anticipated. However, I can say that the moment the trust was properly constituted it was immediately staffed and it is now picking up very promising momentum. I am sure history will show this particular decision to have been one of the most important decisions to be taken where the financing of low-cost housing was concerned.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether one of the problems is not the fact that there is a bottleneck regarding the allocation of land in the urban areas?

I am not in the position to give the hon member the full details. Other hon Ministers have that function among their line functions. All I can say is that I am not aware of any particular bottleneck which is delaying the spending of more money at this stage.

I have told the hon member before that we can waste money in a short period of time, but our business is not to waste money. Our business is to spend money properly, constructively and productively where it is most needed. Land acquisition will also receive the necessary attention. There are no bureaucratic problems standing in the way of land acquisition. [Interjections.] I think the hon member will understand that the acquisition of sufficient areas of land is not something that is easily achieved.

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

No, Mr Speaker, I will not answer that hon member’s question.

The hon member for Yeoville referred to the amount of R193 million. He mentioned it by way of accusing us of not even being able to spend inadequate funds, if I remember his words correctly. The R193 million is made up as follows: R89 million went to low-cost housing, an amount which is still to be spent in the next financial year; R8 million which has still to be spent on job creation; and R100 million for drought assistance which we did not spend in full. Another amount of R4 million was allocated to the feeding programme. This brings the amount that was not spent to R193 million. Therefore I do not think there is any undue delay. This is the flow of funds which we have achieved.

The hon member also accused me again of a so-called inaccuracy, because at that time I acclaimed the fact that Government expenditure would be below the inflation rate, and now I laud the fact that our ultimate expenditure is just above the inflation rate. Fine, if one looks at the figures, they were inaccurate, but when one looks at the circumstances one finds they represent an accurate response to the needs of our environment. I do not think it behoves the hon member to try to achieve a cheap political point in that way.

It is a good point!

The hon member also referred to our revenue. In my Second Reading speech I went into this matter thoroughly and explained that our revenue from GST was down as a result of the fact that the GDP did not grow at the rate that we wanted it to grow. Fortunately for us our total revenue is acceptable, but there were certain structural changes. I cannot see the hon member’s point in that regard. He helped me to explain it.

Now I come to a very important point which the hon member raised again, namely the question of why we are repaying the loan levy now. He said it was rather silly of me to say that we did not need to go to the financial market. The fact is that I investigated the matter thoroughly, We tapped and mopped up money to solve the liquidity problem and we achieved a volume for that purpose which is sufficient also to cover that particular amount of money. If we have the liquidity now to repay the loan levy out of the longer-term loans, why should we not do it? We had already borrowed that money and we had it in the kitty, mainly as a result of our mopping up operations at that time, and what we are doing is repaying the loan levy. If we had repaid other loans that money would have gone back to the financial institutions for reinvestment and would not have landed in the pockets of the consumers where we want that money to go. I have repeatedly told the hon member that we want the consumers to be a little more liquid …

Confident.

… and confident to spend their money. That is why the loan levy will be paid out in the course of March of this financial year, because we can afford it now. The cheques will be dated 18 March 1987, and recipients will have their cheques before the end of March.

By way of an interjection the hon member also mentioned the word “confidence”. I just want to remind him of what is happening in the economy. From a growth rate of minus 1,5% in 1985 there was an increase to a plus 1% growth rate in 1986. I concede immediately that a growth rate of plus 1% is nothing to boast about. The needs of our country are much greater; they cannot be satisfied by a growth rate of 1%. However, in the process we went through two and a half percentage points.

What is happening in the economy right now? In the first half of last year real gross domestic expenditure grew by only 0,5%. However, in the second half of last year real gross domestic expenditure increased by 3,5%. Production also increased in the fourth quarter of last year. That is why we are confident that a momentum is building up in the economy right now. It is important not to allow that momentum to falter again. Therefore, even in the mini-budget—whether there is an election coming or not—we must apply every possible policy instrument that we can in order to maintain this momentum in the economy. What will even be more desirable, will be to increase that momentum.

Therefore, when the hon member talks about confidence, I can confidently say to him that all the information we have at hand at the moment shows that the necessary confidence with regard to expenditure is developing in this economy and, as a result of that, investment will necessarily follow.

You confidently said last year that there would be a 3% growth rate.

Sir, the hon member again refers to the question of the 3% growth rate. In last year’s Budget Speech, specifically under the heading “Strategy”, we talked about a growth rate of 3%. We also referred to that at least once elsewhere. We provided for a 3% growth rate, and we really tried to achieve that. However, we accept that, with regard to making a contribution toward growth, the Government could not do any more than it did. That is why we can also call upon the private sector, in these more promising circumstances, to do their little bit.

Can you deal with the question of current expenditure and loans?

Yes, Sir, I can address that matter but I should like to ask the hon member a question before I get to that.

Can I answer it?

No, the hon member can just indicate what his reply is. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville whether he accepts, as the final word on the classification of capital or running expenditure, the United Nations and international standard, also for a developing country such as South Africa. Does he accept that as the final word and will he, therefore, base his criticism on that classification alone?

I base it on your Budget definition.

Sir, I am very happy to hear that the hon member has so much confidence in our definitions that he will accept our Budget definition instead of that of the United Nations!

I prefer yours to theirs.

The point I want to make is that, according to the internationally accepted standard, all expenditure on defence is classified as running expenditure. Insofar as defence is concerned, I maintain that, in terms of the needs of our particular country and the structure of our particular Defence Force, it is not correct to classify all such expenditure merely as running expenditure.

There is a second point that I should like to raise. What about education in particular? What about the massive eight-fold increase in expenditure on Black education over the past eight years? A massive amount has been spent on Black education, and on White education—even larger amounts have been spent on that—and on education for the other two population groups. The so-called running expenditure part—for the purposes of our country, as a developing country—we certainly cannot regard purely as running expenditure. It is an investment in human capital. That is what it is. When I give the hon member the figure, which I am going to do in a moment, I still want to maintain that strictly speaking we will be financing current expenditure by loans to the tune of more than R0,5 billion. In our particular case, however, I still believe that that does not constitute a total condemnation.

Then, Sir, I briefly want to make a third point in this regard. I want to ask the following question. In terms of our expenditure in relation to the training of unemployed people, in relation to our job creation programmes and our special training programmes for the unemployed, can we really regard our expenditure purely as running expenditure? Again, this is a grey area, and I believe that in our particular case it is justifiable.

What about health promotion? Is that running expenditure?

Health promotion?

One can argue one’s way out of any running expenditure in the way the hon the Minister is doing now.

If one wants to be ridiculous, yes. I believe if one wants to be ridiculous one can argue one’s way out of anything. What we are trying to do here, however, is to be realistic in terms of the needs of South Africa as a developing country.

*Mr Speaker, I should very much like to convey a word of sincere thanks to the hon member for Smithfield, who has bid us farewell today. He addressed kind words to me, which I personally appreciate very much. That hon member had a very difficult task. As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance in the new constitutional dispensation he dealt with a particularly sensitive matter—undoubtedly one of the most difficult of all standing committees—with particular compassion and expertise and effectiveness. On behalf of the Government and all his colleagues I want to thank him very much for this.

Hear, hear!

We shall miss him, Mr Speaker. He is a courteous man; someone to whom you can listen with confidence because his case is always well-founded when he stands up in this House to speak.

I also want to thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth North very much for the kind words he uttered here by way of farewell. It was a pleasure to have him as a colleague. Everyone in this House will also miss him as a courteous man, as a person who made a fine contribution to the business here. We listened attentively to what he said in connection with the matter of pensions. I agree with him completely as regards the remarks he made there and long after he is no longer sitting in these benches this will still be a problem which, I hope, we will be able to solve so that he will also very soon be able to see the results of his appeal.

Now, Mr Speaker, I come to the hon member for Sunnyside. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, today I want to tell you frankly that the hon member for Sunnyside is one of the most difficult hon members in this House to reply to. I have never in my life encountered anyone with such an astounding ability to lump together a lot of totally irrelevant matters into one massive indictment against the Government. What he says, does not make any logical sense. It does not make any political sense either. In that respect it is really extremely difficult to give him a reasonable reply in a decent, logical and analytical way. After all when a man stands up in this House, he must argue his case in a responsible manner. Copies of Hansard are on the shelves of virtually every library in the world.

†When one makes a fool of oneself in this House, one does not only make a fool of oneself in South Africa. Then one is in fact a global fool. [Interjections.]

*Honestly, Mr Speaker, I want to tell other hon members … [Interjections.]

Oom Jan is firmly entrenched!

You are world-famous, Jan! [Interjections.]

Order! I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would withdraw the allegation that the hon member for Sunnyside is a fool. It is not parliamentary.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word fool. [Interjections.]

Order!

You know, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sunnyside has been in this House a long time now. He has been here a very long time. I think there are few hon members who have had as long a term of office as he has. But, would you believe it, the hon member still does not understand the difference between a main appropriation and an additional appropriation. [Interjections.] That is the difficulty I have with that hon member, because what he says in Hansard he goes and repeats on one platform after the other in an effort to show the people how he put the Government in its place.

The White people.

Yes. Then he comes here and says that yet again there is nothing— he used the word nothing repeatedly—for the Whites in this appropriation of the House of Assembly.

There is nothing additional. [Interjections.]

I am setting the hon member straight, but he is not listening to ascertain whether he may have been wrong. He is sticking to his guns.

†In other words, he is saying: “I have made up my mind; do not confuse me with facts”.

*I now want to tell the hon member that this is an additional appropriation which deals only with amounts which have been exceeded. Now in this particular additional appropriation we have the unique condition to which the hon member for Yeoville has referred repeatedly, namely the 2% cutback. Last year we cut back 2% on every vote. In other words this is a special budget condition which has not prevailed before. Under the circumstances we need only mention those amounts in the additional appropriation which must be voted additionally in the case of those departments that exceeded their budgets after we had restored the 2%.

What are the facts in connection with the Administration: House of Assembly. When the 2% was restored the Administration: House of Assembly got R90 million. Did the hon member know that?

Carry on … [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside who is the shadow Minister of Finance of the CP, did not know that an additional R90 million was spent by the Administration: House of Assembly’s appropriation by way of the 2% cutback. Because nothing was therefore voted in the additional appropriation, he implied that the Government was yet again doing nothing for the Whites. This is the kind of pathological, racistic political advantage that hon member wants to derive from every little thing that happens in this House. [Interjections.] I want to tell him he is not doing South Africa a service.

Reply to my arguments now!

What is more, he is not doing the White man, for whom he claims he is the so-called champion, a service. He need not be concerned about whether this Government will look after the interests of the Whites. We are looking after the interests of the White. But there is one cardinal point which that hon member and those people both inside and outside this House who think as he does, always lose sight of. This is that it is also in the interests of the Whites and of our children, not only now, but also in the future, for this Government also to look after the development of the other population groups in this country. [Interjections.] If one does this, one has responsible government, but when we do this, that hon member derives pathological political advantage from such a matter.

We will be able to reply to this politically, but I want to warn him that owing to the position which he occupies in this House and the number of years he has been here, as well as the fact that he is a frontbencher and a so-called shadow Minister of Finance, there are less well-informed people who will believe him.

Today he must accept responsibility for the nonsense he instils in their minds and for the reaction of those people towards people of colour because a spokesman of the CP, who is supposed to be reliable, said that the Government was doing nothing for the Whites, but everything for the Blacks only. If, in the world in which he lives, that person is going to adopt certain attitudes towards people of colour, that hon member will be responsible. [Interjections.] The sooner he realises this and starts counting his words when he stands up in this House, the better. [Interjections.] It is absolutely irresponsible.

What about the other matter and the stupid argument which he raised here? What is being voted additionally for the other two Houses is part of the stimulation package, but now he is deriving pathological political advantage from something which is supposed to be a source of pride to him as a White. What is the truth? Where does the need for low-cost housing lie today? He should be grateful that it does not lie primarily with the Whites. Consequently, when we vote a sum of money for low-cost housing we must be grateful that it is not necessary to give the largest amount to the Whites, but that we are using that money where the need lies. But if we use it where the need lies, because in general the Whites have a far higher standard of living and far better housing, we are accused of channeling vast sums of money to the Blacks and the other two Houses. What kind of pathological politics is that? How does one serve South Africa in that way?

We on this side of the House are now getting tired of that hon member raising this kind of argument, and we will be glad when he does not come back to Parliament … [Interjections.] … because it is irresponsible to have that kind of matter appear in Hansard. [Interjections.] If anyone ever repeats the kind of things the hon member says here outside this House, that hon member must accept responsibility for it. I just want to bring that to his attention.

Today he did say something priceless; I really must give him credit for that. He said he was going to chase our hon colleague out, but he is himself a person who runs away. [Interjections.] How does one do both these things simultaneously? [Interjections.] There is also the other story he tells. How many times has he stood up in this House and made the same factually incorrect statement, namely that the hands of the police are tied? How many times must the responsible hon Minister and other hon members on this side of the House stand up to show that hon member that he has made a factually incorrect statement? Does he do this because he is wilful or can he simply not understand it? [Interjections.] How does one tie the hands of the police? He spoke about rents and the like. [Interjections.]

One can only shake one’s head ruefully over the quality of that hon member’s contributions on finance in this House and the implications of the statements he makes. We pray that he will gain wisdom so that if he ever returns to this House he will at least return with a better orientation. Perhaps he should use this time which he may spend outside this House, seeing that he has chosen to stand and lose in Wonderboom, to brush up on his knowledge of these matters.

Reply to his arguments and stop your personal attacks! [Interjections.]

Order!

You are just being personal …

Order!

It is not possible to reply to that hon member’s arguments.

Your attack is merely personal!

Order!

They are not arguments to which one can reply.

You cannot …

Order! I have called the hon member for Brakpan to order three times now, but he is ignoring the Chair. Such behaviour will not be tolerated. The hon the Minister may proceed.

He cannot reply to him.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says that I cannot reply to the arguments.

Yes, and now you are being insulting.

If it were possible to give the hon member for Sunny side a polite, factual reply, I would do so with pleasure, as I do in respect of other speakers. I have been faced with this choice many times: We must either ignore him or jump down his throat now and again to see whether we can get him to wake up. It is really not humanly possible to try to reply to him logically.

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

No, I am not prepared to take the hon member’s question.

I want to refer to the hon member for Umbilo. He accused us of casualness about overexpenditure. We are not at all casual about overexpenditure. The overexpenditure that is contained in this Additional Appropriation Bill is well accounted for. It did not happen without our knowledge or approval or without decent prior consideration. I therefore want to reiterate that it is our response to the needs of the country and of the economy in general.

The hon member talked about our casualness, but he very casually made a statement today which I do not think it behoved him to make. He said that he believed that governments were largely responsible for inflation.

Many economists hold that view.

Why does the hon member not get up to tell us how this particular Government is, to use his own words, largely responsible for inflation at this stage?

[Inaudible.]

It is very easy!

I want to tell him that if he regards inflation as so simple a matter that a government has but to flick a switch to make it disappear out of the system he is being very naïve. Then I can understand his confession to the hon member for Smithfield that he is not that well-schooled in financial matters. His statement that governments are largely responsible for inflation is an irresponsible and regrettable one. Our inflation at the moment is a cost-inspired inflation. Why does the hon member not tell us why, at this moment, when we have rather alarming unemployment figures, wages and salaries are a major cause of our inflation rate? I want to ask the hon member for Umbilo to reconsider that particular statement and I shall submit to him an authoritative analysis of the inflation problem that we have in South Africa now.

Let me conclude by saying that at this very moment we, together with the hon the State President’s Economic Advisory Council, are carrying out an up-to-date analysis and an in-depth study of inflation from which a certain strategy will be developed to address the issue. It is not a clear-cut matter so that one can say that one will address inflation in order to eliminate it from our economy so that it will not have an effect on one’s growth rate, unemployment and other aspects of one’s economy. This whole comprehensive issue will be addressed very shortly.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said that we on this side of the House were bringing about an enormously top heavy structure. I want to ask him whether there would be any degree of autonomy in the various constituent parts of the federation if the PFP’s policy were to be implemented. Obviously the answer is: Yes. It is time a PFP member stood up and told us what the kind of Government structure will be in the federation that they have in mind and what the cost will be.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I see in the Additional Appropriation Bill as well as in the relevant Explanatory Memorandum that an additional amount is being appropriated which to a great extent relates to the question of salary increases for members of the President’s Council. This naturally brings up the whole question of the President’s Council.

I wonder whether the hon the State President could tell us at this stage, in view of the announcements he has made, what he envisages as regards the change in the composition and functions of the President’s Council.

Secondly, I should like to know what requests the hon the State President has directed to the President’s Council in terms of section 78 of the Constitution, in respect of which no report has as yet been made to him.

Thirdly, I should like to know whether he could tell us whether the inquiry into the Group Areas Act which, I believe, was undertaken at the behest of the hon the State President, has been completed. Could the hon the State President perhaps give us an indication as to when he expects to receive the advices of the President’s Council in this regard?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As I understand the rules of this House, hon members are limited to questions relating to the additional amounts that are being appropriated. May this be used as an opportunity for ordinary political questioning and debate?

Order! It was at least mentioned that the hon member was talking about the increase in the amounts.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am sorry, but the hon member is out of order. He may enquire about the reasons for the increase but he may not raise policy matters at this juncture.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to address you on the hon the State President’s remark. He is quite right that one can ask for the reasons for the increase in regard to the expenditure, but increased expenditure is based upon policy. Therefore the policy is relevant to the increased expenditure. [Interjections.] May I ask you, Sir, how many chairmen we have in this House? May I please finish my point of order?

Order! Yes, the hon member may continue.

Expenditure must be related to a policy. If the hon the State President says the expenditure is in vacuo then it is fine, but I am sure he will not say that. There is an increase in expenditure in regard to three items here and there is a policy behind that increase. If he does not want to tell us the policy behind the increase, that is another matter because we cannot force him to do so. However, it is relevant and it is admissible.

Order! The policy is not debatable now. The hon member Prof Olivier may continue.

Mr Chairman, my questions actually relate to the issue of the President’s Council and the salary increases. I had assumed, in view of the fact that we are not having a main Budget at this stage, that I was entitled to ask those questions. If the hon the State President does not feel at liberty to answer those questions under the present circumstances, then I have no further questions.

Mr Chairman, I feel perfectly at liberty to answer questions at the right time, but the rules of this house must be obeyed. The rules state that when it comes to increases in the Additional Appropriations, one may only discuss policy when a new item has been included in the Appropriation. This is not a new item. It is an increase in salary pursuant to certain decisions that were taken in this House. If the hon member is still here after the election, I shall be pleased to answer his questions in full at the right time. There is a time for everything—that is what Solomon said in his lifetime.

Mr Chairman, the hon the State President has said that the additional sum is due to salary improvements. It is correct that R800 000 of the R977 000 is due to increases in salaries and therefore I concede that that is valid. Would he, however, tell us what the R177 000 over and above the R800 000 is for, and whether there is a policy which relates to the expenditure of that money or whether it has been expended without policy because the explanatory memorandum only explains the R800 000 and not the R977 000?

Secondly, there is also reference to the amount of R22 000 in respect of “Regsdienste”. Would he please tell us what that amount represents and whether there is a policy in respect of that particular aspect?

Thirdly, in regard to the question of ceremonial services—I think he knows my view about the division between the ceremonial and the political functions of the State President; that I like him as a ceremonial State President but have problems with him as a leader of a political party—would he tell us how he distinguishes between his ceremonial and political functions insofar as the R42 000 is concerned?

Mr Chairman, I shall now deal with this matter in the manner to which I have been accustomed in Parliament. I think it is the right way.

The increase is primarily due to the increase in the salaries and allowances of members of the President’s Council, as well as in the salaries of the secretariat. Unlike the Economic Advisory Council of the State President, for example, the President’s Council was established in terms of the Constitution of 1983, and the remuneration of its members is very closely linked to that of members of Parliament. The improvement in the remuneration of members of the President’s Council, which in this instance amounted to approximately R800 000, always corresponds with that of members of Parliament. It is therefore impossible for this office to budget in advance for such an eventuality.

In addition, the Ministerial Committee on the Conditions of Service of Political Office Bearers also makes recommendations to the Cabinet in that regard, and this office has no control over the additional expenditures that are consequently approved. Furthermore, it may be pointed out that in contrast to members of the President’s Council, the remuneration of members of Parliament is a statutory conferment and that it therefore represents a direct liability to the State Revenue Account.

The increase is further attributable to the increased premium in respect of the accident insurance policy for the members of the President’s Council, which amounted to R25 000. The reason for the sharp increase is that only one insurer was prepared to accept the risk.

Another factor that contributed toward the increase, was that of tariff increases which either had not been announced or could not be predicted at the time the Budget was drawn up. Some of those increases were inter alia the following: Government Garage transport 1 May 1986—6,7%; private transport 1 May 1986—6,9%; general transport: Rail and air 1 April 1986—10%; posts and telegraphs and telephone services 1 April 1986—20%.

The hon member also inquired about legal services. The increase results chiefly from general salary improvements and general expenditure on session allowances due to the short session and to the introduction of session allowances in respect of children.

What did the hon member wish to know about ceremonial services? Could he just repeat the question?

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon the State President how that amount was made up and how the distinction was drawn between his ceremonial services and his position as a political leader. How is the distinction drawn between these two services?

The ceremonial services have to do with the State President’s official activities at state functions. Political matters are not dealt with at the cost of the State, except in those instances where privileges exist which have always been placed at the disposal of the head of the Government.

Mr Chairman, with reference to ceremonial services, I should also like to ask whether this extra amount covers the cost of the fanfare of trumpets which apparently resounds when the hon the State President leaves his residence after breakfast and whenever he returns.

Mr Chairman, I have never been under the impression that one spends any money in blowing a bugle.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Bureau for Information”:

Mr Chairman, the bureau is asking for an additional R3,7 million in this additional appropriation. We are opposed to the bureau’s activities at the present time and we shall be voting against this request for additional finance. Our main objection to this is that the bureau is acting as an organ for the NP and not in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to analyse the request. There is a decrease of R8 million and an increase of R11 million. The decrease of R8 million is largely against Programme No 2. Programme No 2 was to enlighten the community on Government policy and national achievements and problems with a view to fostering positive attitudes among all population groups. Now, it is obvious that the bureau has abandoned that programme. It is a vote of no-confidence in their own ability to foster a positive attitude among all population groups, because that is clearly not the policy of the NP. However, they are moving that money into programme No 5: Planning. This programme is purely a propaganda arm of the bureau, and they are asking for an additional amount of R10 million for this programme. What I want to ask the hon the deputy Minister is what that R10 million is going to be spent on? [Interjections.]

A number of booklets have been issued by the bureau over the past year or so, and one in particular is in contention. When the hon the State President addressed the Federal Congress of the NP in Durban last August, the NP issued a booklet on his speech. It had the emblem of the NP on its cover, indicating quite clearly that it was issued by the NP. That is acceptable. A short while afterwards the bureau issued a booklet containing the hon the State President’s speech. The booklets were identical. However, the hon the State President addressed that congress in his capacity as the leader of the NP, not as the State President of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is quite correct to issue a booklet with the emblem of the NP on the front, but not to issue an identical booklet with the coat of arms of South Africa on its front cover. That was not a State occasion. It was a party political occasion, and I submit that it is an abuse to use State money, taxpayers’ money, to issue party political propaganda.

Order! The hon member must confine himself to questions regarding the reasons for the increase.

This is not question time. One can make speeches. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister—because I have not yet received an answer to the question which I tabled earlier this session—how much taxpayers’ money is being used to promote the NP in this way. How much is being used to print and distribute NP speeches in booklets of this nature? This is a political matter, not a State matter. I submit that it is corrupt to use State money to promote one political party.

Hear, hear!

The manifesto of the NP for this election was issued during the past week, and has been published in their party journal, The Nationalist. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the bureau is to make public, in any way, the manifesto of the NP. Is the bureau to issue any documents? Will that come out of this extra R10 million which is being asked for? [Interjections.] I am not aware of the facts; I am asking. Will the bureau use part of that R10 million to promote the manifesto of the NP in this country?

Order! Did the hon member accuse the Minister of corruption?

No, the Government.

The hon member must please withdraw this.

May I address you on that, Sir?

Order! No, that is my ruling.

I withdraw the word “corrupt”, and I say it is a scandalous misuse of taxpayers’ money to promote the policy of the NP. [Interjections]

We all had on our desks the other day, a new publication called South Africa Profile. This is in colours similar to those of the pamphlet issued by the NP, and can quite easily be distributed as NP propaganda. This is nothing more and nothing less than NP propaganda. When one reads some of the statements in these profiles, one sees that it is straight NP propaganda. In fact, some of it is untrue. There is not an equal franchise in this country. [Interjections.] Here is another example of an untruth: “ … all South Africans to be given the opportunity to participate in Government through their elected representatives. [Interjections.] That is also not true.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not want to complicate your task, but the hon member is circumventing your ruling. The hon member is raising a political argument. There have been many opportunities, and there will be many more opportunities for raising political arguments, but he must now restrict his questions to the amounts being asked to be voted.

Order! The hon the Minister is correct. I am listening carefully to the hon member. The hon member must confine himself to the increase in the cost structure in the vote.

Mr Chairman, may I please address you on the point? The amount allocated has a political content. It is not a political argument. He is referring to the political content of this amount, which is a legitimate argument. The question is whether the money has or has not been spent on information that is being published which has a political content. That is the argument.

Order! The hon member is correct, but the hon member for Johannesburg North can only ask questions. He cannot make a political speech. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman, this is the Committee Stage. A member is entitled to speak for 10 minutes. It is not an occasion where one simply asks questions. This is the Committee Stage of a bill appropriating additional money and a member is entitled to speak for 10 minutes on the item which is before us, discuss the amount and argue whether it should or should not be voted and why. That is the meaning of this Committee Stage.

Order! The hon member must provide the necessary proof that his arguments have a bearing on the increased amount. The hon member may proceed.

I would like the hon the Deputy Minister then to explain to us whether this booklet, this profile which is being issued, is part of the R10 million that is being requested in this additional appropriation. If it is part of the R10 million that he is asking for, will he explain to us what he hopes to achieve by issuing the inserts in this profile. I maintain that they are NP propaganda and that they are inaccurate.

In the memorandum that was distributed, a statement is made against Programme 5 that an additional budget was requested for communication projects which are used as instruments in the promotion of effective communication between the Government and the people of South Africa. I want to ask him what he is doing about the Menlo Park incident. A situation has arisen there in which South Africa’s name has been destroyed.

Order! The hon member must abide by my ruling. The Menlo Park incident has got nothing to do with this vote under discussion at the moment.

I believe that it is important that the bureau should work extremely hard to promote good relations among all the people of South Africa. What I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister is whether he is going to use part of the R10 million that he wants us to vote for him today to improve those relations among the communities. The Menlo Park incident was one bad incident where relations were soured by the attitude promoted by this Government over the past 39 years. I want to ask him what he is going to do to correct that. There must be thousands of Menlo Park situations around this country. What is he doing to ensure that the people of South Africa are going to live together in harmony and peace? [Time expired.]

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a specific question regarding the amount of R10 161 000, which is the increase. Taking into account this net amount that requires to be voted I should like to ask him the following questions: Firstly, what is this money going to be used for specifically? No information about this is given in the explanatory memorandum. Secondly, what publications are going to be published with this money between now and the end of the financial year which will be available to the public before 6 May? Furthermore, I should like to know what the name of each publication is, what subject matter each contains, what the purpose of each is, and at whom such publications will be directed. Finally, will any such publications include statements which are made by the hon the State President or other hon members of the NP Government?

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister how much money has been paid from this Additional Appropriation to the six principal singers of this song. It is important that the hon Deputy Minister reply to this question of mine, because there are people who are at present being reproached for having received R56 000 for singing for a short while. Moreover, the husband of one of these singers—is an NP candidate. It can therefore be said that that candidate’s election costs are being paid with that money. [Interjections.] For that reason I also want to ask the hon Deputy Minister to disclose to us the names of each of those individuals who received R56 000.

Mr Chairman, in regard to Programme 5, to which reference has been made, I should merely like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether any of the additional money which is now being appropriated for the Bureau of Information, is in any way being used in connection with the matters pertaining to the SABC or M-Net. With regard to M-Net it is known that M-Net is in fact a consortium of companies which support the NP and other left-wing movements in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are namely, SA AN, Argus, Nasionale Pers and Perskor. We want to know whether this amount also includes money earmarked for M-Net—after all, they do find themselves in a precarious financial position.

Mr Chairman, the Bureau for Information has worked from its own budget only since the beginning of this financial year. For the part of the previous financial year in which the bureau functioned, money for this purpose was budgeted from the Vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It goes without saying that when a new body is established and one has to budget for it, there will be a degree of uncertainty at that stage about exactly how the structure of that organisation will function. We must also accept that this budget should have been submitted long before the bureau began functioning according to its own budget. That is why it was found after the bureau had begun to function, that certain tasks for which provision had been made in one section of the department initially, were better suited to another section of the department. Initially it was envisaged that Programme 2—Internal Liaison Services—would be the section of the department to be involved with communication programmes, advertisements and so on. It was later found to be more functional to restrict this to the administration of the regional offices. Any communication programmes which are launched must rather be dealt with by another section of the department, viz that of planning. For that reason the amount saved on the internal liaison services was transferred to the planning function. This was an internal transfer between two programmes as a result of a transferral of the instructions of the different structures in the department.

The additional amount of R10 million which is being requested for planning in Programme 5 must be decreased by the R7,8 million which was saved on internal liaison services. The hon member for Johannesburg North tried to maintain that programmes were abandoned as a result of the decrease, but that is not the case at all. It was merely a transfer from one service to another. There was no underlying political motive. It was merely an administrative matter which arose from the fact that when the Appropriation was drawn up, the whole structure of the bureau and how it was to function was not quite clear yet.

The hon member also referred to the publication of NP propaganda by means of publications of the Bureau for Information. Naturally those accusations are completely untrue and unfounded. It is true that the speech made by the hon the State President at the NP federal congress had a party-political as well as a constitutional and a governmental implication. Undoubtedly the speech had a political application because it was made at a political meeting. The hon the State President went much further, however, and spelt out the Government’s policy on that occasion.

In reality, of course, two variations of this publication appeared. One was published by the bureau and the other by the NP. This is the clearest possible proof of exactly what I said. The NP needed that speech to promote its party-political case and that is why the NP published it as a party publication.

The audience among which the NP distributed the publication was not the only audience which the bureau judged should be informed about the constitutional implications and Government activities mentioned in this speech, however. That is why the bureau printed its own edition of the speech and distributed it to the people who did not want it for party-political purposes, but who wanted the other part of the speech. [Interjections.]

That is why one cannot say that the bureau printed it in order to distribute NP propaganda, because the NP printed it themselves for the party-political purposes intended by the NP. [Interjections.]

If there were only one edition of the publication, perhaps one could still have debated the argument of the hon member for Johannesburg North, but the fact that there were two independent publications—incidentally, they originated quite independently— clearly shows that there was no connection between the two.

The hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to the colours of the publication South African Profile. By coincidence the colours of the NP are also the colours of South Africa’s flag. In a sense it was coincidental that the colours used for South African Profile are also the colours of the NP and that some of the NP publications use these colours.

That publication, South African Profile, was not meant to be used for party-political purposes at all. It was meant mainly to give people from South Africa who travel abroad a package in which they have facts and arguments at their disposal which can be used abroad.

If the hon member has any objection to any argument used in it which, he claims to be untrue, I do not think this is the time to broach the matter, but the hon member is very welcome to air such grievances to me. If he can convince us that his arguments are well founded, we shall revise that part of the publication.

Seen as a whole, South African Profile is a very popular publication which fulfils a great need among people who want information which they can use to promote our image abroad. [Interjections.] We get thousands of enquiries in this connection, and the publication fulfils a great need, because it is an excellent publication.

†I would like to answer the question of the hon member for Yeoville. I also want to give him the assurance that absolutely no material which will be used in the election will be financed from the additional funds that have been requested. The additional money requested has been bound up in a project that was not envisaged when the Budget was compiled but which was the result of a Cabinet decision taken later and which involved more than R5 million altogether.

Is that the song?

This was financed partially from money from internal savings in the bureau and partially from the additional amounts that are now being requested.

What was the project?

It was the general communications project of which the song was a part. [Interjections.] As hon members know, the information was made available that the production of the song and the publicity related to it cost in the region of R4,3 million. [Interjections.] Part of that was absorbed by the bureau itself and only part of the amount spent on it is now being requested. There are no additional publications that will be financed from this money that is now being requested. Some publications will still be forthcoming from the bureau during the next two months …

Which publications? What are the names of those publications?

I do not have a list of all the publications available. Some of those are regular publications which the NP … [Interjections.] … which are issued by the bureau.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether I heard him correctly to say that the general communications programme which involved the famous song in fact resulted from a specific Cabinet decision?

I believe that information was given to the House last year. That was a project that had the approval of the Cabinet. [Interjections.] If I am not mistaken, the hon the State President confirmed that in reply to a question. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he would tell us after lunch how many of these publications, South African Profile, are to be produced and where they will be available. He says they are for the use of overseas travellers. Will he tell us after lunch whether they are to be made available within South Africa and, if so, to whom, where they will be available and how many copies will be printed? Then also, to help the hon member for Yeoville, will he tell us how many pamphlets are to be issued before the end of March and what they are?

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Finally, Mr Chairman, with reference to the question put by the hon member for Yeoville, I want to make something clear.

†With regard to the dissemination of information, the task of the bureau is to disseminate information to the public of South Africa regarding actions of the Government and the situation in South Africa. In that regard the bureau takes pains not to promote the policies of an individual party. We try to supply information that is reliable and perspectives that are true. I want to emphasise that if anything in any of the publications is found objectionable, then I sincerely invite the offended party to approach the bureau and we will look into the matter as sympathetically as possible.

I want to add something to that statement. Once we have decided to publish information on a certain topic, those publications are, of course, made available to the general public. Some publications, depending on the nature of the subject, go to those on our mailing lists. Furthermore, if there are requests for certain information from the public, we furnish them with the appropriate publications provided we have them in stock.

Members of political parties are in no way prohibited; they are free to obtain the publications we issue. If a party feels that the information contained in the publications serves the purpose for which they want the information, they are free to use that—even as part of the party’s election campaign; we have no control over that. If they feel offended or threatened by the information, we have no control over that either. However, I want to emphasise once again that if there is any legitimate objection against any purported fact or statement in any publication, then I will be very willing to discuss it with any complainant.

*I want to come back to the hon member for Langlaagte. He wanted us to release the names of those six people. We are bound by contract not to do so, and in any case it would not be in the interests of the people involved to do so. [Interjections.] It is a very grave matter. There was grave intimidation of persons who took part in this project.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he does not agree that this smacks of bribery? It smacks of bribery when people are asked to come and sing one song at R56 000 per participator, while the hon the Minister is not prepared to release the names of those people now. The police will protect them, but who is he protecting in this respect? [Interjections.]

Sir, contracts were concluded with a number of singers. I want to clear up one misunderstanding, and that is that not only one song was recorded, but a number—all with the same tune, but in different languages. [Interjections.] It was not the work of only three minutes or a single day, though that is how it may seem. Those people were asked to do a big job, and they were remunerated according to a contract that was concluded in terms of market values. No bribery was involved in the matter. One could use the same argument to claim that the salary received here by the hon member for Langlaagte bribes him to perform this task.

One wonders about that sometimes. [Interjections.]

It is not an applicable argument, therefore, and that is why the hon member’s argument is not applicable either.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I merely want to give the hon member for Brakpan the assurance that the bureau has absolutely nothing to do with the financing of either the SABC or of M-Net.

Or loans to them?

We are not a financial institution, Mr Chairman. We do not grant loans. We do not finance anyone, nor do we make financial allocations to any of those bodies.

That is more of your gossip-mongering, Frank!

Mr Chairman, there was a question put to me in connection with South African Profile. This publication is available in English only because it is mainly directed at overseas readers or in order to enable South Africans with contacts abroad to have the relevant facts, figures and arguments at their disposal. A total of 65 000 copies were printed. They are available from the head office and regional offices of the bureau.

Limited numbers of this publication have already been distributed to academics, editors, trade unions, clergy, politicians, State departments, mayors and town clerks, provincial and public libraries, foreign missions in South Africa, research institutes, construction companies, SA Airways, technical colleges, businessmen, chambers of commerce and so forth. Further copies are supplied upon request. We have found that in many instances people find this publication so good that they want to send a number of copies to their contacts abroad.

Another question was put to me, Sir, relating to the publications the bureau plans to issue in the near future. There is of course not a final list available at this stage. New publications, however, are generated from time to time in accordance with current needs and circumstances.

*There is one specific publication which has reached a relatively advanced stage of conclusion. It is a publication known as Dit is Suid-Afrika. In actual fact it is a publication which has existed for years. Approximately 20 years ago it was known as South African Quiz. Later we plan an introductory brochure on the Bureau for Information because we find that too much misinformation is distributed about the bureau. [Interjections.] Approximately 10 000 of those pamphlets will be printed and distributed. Then there is also the annual report, of which approximately 1 000 copies will be printed, as well as a publication titled Vorentoe met VertrouelForward with Confidence.

†The latter publication is the result of the conference held with businessmen in November last year. We plan to issue approximately 30 000 copies of that particular publication. Furthermore, another publication is under consideration at the moment regarding the state of emergency—a publication which will give the motivation behind the declaration of the state of emergency and explain what it all entails. That publication, however, is still in the planning stage. I do not want to vouch for the fact that these are the only publications under consideration at the moment. These are, however, the only ones that have reached any degree of probable finality at this stage.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon the Deputy Minister for giving us particulars relating to the publications he has in mind, payment for which will presumably come from the money we are voting here today. The significant phrase which he used, I believe, he did not really want to use. I am sure, however, it was on his mind and only escaped as a result of a slip of the tongue. I am referring to his words “it depends on the requirements of the National Party”—words he uttered earlier in the debate.

Another very pregnant statement he made was the following, Sir: “If in fact parties or candidates feel they can use the material of the bureau in their campaigns they are obviously free to do so”. The issue which arises very pertinently, is that the slogan “Forward with confidence” is the slogan that was used by the hon the State President in his capacity as leader of the NP. It was used by the hon the Minister of Finance at the end of his speech. I have a record of it here. It is a slogan which the NP seeks to use during the coming election. [Interjections.]

If it were in fact a national slogan as opposed to a Nationalist slogan, it would be a different matter. The reality is, however, that if the hon the Deputy Minister is going to print 30 000 pamphlets based on the theme of “Forward with confidence” and make them available to NP candidates to assist them in their election campaign, then whatever he may care to call it, he is in fact abusing the situation relating to taxpayers’ money and using it for a political purpose. [Interjections.] That is the truth, and I submit with great respect that if one takes a NP slogan and inserts it in a publication …

It is not an NP slogan! [Interjections.]

Is it not? Then why do the hon the Minister, the hon the State President and hon members of the NP use it? [Interjections.]

You could also use it.

Yes, I could use anything, but I do not vote for you. That is the problem. [Interjections.]

The tragic reality is that the hon the Deputy Minister and his colleagues do not appreciate the difference between advocating the cause of a government and advocating the cause of the State. The hon the Deputy Minister has said so in as many words. He said that he regarded it as his function to explain the Government’s policy.

Let us take a look at the pamphlet in which the speeches of the hon the State President are printed. The fact that it appears under the State’s coat of arms means that it can be used by NP candidates instead of the one which the NP has issued itself, because they are identical. What is actually happening, therefore, is that he is propagating the policy of the NP at the expense of people who vote against the NP. [Interjections.] If that is not dishonest, then I do not know what is. We cannot accept it.

Mr Chairman, the hon Deputy Minister told me that he has a contract in terms of which he is unable to disclose certain names because it would be dangerous for those people. I wonder therefore how we get past this publication, because anyone can recognise the individuals shown here.

On television as well!

Yes, and on television. [Interjections.] They are all shown in full colour. My question to the hon Deputy Minister is therefore: What is the Government hiding? Why do they refuse to tell this Parliament who the individuals are who each received R56 000 for singing that song?

Mr Chairman, in the first place I just want to reply to the last speaker quickly. The primary answer to that is once again that the bureau is bound by contract in terms of agreements which we signed with the individual artists …

Your primary responsibility is to this Parliament. [Interjections.]

… not to make known particulars concerning individual persons’ remuneration. It is a contractual obligation, therefore. In addition the political pressure exerted on these artists from certain sources once their names and faces had become known was such that one does not want to publicise any additional information which may be used against them for political purposes in any case. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, the hon the Deputy Minister is replying. The hon member must resume his seat.

The hon member for Yeoville took the argument concerning political propaganda further with specific reference to that one theme.

†The theme of the conference at the time bore that name. I do not know whether the NP intend to use it as a slogan in the coming election campaign or not. [Interjections.] The NP did use it on previous occasions.

When you still had confidence!

It was used not so much for election purposes but on occasions such as, for instance, the federal congress, I think.

They had it on a banner at the congress.

Yes, but it was not used for election purposes at the time, and I do not know … [Interjections.] It was not used …

So it was just one big coincidence! [Interjections.]

I wish the hon members would give me a chance to complete a sentence, Sir. Then they might perhaps not put their feet in it so often. [Interjections.] The point is that I recognise that it was used at the NP’s federal congress. It was not used for election purposes at the time. It was also used as the theme for the conference with the businessmen, but I did not have anything to do with that and do not know what the origin of it was. Because it was used at that conference, it was an appropriate title for a publication based on that conference.

I wish to state again that I recognise that there is a problem in the sense that the governing party of the day has certain policies which, once they have been translated into and accepted as Government policies, become part of the action which influences the lives of all the people in South Africa. It is, therefore, part of what is required of the Government to make known the actions which it is taking as a Government in order that the people might know what is happening to them.

Mr Chairman, in the light of what has been said in this debate and the feelings that have been expressed, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to consider changing the name of that publication and not calling it “Forward with Confidence’?

I will not give such an undertaking at this point, but I do undertake to enter into a discussion with the hon member for Yeoville on this matter.

Mr Chairman, apparently the hon the Minister has a problem in informing us about the song, but in that case, will he lay the contract which was concluded with the participants on the Table? He must lay it on the Table, because I want to know who received the R56 000.

I am afraid that because I was not involved with the matter at that stage, I am not fully informed on the precise particulars of the contract at this stage.

Louis is right over there!

That is why I cannot give an undertaking that those contracts will be laid on the Table. Nor can I say whether this should be done, but I shall consider the matter. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether we in this House are not entitled, when there is over-expenditure on public funds, as is the case here in his department, to get answers? Is this not the opportune time to give us that information? Does he not have sufficient time to get that information for us? [Interjections.]

I think what the members of the public and the hon members of Parliament are entitled to, is to know that we did pay artists. They are entitled to know how much we paid per artist. They are even entitled to know that we paid different artists different amounts. However, when the names of specific persons are mentioned, it becomes injurious to individuals and that is something that has nothing at all to do with the principle of the matter on which the opposition can attack us. The names of the persons have nothing at all to do with that principle.

Mr Chairman, I also want to say something about the song. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether any of the R10 million that is budgeted for under Programme 5 is for the Information Song. Last year, by means of a number of questions to his predecessor, we established over a long period of time that the figure for the song had escalated to R4,3 million. Every time we drew a little more out of the hon the Deputy Minister.

You are not telling the truth and you know it.

It is the absolute truth.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, …

Order! Did the hon member for Pretoria Central say that it was an untruth and that the hon member knew it?

Sir, I said that it was not true. I said:

“You are not telling the truth”.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said: “It is untrue and you know it…”. That was what he said and he is now telling an untruth. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North knows that what he said was not the truth and he also knows that is what I tried to convey. If I must withdraw that, I shall do so.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The point is that it took us some time to establish that the song was going to cost R4,3 million. What I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister is whether that is the final amount for the song or are additional amounts being required from this R10 million which is now being asked for. If not, how much will the song cost during this financial year and is the intention to continue broadcasts of the song on radio and television in the new financial year?

Mr Chairman, I want to make only one statement to clear up the matter a bit. The cost of the song was not R4,3 million. The whole project in respect of the song, including the production costs and publicity costs, amounted to more or less that amount. [Interjections.]

Order!

In as much as R4,5 million is the approximate exact amount, it is still the amount which is being budgeted for during this financial year. It is not intended to incur any further costs in respect of the project during the next financial year.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister said it would be to the disadvantage of the four artists involved if their identities were made known, but a lot more feeling was aroused concerning this song than the hon the Deputy Minister may think. It must be made possible for us as Parliament to determine whether the money was applied correctly and we want to know whether it was a good choice to pay a certain person out of this multitude of artists R56 000. This is not to anyone’s disadvantage; Parliament is entitled to that information and the hon the Deputy Minister must supply the information. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, all I can say is that the argument of the hon member for Jeppe does not convince me and that I adhere to my former standpoint.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister must tell us whether any of these artists went along to Madeira. There is more to this matter than merely withholding people’s names. I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister why artists who are not as good as people who are probably standing further towards the back on the photograph, were paid R56 000 and whether any of them went along on the latest excursion of Government people to Madeira. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I do not think there will be unanimity among any group of people about the relative quality of the respective artists when they are compared with one another. It is a question of judgment and preference.

The one is Black and the other one is White.

No, Sir, that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately I have no information concerning the question of people who went to Madeira with someone, because to my knowledge the bureau had nothing to do with any excursion to Madeira.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Mr Chairman, I would like in the first place to point to the fact that in 1985-86 the actual expenditure on this vote was R467 million, close to R468 million. The revised estimate for this year has now risen to R806 million from R468 million. I submit, Sir, that an escalation of that nature in one year is gigantic. When one starts looking for the reason for it, one sees that the very first programme within Vote 4 is that for administration.

One can almost say that the administration of a department is the “non-productive” element that exercises the overall control. Here we find that from R7 589 000 in 1985-86, it is going to go up to over R10 million. This is an increase of the order of 30% in the administration of the Department of Transport. This in money amounts to R1 771 million.

When one looks for the reason in the explanatory memorandum, one sees first and foremost that we have a Deputy Minister. Just the four months for which he has been Deputy Minister—December, January, February and March—will cost us R70 000. I should like some more details from the hon the Minister on this. Where did that money go? Obviously it was not in respect of salaries only. Was it used for administrative expenditure, stationery, office furniture etcetera, and how much of that is going to be regular, monthly expenditure? So, how much can we expect a Deputy Minister—whom I consider to be unnecessary for this department—to cost us in future?

Another reason they give for this increase is that we are spending R1,7 million on the implementation of the National Transport Policy Study. Now, whether they mean the expenses of the NTPS or the implementation of its policies, I am not sure. To the best of my knowledge its policies have not been implemented. How does one implement the NTPS unless one implements its proposals? I can only assume that this represents the actual expenses of the study itself, which means that this is perhaps not particularly good English for describing that.

I should like the hon the Minister to let us know what this is because, if that is the case, they were well aware of the NTPS when they drew up the budget. It was not an unusual expense. They started the year and drew up their budget on the basis that there was to be a national transport policy study. It has been in existence for several years. So, I do not really see the reason for that.

Give me the paragraph, please.

It is paragraph 1.4 on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum.

On the next page we find that fuel leakages at Jan Smuts Airport have cost us R150 000. I want to know whether those were leakages into fresh air, into the ground or into the fuel tanks of certain people. Perhaps the hon the Minister can answer that.

We find that R52 million is to be spent in respect of bus-passenger services, and this is attributed to a loss of revenue from transport levies as well as the subsidizing of the fares of commuters transported daily by bus between Bophuthatswana and the Republic of South Africa. I should like some sort of a breakdown of those two figures, because what worries me is that what we appear to be doing here is to increase the amount for bus passenger subsidies, while at the same time we are decreasing the amount of the subsidy on rail passenger services by R6 million. I do not think this is equitable when one bears in mind the commitment of the NTPS to recompense the SATS properly for the rail passenger transport services, the socio-economic services they have to perform. It worries me that there is an increase of R52 million in the subsidy on bus transport and a decrease of R6 million in the subsidy on rail passenger transport. I think this is a worrying factor if one keeps the implementation of the White Paper of the Department of Transport Affairs in mind.

I have spoken about this before, but I must plead with the hon the Minister again. Cannot we use the English language properly in documents of this kind, official Government documents? I just want to read one paragraph. It is paragraph 5.3 on page 5, and it reads as follows:

Did not realise what?

Did not realise what? “Did not realise”. It just does not make sense. We want to make sense of these documents, because in this case an amount of R6 million is involved. However, I will give the hon the Minister his due. It is not quite as bad as the English used by the Orange Free State in their explanatory memorandum where they refer to the extension of establishments and the “defrosting of posts of provincial inspectors”. [Interjections.] I have never in my life heard of a post being defrosted! [Interjections.] I think the hon the Minister should tell us a little bit more about the R6 million which, I assume, we have paid to Pentow Marine.

To which paragraph is the hon member referring?

Paragraph 5.3. I think—I am not sure about this—that Pentow Marine is a subsidiary of Safmarine, because my original information was that the tugs which I think they are talking about here, were the property of Safmarine. When the State pays about R6 million to a private company in terms of the contract which we have with that company, I think that the whole matter should be looked at and investigated, because this is a very large sum of money. Obviously, if the State can save that R6 million, it should.

I believe that we should try to make new arrangements with regard to these big and expensive tugs which we keep permanently on our coast to deal with oil pollution. We know that the reason for this is very creditable. We know that in the event of a major marine casualty with big oil leaks we need to have that vessel towed out of the way by a heavy sea-going tug, but I think we should be able to do it cheaper than we are doing it now. I would like the hon the Minister to respond to that.

Mr Chairman, in the first place the hon member referred to paragraph 1.4 of the explanatory memorandum. It deals with the expenditure in respect of the White Paper on National Transport Policy. The amounts mentioned in that section of the memorandum are amounts which were paid out in respect of the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper, as the hon member will know, still has to be implemented. These amounts were paid out for research, professional fees and similar expenditure which was necessary to draw up the White Paper.

The hon member also referred to the leaks in the fuel pipelines, in respect of which a certain amount was paid out. This was for leaks which arose underground, and which were not immediately visible. Once they were discovered, considerable damage had already been caused.

The hon member also referred to the subsidies paid out for the transport of bus passengers. These subsidies comprise mainly two large items. In the first place there is the subsidization of Bophuthatswana’s bus service. This amounted to R32 million and was for the year starting on 1 April 1986. The position here is that a subsidy was paid to Putco, after which Bophuthatswana’s bus service took over Putco’s share. The agreement is that the subsidy will also be paid for Bophuthatswana’s bus service. The allocation is to make provision for the subsidy which now has to be paid to Bophuthatswana.

In the second place there is a further amount of approximately R30 million short on the amount budgeted and which was to have been obtained from the transport levies which employers have to pay.

†That came about as a result of unemployment, arrears on account of changing the collection agents from the development boards to the provincial administrations, and also failure by employers to register.

*The hon member also asked about Pen-tow Marine. A contract was concluded with Pentow Marine in terms of which they would be responsible for the servicing and administration of those two tugs for an amount, I think, of R10 million per year. It depends on the income earned by those two tugs. As the hon member himself knows, we have had very few casualties at sea recently in which those two tugs could be used. Nevertheless it is essential that we have the services of such boats at our disposal. As a result it is necessary that although we have collected hardly any money, we still pay the fixed amount to the people who do the administration of the boats. That is why it is necessary that we obtain extra money to cover that expenditure. [Interjections.]

Then there are the expenses with reference to the Deputy Minister. Programme 1 deals with a variety of staff expenses.

That is paragraph 1.1 of the explanatory memorandum which deals with the Deputy Minister.

As far as paragraph 1.1 is concerned, the amount needed for stationery for the Deputy Minister and his staff is R4 000. Provision has been made for inter alia the administrative expenditure of the Deputy Minister and his staff as from 1 December 1986. This amounts to R13 000. The expenditure for the whole financial year will, of course, appear in the Main Budget.

The amount mentioned here, is R70 000.

I am talking about the breakdown of the expenditure for the whole of Programme 1: Administration. If I give the hon member this breakdown, he will get all the details inter alia with reference to the appointment of the Deputy Minister. The hon member will find, for example, that there is an amount of R414 000 under “Staff Expenditure”, which arises from general salary increases. This amount is recovered from Vote 26, however. A further item concerning the Deputy Minister reads: “Provision is made for the salary and allowances payable to the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs and his staff with effect from 1 December 1986—R36 000”.

Further administrative expenditure includes tariff increases that have been introduced since the draft budget was drawn up on items such as “postal tariffs”, “cargo”, “railage”, “GG-transport”, “air passengers” and “publications in the Government Gazette”. In addition there is an item such as “Special Sitting of Parliament”. Provision is also being made for other administrative expenditure, for example the R13 000 in respect of the Deputy Minister to which I have just referred. In addition provision is being made for additional supplies which were underestimated in the devolution of certain functions to the Department of Environment Affairs. This amounts to an extra R10 000. Furthermore the Deputy Minister and his staff must be supplied with stationery. This amounts to R4 000. The total expenditure in respect of this subprogramme amounts to R14 000.

There are a number of decreases too, however. I do not know whether the hon member has any further …

Just send it to me.

Yes.

Then the hon member also referred to the bad English. I will look into that but as one hon member to another I would also suggest that the hon member should do something about his Afrikaans.

What has that got to do with it?

It has everything to do with the standard of discussion taking place in this House.

Why? [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I address you? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to say to you in response to the hon the Minister’s remark, that I have never objected to the language of any hon member in this House, whether he has used good English, bad English, accentuated English or otherwise.

However, when a document is distributed by the Government of South Africa and there are mistakes in the English—an official language—I would like to know what the Afrikaans bodies would say if the Government used bad Afrikaans in its publications? I guarantee that there would be a complaint.

For the hon the Minister to suggest that bad English in Government documents is to be equated with the lack of usage of Afrikaans …

*At least I can speak Afrikaans if I want to. [Interjections.] I do not say it is perfect Afrikaans, and I am sure it will not be, but I can understand it and at least I can speak it.

†However, that is beside the point. If the hon the Minister wants to raise that sort of question in debate then we shall give it back to him as hard and as strongly as we can. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said in his reply that R32 million is to be spent by his department on what basically boils down to apartheid transportation. The amount of R32 million is to be used to transport people across international boundaries from Bophuthatswana to Pretoria. I assume the bulk of that amount is allocated for transportation to Pretoria or perhaps to Rosslyn the industrial township.

But it would not be cheaper if they were not independent. They would still have to travel.

It would be a lot cheaper if the Government and the party of the hon Leader of the House would allow those people to live closer to their jobs. It would be cheaper if they would allow them to live right next door to their jobs so that they did not have to get up at 3 am to catch a bus or get back home at 11 pm after having had to catch a bus again. [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister would refer to the report of the Eminent Persons Group he would find that one of the things that shocked those members more than anything else were the tremendously long commuting times where people had to travel enormous distances. Those people have to walk for an hour, then catch a bus and have a three-hour bus journey to their workplace.

As in kwaNdebele!

I submit that the amount of R32 million is apartheid expenditure.

I will certainly look into the matter of the bad English. I also want to congratulate the hon member on his Afrikaans—it was the first time I have heard him speak it here in the House and it was not too bad either. He should make more use of it! [Interjections.]

*Whether it depends on the Government’s policy or not, people have to be transported over long distances to their places of employment. That is the factual position and we can do nothing about it. Bophuthatswana chose to be an independent state, and in terms of the agreement we must grant that assistance to the people who are working here in the Republic. We must grant assistance in getting them to work in a reasonable and fair manner.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 5—“Constitutional Development and Planning”:

Mr Chairman, I have a number of questions which I want to put to the hon the Minister, particularly in connection with Programme 5 and with reference to the explanatory memorandum. I see that provision has been made for …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but I have to inform the Committee that the time allotted for the discussion of the Additional Appropriation Bill in accordance with Rule 46 has expired.

Vote agreed to.

Schedules, Clauses and Title agreed to.