Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I had made the statement that the leaders, the clique in charge of Nusas in determining its policy were seeking conflict, arising out of a confrontation, a polarization, between the White people of this country and the other people who live here. I had also made the point that these leaders rejected the policies and the methods of the old South African Liberal Party. I therefore want to express my distress that, in reading the local morning newspaper, The Cape Times, I found that exactly the opposite was reported. I was reported as having said that the leaders of Nusas were more representative of the former Liberal Party and the liberal point of view. I know that the gentlemen of the Press have to work under pressure, and I am convinced that they did not do it deliberately. I hope, however, that the matter will be put right at the first opportunity. A reference to the uncorrected Hansard will show that I said that the evidence clearly showed that the leaders of Nusas rejected liberalism and the attitude of the old Liberal Party. And they rejected, which is worse, the lawful methods which the old Liberal Party advocated for the changes they wanted to bring about in our society. If in fact these leaders of Nusas were liberals in the sense that members of the old Liberal Party were liberals, and they were willing to act within the constitutional framework of South Africa, as the old Liberal Party wanted to do, they would have had the full support certainly of the minority representation on the commission. They would have had full support that they should be allowed to continue with their lawful activities to propound a liberal point of view in South Africa. But it is because this was rejected by the leaders of Nusas that we were forced to come to a different conclusion.

In rejecting liberalism, the leaders of Nusas in their own evidence said that they did not want what the liberals wanted, and that was that the Blacks should be taken in and absorbed into our order, our society as it is today. They wanted the whole order changed. They wanted a revolution in South Africa. They wanted the system under which we live to be destroyed. I repeat that this clique, mostly of half-students or nonstudents, controlling Nusas and often acting without the knowledge of the Nusas membership, wanted a confrontation of races in South Africa.

To prove it further, I now want to read just one or two quotations from evidence obtained about these people from their own writings, and quoted in the Interim Report. I make no apology for quoting from the Interim Report because it is important that these facts should come home to the people of South Africa. First of all I want to quote what was said by Neville Curtis, a past president of Nusas. This appeared in the Nusas Newsletter of March, 1971. It is the report of a speech that he had made. I quote—

That is the Black polarity—

Mr. Paul Pretorius, the present president of Nusas, took a similar line in a magazine called Scan. In May, 1971, he wrote the following, and please listen to this, Sir; these are people who are said to be liberals—

This is the sort of talk with which we have to deal. Then there was another man who has been banned, Prof. Richard Turner of the Natal University. I want to give two quotations from his speeches. This is a lecture which he gave at the University of the Wit-watersrand on Herbert Marcuse, one of the academic leaders of student revolt in America. He said this—

Sir, I think we are witnessing a historical moment today. I think this is one of the few occasions, if not the first, when a member on the Government benches can rise and say that he agrees virtually 100% with what a prominent member of the Opposition has had to say about internal security matters. But before I continue with the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. Speaker, allow me as chairman of this Commission, to express a few words of appreciation.

In the first instance I should like to express a few words of sincere appreciation to my predecessor, Advocate Kruger, who did very fine work for the Commission right up to the time of his promotion; that also goes for the other members who retired owing to promotion. Next I should like to express my deep gratitude to the Commission as a whole for the very sound and staunch work done by them in this regard up to this stage. To the hon. member for Yeoville I should like to address a special word of thanks. Both in years and in experience in this House, the hon. member for Yeoville is my senior by far, but he nevertheless fell in behind me as chairman, and he did so with charm, giving me his full co-operation without in any way forfeiting the sense of independence which is typical of him, and I hope that I have not through these few words given him the kiss of death! Finally, my heartfelt thanks to the two extremely brilliant officials seconded to this Commission by the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, this is only an interim report. The main report on Nusas is still to come. As I see the matter, we may in fact hold a discussion today only on the basis of these two interim reports and the limited evidence relating to these two reports. In any event, I should like to say that in these two interim reports I see considerable progress in the direction of a complete bipartisan policy in respect of internal security. Moreover, I do not wish to cover the ground covered by the hon. member for Yeoville, because he, too, confined himself to these two reports. If I were to do this I would be guilty of repetition. To start with I should just like to say that the Commission aims to introduce another interim report on an important and urgent matter soon. This report will not be directly applicable to Nusas; it is an allied matter, but it is regarded as very urgent and essential. Then the Commission still aims to bring out a final report on Nusas, but in the nature of the matter its final report on Nusas will only be an interim report, too, because thereafter it will still have to report on three further organizations.

Sir, the only ground on which I wish to cross swords lightly with the hon. member for Yeoville is the fact that they view a line of action, one which they also support, differently from a line of action which is supported by this side of the House. In this connection I first want to refer to what the hon. member said yesterday—

I should like to say in all courtesy that in my opinion this is where the hon. member is mistaken. Sir, the point at issue here is not the motives of the people; the point at issue here is what the people do and whether their deeds can really be interpreted objectively as deeds which will have the effect of furthering communism. In this connection the restriction order is very clear, and Mrs. Lapinsky obliged us with a copy of her restriction order in this morning’s Cape Times. It states clearly—

In other words, it is an objective criterion. It has nothing to do with the motives of these people. It is the objective criterion of whether what they do really furthers communism. Therefore it is not at all relevant whether they are communists or whether their motives are to further communism. The hon. member for Yeoville also said that his side of the House was in favour of going to the courts. I want to refer hon. members to paragraph 16 of the second interim report. Paragraph 16 really contains the gist of our recommendations. Here the Commission made a unanimous recommendation and said, inter alia, “Urgent action must be taken”. The Commission went on to say that it felt that internal security was being endangered. The Commission said that unanimously. The Commission also said unanimously that the continued participation of these people in student politics was extremely undesirable. I maintain that when a Commission says that urgent action must be taken, that the internal security is being threatened and that participation by people in a certain activity is undesirable, our present legislation contains no other measure whatsoever which may be applied apart from restriction in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. At this stage I want to extend an earnest invitation to those hon. members of the Opposition who served in the Commission to co-operate with us, if a line of action of this nature does not satisfy them, so that we may see whether we cannot find anything better. In these worrying days when it is necessary to take urgent steps, when an organization states at one of its congresses that it is going to act illegally in the future, there is only one way and one measure open to one in terms of our present legislation, and that is to serve a restriction order on such people in terms of the Act concerned.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke of certain principals of universities who had a great deal to say about Nusas and gave Nusas protection to a certain extent but did not know much about Nusas themselves. I come to one such principal, Sir Richard Luyt, and to what he allegedly said according to todays Burger. According to a report in Die Burger he said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

All I can say to that is: Listen who is talking! After all, it is history; it is well known and it is on record everywhere—I am not relying on the evidence he gave in that connection,—that this same gentleman, Sir Richard Luyt as the then governor of a British Colony persuaded the British Government—please note, he persuaded and asked the British Government to proclaim a state of emergency in that particular colony. He persuaded them to transfer all power to him. It is well known that he detained between 40 and 50 people without the usual procedure of a trial and he also restricted quite a number of people. This same gentleman was sharply criticized for this conduct by the students whom he would so much like to protect now. Here again it is a matter of keeping one’s own house in order.

Then I wish to refer to the editorial of this morning’s Cape Times, 28th February. In this editorial, under the heading “Bypassing the Courts”, they make one outrageous statement, one which in my humble opinion constitutes an infringement of the regulations of the commission. They say, inter alia—

I would suggest that this is an outrageous statement in the light of the fact that this Commission has not yet submitted its final report on Nusas and that it is by no means definite at this stage that this Commission will not hand over certain documents and evidence to the Attorney-General. The hon. member for Yeoville has already raised this point and I want to do so too, but I want to approach it from another point of view. The preamble of the Constitution of Nusas contains the following principle—

Now I think that you, Mr. Speaker, and this House will agree with me that this objective and this principle is extremely liberalistic, and the Commission has from the start had evidence before it to indicate that this is in fact the principle on which Nusas is based, namely this extremely liberal basis and these extremely liberal objectives. In spite of that, this Commission states in its second interim report that with the evidence it has before it to date, it does not contemplate taking action against Nusas as an organization. In my opinion this is perfect proof that this Commission, consisting of members from the Opposition side and members from the Government side, is not possessed by a spirit of so-called “witch-hunting”, that they are not possessed by the spirit of an inquisition, and that they will tolerate the most extreme forms of liberalism, as long as the changes envisaged by that form of liberalism are achieved constitutionally and only constitutionally.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton and the editor of the Sunday Times. I owe them an apology. These two people, the hon. member for Houghton and the editor of the Sunday Times, have a certain way in which they like their egos to be gratified. They make provocative statements and then have the effrontery to expect that one should always react to them. I apologize for not being prepared as Chairman to react to their provocative statements. However, I should like to react to what the hon. member for Houghton said a few months ago. According to a journalist by the name of Hertzog Bier-man she referred to the investigation as a “McCarthyist witch-hunt.”

Yes.

For a lady of her learning, or supposed learning, I am amazed that she should make such a stupid statement. It indicates to me that she does not know what is going on. America had two totally different commissions. In the first instance the Senate had the so-called McCarthy Commission, a Commission with specific terms of reference, and a commission to which certain stigmas attach because the late Senator McCarthy was perhaps too enthusiastic and went out of his way to see a Communist behind every bush. But there is also another committee in America which is still operating today, a respectable committee called “The Committee on Internal Security” previously known as “The Committee on Unamerican Activities.” It may interest hon. members to know that the present President, Nixon, as a young man owed his meteoric rise in politics to the very fact that he, as a young member of the House of Representatives, was chairman of this Committee on Internal Security, and that after a hearing which lasted months and years exposed a very prominent Communist by the name of Alger Hiss, who committed perjury by stating and giving out that he was not a Communist. To this day this committee is doing outstanding work. I have here in my hand a report by this committee on the Black Panther Party. I may say that their language is far more colourful than our parliamentary language. The heading is “Gun Barrel Politics—the Black Panther Party 1966-’71.” It is not McCarthyism when they speak of the dangers of the Black Panther Party of America. As one who had a substantial share in the composition of the first interim report which contains a recommendation that this commission ultimately be converted into a permanent parliamentary commission, I want to say that I had this pattern well and truly at the back of my mind, except that the American commission is a commission of the House of Representatives which is accountable to that House, while this commission, because our system is totally different, envisages in its recommendations a permanent committee or commission which receives requests from a Ministry and which reports back in a capacity of making recommendations to the Ministry concerned. There is absolutely nothing sinister in the recommendation. I reject with contempt the insinuation by the hon. member for Houghton and by certain newspapers that there is any intention whatsoever of converting it into a petty “McCarthyist commission,” a “witch-hunt commission.”

A very old friend of these people whose activities we investigated, one Donald Woods of the Daily Dispatch, said the following according to Die Burger of today (translation)—

I want to say to Mr. Donald Woods and his kindred spirits: Call this Commission as a whole—Nat and U.P.—a group of conservative politicians, call us what you like, but we say to you and to your kind that we shall protect our youth. When I talk of “our youth” I am not referring to the Afrikaner youth only, but to the Afrikaans- and English-speaking youth. I am talking about the youth of our South African nation. It is the best youth in the whole world today and this Commission, the Government and the Opposition, will protect our heritage and our traditions which have been built up over three centuries, whatever names we might be called.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that to me the most depressing part of the depressing speech of the hon. member for Kroonstad is to learn that I am going to have to wade my way through another two or three interim reports on Nusas and if they are going to be of the same ilk as the two I have already read, all I can say is that I can find much better things to do with my time.

Tell us about that.

I want to say to the hon. member that he seems to have forgotten that not so long ago we had an inspired speech in this House from the hon. member for Wonderboom, who I think asked us to adopt the Declaration of Human Rights. So he, presumably, is also one of these dangerous subversive characters to whom the hon. member for Kroonstad referred in his speech.

I want to say at once that I am absolutely appalled at the drastic action which has been taken by the Government against these eight young people, action which has arisen out of the two interim reports which have been signed unanimously by the members of the commission. The hon. the Prime Minister was, of course, in his element. He was back in those old nostalgic days when he was busy banning people right, left and centre, putting them under house arrest and so on. So he, of course, had a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon yesterday when he announced to us that these eight young people were being banned. Here was his very own commission unanimously giving him what I can only call a blinding green light to go ahead with actions of this kind against his old enemies, the leaders of Nusas, who, of course, are the number one scapegoats in this country for everything that goes wrong. If I remember correctly, only a few weeks ago the hon. the Minister of Labour was blaming the Durban strikes on Nusas when in fact they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those strikes [Interjections.] Now, what has emanated from these reports, after all those painstaking hours of sittings, those 50 days, those 3 500 foolscap pages of evidence that the hon. member for Yeoville told us about yesterday? The first thing is—something which was confirmed by the hon. member for Kroonstad.—that we are going to have a permanent interior security committee, consisting, mark you, of members of Parliament, attached to the office of the Prime Minister and reporting to the State President on matters which the State President has referred to them to investigate. We are therefore not only going to have in this country a very efficient security branch of the Police—for whom I have the greatest possible respect except that very often the evidence that they present in court is disregarded by the judges concerned as being unreliable—and BOSS keeping its watchful eye upon us. In addition we are now going to have members of our very own family, parliamentarians, who are going to make up in this permanent committee. That, interestingly enough, is what this interim report says is going “to lift security out of the political arena”. Yet they are putting it slap into the hands of politicians because, after all, all of us in this House, be we left wing, right wing, conservative, centre or whatever we are, we are all politicians in this House. But according to the report this is now going to be lifted out of the arena. And yet, if I could remind this House, when speaking on the original debate to have the Select Committee appointed, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was asking for a judicial commission of inquiry rather than a Select Committee, said the following—

I could not agree with him more. But I wonder whether he will tell this House why his members on that committee have now agreed to the appointment of this interior security committee consisting only of members of Parliament, who, as he rightly says, can only consider these matters in a very subjective way indeed. It seems to me an extraordinary change of front from last year.

Now, for the benefit of the hon. member for Kroonstad I repeat what I said outside this House, namely that I consider that we are now setting up on a permanent basis our very own branch of the McCarthy Committee in America, our very own un-South African activities committee. This committee is to sit permanently and is the same sort of committee …

Are you against it?

Of course I am against it. I thought I made that clear. It is the same sort of committee that in the 1950s caused such damage to the lives of thousands of good American citizens. It was a committee which I believe most intelligent Americans today look back on with a sense of shame. And here we are in 1973 setting up the same sort of committee which is going to inquire into the lives of our citizens and organizations. I want to say categorically that I do not believe that any self-respecting Member of Parliament will agree to serve on this committee. That is my own viewpoint. [Interjections.] No doubt, the Opposition members who have agreed to sit on this committee, since they have signed this unanimous report, are going to tell this House that they are agreeing to this so that they can see that justice is done. This is exactly what they said when they agreed to serve on the Select Committee which later became the commission of investigation into the four organizations. I want to know: Has justice been done?

Has it not?

Certainly not. Has justice been done? I believe we can only answer this question if we examine first of all the accusations, secondly the procedure and thirdly the punishment which has been meted out. As I assess it from the first interim report, the accusations are that the leaders of Nusas are intensely active in the political field. So they are, and what is wrong with that? Do they have to support the existing parties in order to be legal? It might well be that they do not agree with the existing parties. In point of fact, since we are talking about facts, the hon. member for Yeoville is quite wrong when he says that none of these leaders mentioned supported, for instance, the Progressive Party which I represent in this House.

I never said anything of the kind.

Oh yes, you did; I have the hon. member’s words here. If he wants me to read them, I shall read them out to him.

I did not say what you are now suggesting.

Sir, what the hon. member said was that those leaders did not support any of the existing parties here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I did not say that.

Sir, the hon. member says he did not say it. I quote from his speech—

Well, what have I said that you did not say?

As activists they do not support your party. Or do they?

Of course they do.

Which ones?

Many of them. Some of them worked for me in my own election. Some of them are today in fact organizers in the Progressive Party.

Which one of those eight supports you? [Interjections.]

No, not of the eight … [Interjections.] Sir, there are lots of other Nusas leaders referred to in this report.

They have not been restricted.

Never mind whether they have been named or banned … [Interjections.] The hon. member said “a student organization whose leaders …”, and not all the leaders have been banned by any means. In fact, many other leaders are mentioned in this report and among them are persons who support the Progressives. I am just trying to correct the facts.

The hon. member referred, inter alia, to two of the “communes”, a word not even used by the students themselves, incidentally. But it has a good psychological effect, you know: communes—communists. It immediately links them together. At any rate, he said that they were in the constituency of his leader. This is an unimportant point, but in fact I understand that they are not in the constituency of his leader. I am told that they are in the constituency of the loyal lieutenant of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the hon. member for Pinelands, but this is a minor detail. It was brought up by the hon. member for Yeoville, and I am trying to show that the facts are not as unassailable as they might appear to be in this report.

The justification for the assertion that all these students are working for drastic change in South Africa is apparently to be found in the second interim report where it is stated that the leaders are opposed to capitalism, existing moral norms, various forms of authority such as the parent/child relationship, the teacher/pupil relationship and the university authority/student relationship. Well, Sir, this is reprehensible perhaps and many people may object to this, but it is hardly criminal and it hardly deserves the sort of treatment which has been meted out to these young people. I could quote socialist speeches that were made by the hon. the Minister of Transport when he was not as young as these students. After all, youth is supposed to be some sort of excuse, shall we say, for irresponsibility. But I could quote the hon. the Minister of Transport making violently socialist speeches, and even contending that trade unionism must be wiped off the slate in this country, and in those days, as I say, he was not such a young man.

Then, Sir, there is the unwise resolution, which of course was emphasized, which the students passed at their last congress about not obeying the law in certain circumstances.

Do you agree with that?

This was an unwise resolution for them to have passed, certainly, but in itself it is no infringement of the law. Then, Sir, there is a whole lot of supposition and there are deductions from those suppositions that because Nusas got most of its money from abroad, it must blacken South Africa’s name in order to get this money since it competes with other organizations such as terrorist organizations, and therefore it must, of course, go out of its way to damn South Africa. I want to say, first of all, that all the things which Nusas say abroad, they say inside South Africa.

That is a supposition.

I want to say also that Nusas got its own funds on its own terms for its own projects, and what other people did with money that they got from the same sources is no responsibility of theirs whatsoever.

The second report, Sir, sets out mainly to discredit certain leaders. They live in communes, as the hon. member said. This is also no crime to the best of my knowledge. I understand, or rumour has it anyway, that some members of the commission took a keen interest in the sex lives of the students who appeared before them. What relevance this has to the subject under discussion I do not know.

That is not true.

Then, Sir, the report states or insinuates that they were all hopeless students. In fact, most of the students have got their degrees or are very close to getting their degrees, and many of them are studying for post-graduate degrees.

Then we have the statement that they were planning the overthrow of the existing order in South Africa. There are quite a lot of members in this House who not so very long ago—or let us say during World War II—were also talking about overthrowing the existing order in South Africa, and that, Sir, was when there was a war on, and I want to know what war is on today and why we are treating students today as if we are in a state of emergency, as if we are in a proper state of emergency, which I do not believe for a moment exists.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that the students sought a confrontation last year …

I did not say “students”; I said “a clique”.

I am talking about the students who are mentioned in this report, whether they are banned or not banned. It is quite wrong to say that they sought a confrontation. The confrontation took place on the very last day of the student protest against unequal education, and, Sir, it was the police who in fact engineered or, rather, provoked the confrontation by attacking students who by no stretch of the imagination could be said to be anything but non-violent, so how the hon. member can say that the students engineered a confrontation with the police last year I simply cannot understand.

Then, Sir, there is the accusation that the students want to commit themselves to action in spheres outside the enclosure of the campus, coupled with the injunction that action should take a form that would generate continued public interest and support. I do not see anything very revolutionary in that myself. Maybe hon. members have eyes to see what I do not see. I see nothing revolutionary in that.

What about the ballot-box?

All this naïve stuff is solemnly presented by the commission as a menace to the security of the State, together with the fact, of course, that Nusas appears to have been rather lax in some of its accounting; I will grant that it did not keep its accounts in the way it should have done. Now, Sir, I want to ask not only whether justice was done but whether, in terms of the procedure of Select Committees, justice could properly be done. Is it not true, for instance, that the Select Committee, later converted into a commission, held all its sittings in camera—very unlike an ordinary judicial court where justice is seen to be done?

A Select Committee cannot sit in camera.

By virtue of the way it is constituted and its procedure, it cannot in fact be a proper inquiry, and that is exactly the point made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition last year when he asked for a judicial commission of inquiry instead of a Select Committee. I am making those same points over again; they are as valid now, post hoc this committee, as they were before the committee sat. Is it not true that untested BOSS reports, for instance, were put in front of the committee and that counsel for Nusas, who the hon. member for Yeoville emphasized represented these people, could not lead evidence or cross-examine the witness, especially after interrogation, and that accused and their counsel were not able to examine any of the evidence led against them and were therefore absolutely unable to refute any such evidence and that they had in fact to give their own evidence in vacuo simply by virtue of the rules under which the Select Committee and later, the commission worked? I think this could not have been a proper inquiry; it is much more like an inquisition. It is not a proper inquiry; not by any stretch of the imagination can it be called a judicial inquiry. Then let us look at the punishment which has been meted out on these young people. I admit some of them talk big and some of them talk foolishly and some of them in fact have been irresponsible at times, but presumably, if any of them had ever committed anything illegal, our zealous Minister of Justice and our zealous Minister of Police would have taken action. I cannot imagine that they would not have. No illegal acts have been found against these students and there is not even a breath of suspicion that they are communists, according to the hon. member for Yeoville. Now they have these bannings, what I call vicious bannings placed on them, condemning these eight young people to a twilight existence, because that is what it is, a twilight existence, and nobody except Miss Ensor was ever even warned to desist from doing what he or she was doing. Sir, almost every past and present member of the executive of Nusas has been deprived of his or her passport and I would say that that is punishment enough, but now comes this Government with these drastic restrictions which were published yesterday. The commission says it does not recommend action against Nusas. The hon. member for Kroonstad emphasizes this also and repeats that it is desirable to have a national organ to which students can belong. I would have thought that once one goes on blotting out all the effective leaders of an organization one invariably ends up by blotting out the whole organization.

They are not students.

They are students and ex-students doing post-graduate work, and Nusas have always had that sort of full-time officials. [Interjections.] I have often found it very hard indeed to understand the attitude of the official Opposition. Their support for various measures in this House remains an absolutely unsolved mystery to me. But I find really that the whole thing is very simple. The solution is just that they panic very easily. At the very mention of State security, they go rigid. They have no guts. That is the trouble. I would say that to the long list of unsolved mysteries must now be added the unanimous support they are giving to this report, the blank cheque which they have signed asking the Government to take action, urgent action, against these students. Now they are sorry; they say they did not expect the Government to act in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, after this Government’s reputation and the ruthless action they have always taken! As the hon. member for Kroonstad rightly says, what other sort of action did they expect them to take? To give them six strokes with the whip? Obviously the action taken was the only possible action, once that report was signed unanimously, that one could expect this Government to take. Now, it is all very well, as I say, for the hon. member for Yeoville to come along now and complain that he is unhappy that the Prime Minister yesterday said that he was acting under the Suppression of Communism Act.

I want to say, finally, that I think there could be three effects of the action which has been taken in regard to these interim reports, and all three are bad for South Africa. The first is that I see them having the probably desired effect, i.e. desired by the Government and also by the United Party, of intimidating all but the boldest of students into submission, to reduce the vast body of students into submissive gormless neuters. That is what they want to do. Sir, I believe it will be utterly deadly for a country’s youth to be put into this submissive frame of mind because it is from our educated and questioning youth that future leaders should be drawn, and I believe that unquestioning youth, which accepts the prejudices and the opinions of the older generation, are not in fact the youth one wants in a democratic country. That sort of youth are the youth that belong behind the Iron Curtain and those are the youth that belong to Nazi Germany. The second effect which I also believe will be very bad for this country is that I believe South Africa will lose some of its finest young people from the Republic. [Interjections.] There was Dr. Hoffenberg, who was run out of the country last year because he was restricted and today he is professor of medicine at one of the finest medical schools in England, of Birmingham. I believe we are going to lose some of our finest young people, the independently thinking young people of this country, because a country that expects rigid conformity from its young people is not going to keep those young people. Any independent-minded young person is not going to stick around and wait here for action to be taken against him. I believe we should realize that young people throughout the world are in a chronic state of semi-rebellion against our generation. We may call it the generation gap, we could call it anything we like, but it is sensible to recognize it and not to punish it. By punishing it, we are going to drive some of the leadership material, and heaven knows, looking around us in this House, leadership material is scarce enough. [Interjections.] Finally and worst of all, I believe that it is this sort of action which is going to provoke our young people into the very sort of action that the Government thinks it is going to prevent. It is going to provoke students into unlawful action. I believe then that there will be more of these ugly Police/student confrontations that we had last year. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of this House think that the television scenes that were seen all over the world last year of Police clobbering non-violent, unarmed students did us any good. If we are going to provoke students into this sort of action and have Police reaction in turn, then I tell you that this country is in for a very poor time. I want to say that all in all I believe that the action of the Government in banning these eight young people is nothing less than an unmitigated disaster for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has never pretended to be as anxious as she has pretended to be today, particularly in one respect. Before she began speaking this afternoon, this afternoon’s edition of The Argus was already on my table with her speech in it. [Interjections.] The speech, which she has just made in the House, was already printed in The Argus before she had made it. The hon. member did not even repeat here all the things she said in The Argus and which she was to have said in the House today. This just shows how one sometimes makes a fool of oneself in one’s over-eagerness. This is what the hon. member did this afternoon: She made a fool of herself by virtue of the fact that she had her speech published in a local newspaper even before she had delivered it in the House. [Interjections.] Another thing that surprises me is that the hon. member for Houghton does not know, even yet, that he must have a long spoon who sups with the devil or he bums his mouth. That is what happened to the people we are dealing with and on whom today’s debate is centred.

The majority of hon. member have children at a university. I myself have children at a university: the majority of us have. The majority of the members of this commission have children at university. There are young people amongst these eight people who were restricted. On the face of it they are fine people, intelligent people. Some of them come from very, very good homes. It is clear that the majority of them had a very good education. It is probably not nice for any member of the commission and any member of this House to have to speak about such matters to these young people of ours. It is not nice for any one of us to have these young people up before us, one after another, to give evidence, and to say to oneself, as one person after another walks out: It is really a pity that persons of such intelligence—some of them far above average—with such academic qualifications, persons who obtained first class, and some second class, results, and who have such a home background, with the finest of futures ahead of them, sup with the devil. One has repeatedly oneself that it is a pity that this good human material, these fine young people—whether they come from English or Afrikaans universities does not matter—are engaged in these subversive activities in South Africa.

And Helen stirs the broth.

The hon. member for Houghton has really done no-one a favour this afternoon by saying, at the end of her speech, what is going to be achieved by the steps taken. This was done, inter alia, to encourage these people, or as one would put it in English: “To provoke the students into more action.” Why did she not rather stand up this afternoon and sound a warning to the people? Why does she not rather give the people a warning? We do not want the few remaining student leaders, who were not restricted, to overstep the mark. We do not want them to come with more demonstrations. We know that their season of demonstrations actually begins in April of this year. Those are the terms they use in front of us. They say: “Our season begins in April and goes through to June of next year. Then we will show you what we can do.” We do not want the people to put their season into operation, because what is going to happen? They are going to get hurt, because they are not dealing with a Prime Minister and a Government that are too spineless to take action. If they stick their necks out, they are going to get hurt. I want to tell those young people, and the young people who want to listen to this debate seriously, that they must go back to their people and tell them that they should not stick out their necks any further, in the devil’s company, because they are just going to encounter problems in time to come. I would have been glad if the hon. member for Houghton had wanted to speak to her people today, because those people are her people. She ought to have spoken to her people today and said: “although we feel unhappy, even though we feel that the Government action against us is too severe, do not go and do something irresponsible”. That is not what the hon. member did today. I am not just chatting to her now—I mean it very, very seriously.

She stirs them up.

The hon. member could have used the floor of this House today for a more responsible speech.

This commission and this House has no interest in hurting children. That is not what it is all about, but it is, in fact, our duty to speak seriously to children who want to meddle unnecessarily in the affairs of grown-ups, and to young people who are looking for trouble. As I have already said, most of us have children at a university, and the majority of us have children at high school. We have all been young and we know how progressive our thinking can be. We know how far ahead of our parents our thinking could run; we know how far ahead of our lecturers our thinking could run; and we also know how far ahead of our Government of the day our thoughts can run. We are all prepared to accommodate those arguments of our young people. We appreciate speaking to them. We do not mind doing so, however far left they may be in South Africa, however progressive their thinking may be, and even if they were all members of the Progressive Party. That does not matter. It does not matter what their political convictions are. We do not say they may not have those convictions; we do not say they may not air them in public, and we do not say they may not publish them. Neither do we say that they should not state these convictions in countries abroad. They may tell all those there who want to listen. And if they feel at home on Hyde Park Comer, so much the better. But what we do say is that they must not venture into a sphere, where they so seriously embarrass South Africa and its people and present such a danger that they will eventually not be able to check the consequences, and then expect that action will not be taken against them. No-one in this House wants to deny the students their student politics. No one in this House is telling a student that student politics is merely a matter of intervarsities and of dragging a member of Parliament through a mud-bath at Dagbreek. No one in this House is saying this. We are also telling our students that student politics also embraces thought about national affairs. They must, of course, argue about national affairs. They must argue about the matters that affect the community in which they are living, in which they are studying and in which they must work out some future. They must argue about that. They must discuss that scientifically. But what we are telling our students is this: Do not want to elevate this student politics of yours to national politics, and in doing so want to bring about a situation in South Africa that does not belong in your sphere, that is dangerous to South Africa, and then expect that you will not get a hiding. If you then get a hiding you must not cry about it. That is what is happening here. Surely these young men and women have not only started playing this game today. They know, after all, that they began playing this game in the late ’fifties. They continued with it through the ’sixties. They surely know how seriously the hon. the Prime Minister has already talked to them on so many occasions, when he was still Minister of Justice, and how seriously he spoke to them on certain occasions after he became Prime Minister, what he told their parents and how he had some of them taken out of goal, telling their parents: “Here is your child; take him please, because I do not like to see these young people in goal.” After all, there has been a great deal of talk, for at least 15 years. During the past fifteen years this small group, this activist clique, has taken action, and today they must take what they get. I am telling them to take it like a man, not as the hon. member for Houghton tells this small group of activists: “proceed to further action.” I want to tell this small group of activists: Take the hiding you got like a man and at least try to exert a better influence on the students, particularly the English-speaking students at the English-speaking universities, than you have exerted in the past. This small group of activists, a few of their predecessors and some who are still sitting there today—and who must not think they can simply go on with this devilish game—must realize that 15 years is a long time for a government to exercise patience. Patience, as far as these people are concerned, has run out. Today it is also my pleasure, in contrast to what the hon. member for Yeoville said, to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that this House has been grateful, time and again, for what he has done in this sphere in the past, and for what is being done again today for the sake of national security in South Africa.

I should also like to cross over to something else. The hon. member tried here, I think in a very pedestrian manner, to discredit some of the members of the Commission by saying that there were apparently members of the Commission who had an excessive interest in the sexual pursuits of the students. I want to say that we are responsible people; we are parents and have no interests in the sexual pursuits of students. But if these people hold seminars where there are no separate bedrooms for male and female students, where there are not even separate bedrooms for Whites and Blacks, it is our task to know what is going on there. Then it is also this Commission’s duty to come and tell this Parliament what goes on at those seminars that were held. I think the hon. member should be ashamed of herself for apparently trying to ascribe something to the members of the committee by so pedestrian a reference to those aspects. The hon. member wants to present these young people today as such little angels. I can just say that we are dealing here with young men and young women who are intelligent young people, who are well read young people and who are determined to achieve their ultimate object. In South Africa they have only one ultimate object. I am not speaking now about Nusas as an organization, because the tragedy of the matter is that the masses of students at the English-speaking universities do not know what is going on in Nusas. They do not even know about most of the congress decisions taken by Nusas. We have had senior student councillors and senior students up before us who gave evidence to the effect that they did not even know, nor could they discover, even the elementary things about Nusas’ finances. This is the situation that prevails as far as this small group of activists is concerned. They also see to it that their friends follow them up in the same administrative positions. This small group has only one object in mind and that is a South Africa where a person will be regarded as a person regardless of his colour—White, Black, Yellow or Brown—and where there will be a so-called “just society” with a majority Government in power. That is all the people are aiming at, notwithstanding all the fine talk. They do not even fit in with the programme of the Progressive Party. It is quite ironical that a few of them are organizers for the Progressive Party, or became organizers directly after leaving Nusas. But as an introduction the hon. member tried to say here that these people are supposedly so innocent in relation to the recent labour disturbances that prevailed in Natal. I do not want to analyse the evidence for hon. members, but we did have evidence of that. I just want to refer the hon. members to their own newsletter, volume 4 of 16th January of this year, in which Nusas says the following, inter alia, under the heading “Focus on Labour”—

It is a little obscure here. I shall rather continue with the second page—

These are now their commissions. They appeared before official State bodies and made representations on behalf of these people. I personally think they should not even have been allowed there.

And they are doing very good work too.

Unfortunately it happened, however. It happened in Durban, for example. They continue by stating—

What the people state here, they carried out in practice. I want to ask Nusas: Where does this fit in with student politics, i.e. the fact that they busy themselves inciting Black workers in South Africa to demand higher wages? And the fact that leaders of Nusas distribute pamphlets here in the Cape Town harbour to incite stevedores to demand higher wages—where does that fit in with student politics? If they consequently get a hiding, they must surely not complain.

The hon. member says, inter alia, that what they say in South Africa they also say abroad. The hon. member is unfortunately not aware of all the evidence that was gathered. She apparently does not realize that Nusa’s clique cannot get any money. I am not speaking of the organization as such; because that is quite a good student organization. But this clique cannot get any money in South Africa. They cannot even get money from the hon. member for Houghton. They cannot even get money from Mr. Oppenheimer or from other big businessmen. Why not? Because responsible people in South Africa—and unfortunately I cannot include the hon. member for Houghton in that—are not prepared to join this small clique in supping with the devil. That is why they have to go abroad.

Mrs. Devil is here.

They have affiliation fees, but that is too little for them to exist on. Therefore they have to go abroad, but whom do they have to compete with abroad? Abroad they must compete with all kinds of leftist organizations, i.e. organizations that support terrorists and organizations that want to do all kinds of crooked things in other countries. They must compete with the same sources for funds. There is an abundance of proof to support that. That will be submitted to the House. The results of their actions are such that the leaders of Nusas go and try to get money from those bodies, actually surpass themselves to besmirch South Africa abroad in order to obtain money, because if they did not do that they would not get any money. In other words, they must be more left than the leftist organizations in Europe. I wish the hon. member for Houghton could see some of the material—one day the Commission will make it available to this House—that is being taken out of South Africa to be displayed there. Do hon. members know to what purpose it is being displayed there? The material is being taken out of South Africa, inter alia, with the important object of negativing the good work the Department of Information does outside South Africa. For example, photographs are taken of a school building from beyond a barbed-wire fence. Photographs are taken of the series of graves in Dimbaza. In any cemetery in any large city one can go and take a photograph of 50 or 60 graves that have been dug there. Such a photograph is taken at Dimbaza, for example, and is displayed in Europe as an indication that famine prevails and that people are dying by the dozen every day, all of it to negative the good work of the Department of Information. These are now the innocent little mites about whom the hon. member for Houghton makes such a fuss. Mr. Speaker, there are so many quotations you could be given of strong attitudes adopted by these leaders in public. Every week reports about that appear in newspapers. The one is more challenging than the next. They want to be the strong men in South Africa. But it does not pay one to want to be strong as far as a Government is concerned. One must also act responsibly towards a strong and responsible Government. It is no use acting irresponsibly. I want to quote for the House just one passage of the small clique on account of their provocative attitude towards the commission and Parliament. According to a report in a morning newspaper of 21st February, under the heading “Banning will not stop us, says Nusas”, they said the following (translation)—

These are the innocent young people the hon. member for Houghton is so fond of accompanying. But let us look at other aspects which the hon. member for Houghton mentioned. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned, inter alia, “the declaration of human rights”. These people do not coniine themselves to that game. The hon. member for Houghton must not make that mistake. Here we are not dealing with people who want to play that game. Here we are dealing with people who find it very difficult to condemn the terrorists on the borders of South Africa. On the contrary; they are not prepared to condemn the terrorists. Why not? In their opinion, and according to their view, the terrorists on our borders are there as a result of circumstances we are creating locally. The blame therefore lies with the local situation. No blame can be attached to the terrorists, because the terrorists are the innocent freedom fighters who must come and try to correct the local situation in South Africa so that there can eventually be a “just society” here in South Africa. The whole concept is one of “change” and “the new left”, all of them things that began a few years ago in America and blew across here. If one reads a book by Prof. Duvenage of Potchefstoom, who made a study of the situation in America, one finds exactly the same thing there. The same thing took place at some American universities. One finds a precise projection in South Africa of this leftist trend. The question is now whether we in South Africa are going to allow a situation, like the one that developed in France, to develop here? Are we also going to allow a situation to develop here in South Africa like the situation that developed in America, where students tell lecturers what they want to have taught and where students compel lecturers in a university council to give them so much of a share in the university that they actually control that university, where students act so provocatively in the face of authority that some of them must be shot dead on the campuses? Must we now wait until such a situation develops, when we are sitting on all this information? Oh no! Therefore I am grateful to the official Opposition—not the little Opposition sitting here—for being prepared to join the National Party and the Government today in saying: We are not prepared to sit with this mass of information and do nothing. We have thousands of sheets of information available about Nusas. There is hardly an aspect of Nusas about which information is not at our disposal. There are thousands of pages of evidence. We sat for weeks and weeks listening to the people. I think that with the help of the members of the commission, and the help of the good officials that were placed at our disposal, questions were certainly put to these people at a level of competence seldom found in any judicial proceedings in South Africa. The question is whether we and whether the Government must sit with this mass of information without taking action. We now say: We are sitting with this information and we realize what our problem is. One cannot always want to take a person to court. One cannot always take a person to court, particularly in the spheres of State and internal security. One knows he sups with the devil, but as a legal man one also knows that it is going to be very difficult to find that person guilty in court. One also knows very well that one cannot allow the matter to get out of hand. One must take this person to task. What happened here is that this commission made a recommendation to the Government, and the Government saw fit to accept the recommendation. That is why we have this situation before this House today. This Government says: “We are prepared to take preventive action.” That is what is now being done. Here we are preventing further acts of mischief from being committed, and we are going to prevent further acts of mischief from being committed. At this stage this is all that is being asked of the Government in this report. The Government was sufficiently responsible to say: “We asked these people to collect information for us. Now they come to us with all this information and they tell us that a dangerous situation exists and that these young people must be taught that one cannot go on like this. The commission states that there are some of these young people who must be put into cold storage for a while in order to cool down.”

Five years!

That was what the commission said, and then the Government said: “Very well. We appreciate that. We shall put them into cold storage.” I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I personally have thought about this situation for a very long time. I have thought about this for a very long time and wondered what one should do with these young people. I came to the conclusion that there is only one solution, and that is to put these young men and young women somewhere in cold storage for three to five years so that they can cool down as far as their so-called student politics is concerned.

You are a big bully.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton may feel bad if she wants to, and she is free to pass remarks, which unfortunately I cannot always hear. I want to tell her …

You are a big bully, that is what I said.

Yes, the hon. member for Houghton may say that I am a “big bully”, but I very seriously feel it to be my duty, so let me be a “big bully” in this respect, but it is in the best interests of these young men and these young women that they should go and cool down for five years. At the end of five years they can then look, with greater responsibility, at student politics. They will then also look at national politics with greater responsibility. They will probably return and take the lead again, because there are some of them who possess the necessary qualities and who can still become great leaders. They will probably return and they will be more responsible people. As I have said, the best thing that can happen to them today, is to take them and tell them: “Go and cool down a little. You are between 19 and 23 years of age, and you are altogether too rebellious for your own safety and your own interests.” Sir, that is what is being done here. I had a look at this restriction list. I see, inter alia, that they are also prohibited from attending social gatherings. It is altogether necessary for this to happen. One cannot level criticism at anything in this. The provisions of this restriction order are all necessary; they are all good. There is nothing in this restriction order that prohibits any of these young people from getting decent work for themselves. There is one of these people who has not even worked for three years. Now and then he writes in for one subject at the university, just so that he does not lose the thread. There are some of these people for whom it would be a good thing to go and look for a decent job now, because they have the necessary qualifications, and for whom it would be a good thing to go and continue their studies and ensure that they obtain their degrees and finish their studies. The majority of them will probably continue to study until they receive their master’s or doctor’s degrees. Here they now have the opportunity to go and do this …

Without any difficulty.

… without any difficulty and without any trouble to anyone and to themselves. They can use these five years very profitably; but it is in South Africa’s interests that they be put on ice by the Government for five years to cool down. Sir, I also want to say—and in this connection I am indebted to the Opposition—that these decisions, which were taken by the Government, and the attitude being adopted by hon. members of the Opposition, except for the hon. member for Houghton, will most certainly be appreciated by every responsible parent in South Africa, and particularly those parents who have children at English-speaking universities in South Africa. They will yet take note, with great appreciation, of the trouble that was taken, the time that was spent and the information that was gleaned in order to tell them: “People, we were compelled to come to grips with a small group of activists, who want to lead your children into the abyss.” Sir, those responsible people in South Africa will yet come to thank this House.

I find considerable difficulty in following the reasoning of the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. She has over the years that I have known her in this Parliament emphasized the importance of student opinion and student views in the political life of South Africa. I agree with her; I agree that student opinion is important, that it is a factor that we should always take into account. But, Sir, this afternoon when action is recommended by this commission against these students for what they have said, they now become irresponsible young people of whom nobody should take any notice. Either the student body is important in South Africa or it is not. The approach of the hon. member for Houghton is that these are young, irresponsible people and that we should not be harsh; that we should just completely ignore them. Sir, I am not prepared to regard the students of the English-language universities in South Africa as irresponsible young people.

Hear, hear!

I believe that they are in the main highly responsible people, but that in their midst, as is clear from the findings of this commission, there is an irresponsible group of students who are not interested in student activities and student welfare but in some other activities which are not in the interests of the country.

The hon. member, in dealing with this commission, which was originally a Select Committee, had something to say about the procedure followed by the commission. Sir, I want to know why the hon. member for Houghton did not attend any sittings of the Select Committee, as she was quite entitled to do while we sat as a Select Committee. She could then have seen our modus operandi. She could have seen the way in which the witnesses were brought before the Select Committee to give evidence. She was quite entitled to sit there as a member of this House, but she never attended.

She did not want to be informed.

But now, Sir, she criticizes us of the Opposition because we felt it our duty to participate in this investigation and to participate in the proceedings of the commission which was subsequently appointed. Sir, when the hon. member suggests that this commission has been unreasonable, I think she owes it to the House and to the country to state whether she does not think that the commission should take seriously some of the statements which the hon. member for Yeoville quoted here this afternoon. I will repeat them for the hon. member. Does she believe that it is a correct attitude of mind, about which we should not express concern, when Mr. Curtis says—

Does she subscribe to those views?

Zip!

Does she subscribe to the views of Mr. Pretorius, who said—

Does she agree that that is what the future must be for this country of ours? Those matters she does not deal with, but she talks in generalities about young people being harshly treated. I want to say that when she asks whether justice has been done, that I believe that this commission appointed by the State President to take the place of the Select Committee originally appointed by this House, has done justice. It has done justice to the National Union of South African Students. I believe it has done justice to 95% of the English-language university students of South Africa because out of the mouths of the witnesses, these people who are listed in this report, we have it that they have only 5% of the students’ support at a maximum. I believe that, furthermore, justice has been done to thousands upon thousands of young students who have had nothing to do with Nusas under the leadership which has been perpetuated within this inner circle in the years that have gone by.

[Inaudible.]

For the hon. member to suggest that the general body of students has been condemned is nonsense. May I remind the hon. member for Houghton that recently there was a by-election in Johannesburg West. In that area of Johannesburg are the majority of the English-language students of the Witwatersrand University and of the Teachers’ Training College, and in Johannesburg West the Progressive Party candidate lost his deposit. That is the measure of support she gets from Nusas as a student organization but she gets support from this very clique which has been condemned. That is where her support comes from. The hon. member also conjured up all sorts of visions about the standing parliamentary commission which has been recommended. In the first instance the hon. member should know that that commission has to be established by legislation of this House, and that legislation, which will come before this House, will obviously indicate the powers and the authority which that commission will have. Now to conjecture and to throw out thoughts to the general public that we are thinking of establishing some McCarthyism in South Africa, is just so much irresponsible nonsense. I hope she will accept and understand that the commission did not lightly recommend this proposed commission. The commission was fully conversant with the reformation which took place in the United States to establish the present standing committee in the United States to deal with internal security. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that that committee is the last committee which should ever be accused of being a witch-hunting McCarthy commission.

But I want to, if I may, just elaborate a little more on the position in which we on this side of the House find ourselves in regard to the action which has been taken by the Government under the Suppression of Communism Act. Our attitude has been consistent since 1950, when this Act first came before Parliament. Our attitude was quite clear, i.e. that executive action should only be taken within clear statutory limits. I think I propounded the same thoughts in legislation which was before this House this session. Firstly, the motivation for any action against a person must be defined clearly and unambiguously and the grounds for that action must be stated. That is clear from the statement the hon. the Minister issued, in which he says that he believes, in his opinion, that they are furthering the objects of communism. Secondly, when those powers are given we believe that the exercise of those powers should be subject to proper review by the courts. On that point we have differed over the years from that side of the House. My hon. Leader in the debate in 1950, as will be apparent from Hansard, pointed out that in the United States and in Australia there were laws against unlawful organizations and laws to suppress communism, but in each one of those the Executive’s action is always subject to review by the courts. Sir, I might remind the House of a quotation from Pres. Truman when he was dealing with this legislation in the U.S.A., which emphasizes the danger if one does not keep that right of recourse to the courts in the provisions of the Act. He said this—

I think that precisely sets out the position and the attitude we have adopted on this side of the House. Having said that, if one looks at the unanimous findings of fact against the persons mentioned in this report, they are not based on surmise. The findings in the report which we have mentioned are clear and unequivocal. I believe there is against those persons a prima facie case on which they could be charged. I am supported by the very document of restraint which the hon. the Minister issued. It supports my view—I have not stated the view of the commission—that these findings should be referred to the Attorney-General. If the findings of fact which we have in these reports before us do not justify a criminal prosecution for an offence under the laws of South Africa, then I believe, with the hon. member for Yeoville, that there is something very wrong with the laws of our country. There is something very wrong if these people cannot be prosecuted on the findings of fact which are now before this House. I believe that it is the responsibility of this Government to introduce the necessary laws so that these people can be brought before the courts for this type of activity to be tried and punished.

I believe that the responsibility to maintain law and order in this country is not a responsibility that rests solely on this House, on the Executive and its Police and so on. We are not concerned with first-year students in the problems which we have. We are not concerned with young people straight from school. These ringleaders, these activists, stand condemned for their activities—they are not young people who have just entered a university as first- or second-year students—not by extraneous or circumstantial evidence, but by their own writings and out of their own mouths. There was a lot of evidence heard by the commission. The evidence on which we reported to the State President in these reports before the House is based on the evidence of the people themselves given before us in that commission. They appeared personally. With one exception, they all had legal assistance. The hon. member for Houghton suggested that this was something of no value at all, but the House can be assured that they were very closely questioned. Evidence was led by our efficient legal adviser whom we had with us. He led the evidence-in-chief and we, as members of the commission, then questioned them very closely. We gave these people every opportunity to explain some meaning which we did not or might not see in the words which they had used. In addition to that the chairman made it quite clear to each one of them before the commission that if they had anything further they wanted to add or say, they were at liberty to add or say it to us in the sittings of the commission. That will appear from the record of proceedings. The documents and reports to which reference was made in the report before the House were put to them, especially when it was a report of something that was supposed to have been said by somebody in order that he could confirm or deny the correctness of that particular report.

Those people who were before us, and who are mentioned herein, do not represent 24 000 students as The Cape Times had the audacity to mention this morning. They represent a maximum of about 1 200 to 1 500 students at the English-language universities in South Africa. Their congress decisions are taken by some 40, 50, 60 students who attend that congress. They are so uncertain of their own congress resolutions that according to their constitution those resolutions need not be accepted by Student Representative Councils who are constituent members of Nusas. In other words, this is the set-up of a central figure, a central image of Nusas which is in the hands of this group of people to whom we have referred. I believe these people have been besmirching the name of the English universities of South Africa for long enough.

Hear, hear!

This clique, as appears from the findings of the Commission, was heading and was prepared to involve students in a movement which would lead to a head-on confrontation in South Africa. That was the matter which impressed upon the commission and which impressed upon me the urgency of presenting these reports to Parliament. I believe very strongly, and so does the Commission, as it appears from this report, that there is a necessity in South Africa for a National Union of South African Students. I go further: When I say a National Union of South African Students, I believe it should be a National Union of all our students in South Africa. I hope that one of the good effects of this commission, of clearing of the decks of these activities which militate against a student movement, will possibly open the way to the establishment of a real National Union of South African students in South Africa. It should be representative of the whole student body whose reasonable voice can be heard and not indulge in agitation and provocative actions which are the hallmark of the present leaders of Nusas. When I say that Parliament is not only charged with the responsibility and duty to preserve law and order and combat subversion of all authority,—it is not only subversion in the sense of subverting the authority of the Government, the Nationalist Government of South Africa, but the evidence before us shows that it is to subvert the authority of the parent over the child, of the university authority over the student and so on, up the scale of the national life of South Africa. I wish to emphasize that the responsibility is not only upon Parliament. I believe that there is a great responsibility—I hope this responsibility will be emphasized by the report which will be laid upon the Table—upon the university authorities themselves.

Hear, hear!

They should give guidance to the students; they should help them to see to it that they are given the facilities to run a proper organization. These things cost money and these students do not have the money to run around to congresses and meetings. Those facilities should be made available to the genuine leaders so that they can gather and discuss matters which are of interest to the student bodies. They should not have decisions made by a group who draw salaries out of the funds of Nusas and who decide on matters which half the Nusas executive do not know about in most instances. I believe that if that is done by the university authorities, then the parents of students also have a responsibility in so far as South Africa is concerned. They should not just shrug their shoulders and say that this is a matter for the authorities. I believe there is a responsibility and a contribution that the parents can make. That is to see that the great value of university life—a privilege which I did not enjoy—is made available to these men and that they do get the right and full benefit of university life, i.e. exchanging of ideas from the far Left to the far Right, an exchange of ideas which is within our system, within our way of living in the Western world. I believe there is a further responsibility. I believe this because in the hands of Nusas, a properly constituted university organization—let me rather use the word in a National Union of Students—lies a great responsibility for the good of this country; they can make a contribution towards the welfare of this country. We have seen it; I want to mention two instances. We have seen it in the University of Cape Town and the work which it does at Shawco, work which is beneficial to under-privileged people. This is an example to those people who are not prepared to involve themselves in charitable work. This work is done by students who raise the money to finance that work. It is being done at other universities, at Afrikaans-language universities as well. I believe those are contributions that can be made to the well-being of South Africa when we have had this clearing up as is recommended by this commission of the present hierarchy of this organization. I have full confidence, as I am sure all of us in this House have, in the young people of South Africa. I think they deserve the opportunity to develop themselves academically and in all other spheres of university life without being hindered, without being besmirched and without being blackened by the type of people who profess to talk on their behalf while having no authority to do so. I hope that we in this House will rectify the position, if hon. members opposite are correct that a prosecution cannot take place on what has been found, and the law will be amended to cover this type of activity, so that the culprits can be brought before our courts and be prosecuted. It would be in the interest of South Africa that that be done and not that they should be contained solely by Executive action.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton does the hon. member for Wonderboom an injustice when she claims that what is stated in the constitution of Nusas which comprises its basic premises, is the same as what was said by the hon. member for Wonderboom. The hon. member for Wonderboom has never yet advocated in this House that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be endorsed without reservation. He made it absolutely clear that the enemies of South Africa are using the human rights platform to attack us and there are many other countries to which we need not take second place concerning the maintenance of human rights. The hon. member for Wonderboom also made it absolutely clear that no government on earth could apply all those rights unconditionally, but that we could identify ourselves with them to a greater extent precisely because we are not people who trample on those rights. In this connection I just want to refer in passing to what Dr. Verwoerd himself said when he said on 8th May, 1964 (Hansard, col. 5642)—

We in this House, and we on this side of the House, want to maintain the rights of the individual in all respects. We on this side acknowledge that every member of the public is entitled to his freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of movement and so on. There comes a stage, however, when one must realize that the larger interests of the people as a whole cannot be served by the maintenance of rights in a narrow sense.

This is the situation which we have reached here. We have here—and I do not by any means want to lay myself open to the charge of repetition—Nusas leaders announcing the polarization of Whites and non-Whites and then encouraging students to associate themselves with the non-White section. We have the situation that when we do have this polarization, we get the situation expressed in the words of Dr. Turner who has now been restricted:

The first step therefore is polarization and the second step is a detonator which would start the whole revolution and the prospect that it would occur by means of a student revolt. That is the gist of this report. The gist of this conduct is that the direction in which these people are going, is a direction which must lead to revolution and to the forcible overthrow of all that is dear and precious to us in South Africa. Now we have this report, in which we on this side of the House and the hon. members on the other side of the House are in agreement as regards the facts, and now we are on the verge of taking action. Hon. members on that side of the House must agree with us that the maintenance of law and order in South Africa, as in any other country, is not only the task of the courts, but is also the task of the Government of the day. It is the task of the Government of the day not only to act punitively where people have infringed the law, but also to act preventatively. The Cape Times said, and I quote from the main editorial of today—

The following sentence reads as follows—

That means that if we should have “an Ulster situation on our hands”, we could take action under those circumstances. What is this “Ulster situation” that we must have before we can take action? It is a situation where there is a total collapse of law and order; a situation where blood literally flows in the streets; a situation where no member of the public can walk the streets in safety because he is afraid that he might be shot and killed by a sniper. That is the situation which could be termed an “Ulster situation”. Must we wait until we have that situation before we can take action? Is that what the hon. member for Houghton wants to tell us? Does she agree with this kind of article, that blood must flow before the Government can take action? Is it not a fact that today we have a new definition of and approach to war and a state of war in the world? Is it not a fact that in the old days one country took action against another country in a war situation? Today that is not necessarily the case. Today there are groups with common interests in the world. Today there are influences and enemies in the world who are distributed throughout the world and who cause their influence to be felt everywhere. What is very important is that they are trying to achieve their objective through people and citizens within South Africa. In other words, such a person does not act openly in a situation, but acts with the help of people within South Africa. What has happened, is that the activities of a group of people have led in the direction helping people who have intentions of this kind for South Africa. We who participate in politics in South Africa realize that politics is concerned with change.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 85.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the Third Reading of this Part Appropriation Bill. This debate ended in a very interesting way, and I listened with great interest to everything which was said during the last hours of this debate. After all this, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me for saying that ultimately the Third Reading of this Part Appropriation debate is actually a financial debate. Consequently you will allow me now, at the end, in the half-hour still remaining, to turn again to financial matters. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of making a few comments on the problem of inflation and of the cost of living in the world and in South Africa. Before I proceed to do that, it is necessary for me to devote a few minutes to the speech made in this House yesterday afternoon by my hon. friend, the member for Parktown.

I think I can say in brief that the speech made by the hon. member was a masterpiece. The hon. member for Parktown succeeded in masterly fashion in maintaining the character and the level of speeches, as he always makes them. He succeeded in masterly fashion in this since nothing and nobody could induce him to rise above that level. The hon. member for Parktown succeeded in masterly fashion in embellishing what he wanted to say here in flowery language with poetic phrases, but when we eliminate that floweriness, the poetry, we find nothing in that speech. During the course of this session the hon. member has already made three financial speeches. He spoke for almost 1¾ hours, and I should very much like to hear from hon. members what positive things that hon. member told us in his previous speeches, in that poetic language in which he declaimed to us with such pontifical arrogance. I find it a pity that an hon. member who is such a pleasant person outside in the Lobby, a person with whom I like to associate there, can be so bitter, negative and destructive when he sits here and makes his usual statements.

I want to point out a few incidents which are relevant and which happened outside the House. This will give an idea of the temperament of the hon. member, which I greatly regret. Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Prime Minister announced some time ago that a bank would be established in which individuals and institutions could invest money for developing the homelands, and to harness private initiative for developing the homelands together with the assistance from the Government. I would have imagined that that hon. friend, who is the leader of the financial group of that side, would have welcomed the new movement aimed at developing the homelands. All the hon. member said however was: This is proof of the failure of the Government’s earlier policy. Is that all he had to say? Then his speech is also proof of the failure of his earlier speech.

A few weeks ago when the Chweidan incident occurred in Johannesburg the hon. member also blamed not the system but the Government in one of his many statements. With big words, words so big the Oxford Dictionary can hardly accommodate them, he attacked this Government for not having done in respect of the Stock Exchange what that hon. friend had wanted done.

Hear, hear! And he was quite right.

My hon. friend made a third comment. Last year I announced that the loan levies which we were to have repaid on 1st February would be repaid two months earlier. Trade and industry requested this. Economists requested this. Businessmen of all kinds said it would be a good thing as an injection for the economy if that payment were advanced two months. Everyone requested this. And when I did this, that hon. member said that it was for purely political reasons. This is the man on that side who has to give the lead in regard to economic and financial life. Now this hon. member comes here and states in regard to this Budget debate that I have announced no positive policy. He also put an entire series of questions to me to which I had to reply. Last year the hon. member also wanted to lead me into that same trap. He wanted to lead me into the trap of defining the policy of the Government a month before the Budget, in which these matters are usually dealt with. Surely the hon. member knows, surely he must know, that this Little Budget is not intended to be a major policy statement on the part of the Government. This Little Budget is intended to be a retrospective review, for the most part of the past year. The hon. member wanted to ask me again, at the time of this Little Budget, to state general policy instead of waiting until the Main Budget. The hon. member tried in vain. He will not lead me into that trap. He will simply have to wait until next month, when I will in fact do so.

In addition the hon. member is very touchy. He was very hurt the other day. He waited here because I had in my previous speech supposedly devoted 55 minutes to an attack on his people. Just imagine, Sir! When hon. members on the opposite side make certain statements, may I not react to them? When the hon. member for Constantia makes a speech—a very interesting speech, to which I listened with interest—and when the hon. member for Von Brandis makes very interesting statements here—to which I referred with appreciation—and when hon. members opposite say things I do not like and with which I do not agree, does the hon. member want me to sit still and say nothing? Is it the task of a Government to allow an Opposition to speak and to make statements at will? If I then comment on them and argue about what was said, the hon. member says I am attacking his people. Are they royal game that may not be shot at?

The hon. member said that in general I had said nothing about growth and that I was pleased and perfectly satisfied with the growth rate of approximately 4% which we had last year. At that juncture I asked myself whether the hon. member had understood anything of what I had in fact said in my previous speech. I did say in that speech that I was not going to mention figures, but I mentioned the figures relating to a few countries. I told him: “I hope that, by the end of the year, South Africa will be in good company.” But he must not ask me to mention figures. That hon. member himself stated the other day that we on this side of the House use too many figures and statistics in our speeches, and that they mean nothing. I told the hon. member what our aim was. I said that we were aiming for a growth rate by the end of the year which would at least be comparable to the growth rate of some of the best countries in the world. The hon. member said that I had said nothing about growth. Did I not during my speech prove to the hon. member that the foundation had been laid by means of devaluation, that a sound financial foundation had been laid for further economic growth? Did I not point out to the hon. member that we had made tremendous progress in almost every aspect of the financial sphere, and that this would enable us to achieve further economic growth in the years which lie ahead? But the hon. member did not understand it. He did not see and he did not hear; he did not want to listen to it.

The hon. member said that I had said nothing about growth. He said I had not referred to what the Government is doing or wants to do. Mr. Speaker, I read out approximately ten things the Government has already done in regard to growth. I told them of last year’s Budget. I stated what we were doing in respect of greater protection. I discussed the decentralization of industries. I discussed the reduction of sales duty. I discussed the easing of hire-purchase regulations. I discussed the improvement of exports. I discussed the easier credit and the fact that more money is available. I discussed the loan levies which were repaid on two occasions. I discussed the increased salaries which were being paid by the State, the Railways and the Post Office. I mentioned all these things, as many as I was able to mention at this stage, and then the hon. member said that I had made no mention of growth, and that I had said nothing about what the Government is doing in regard to growth. Why did the hon. member say this? Does the hon. member think I said those things because I wanted to while away the time or because I wanted to irritate him? I also made it very clear that the Government would continue to stimulate the economy as this becomes necessary. I am saying this again, and I am going to say nothing further. But, Sir, there is one thing I simply cannot understand. I simply cannot understand why my hon. friend cannot understand that in recent years we were not at that stage able to stimulate growth. I made it very clear that if one wanted to stimulate growth one first had to have a substantial balance of payments and stronger reserves, and I said that we had first had to build up our reserves in 1972, after the devaluation of December, 1971, and that it was only now that we were really able to stimulate growth. But the hon. member did not understand it. Sir, if I want to irrigate land and my dam wall has cracked, surely I must first repair the dam wall, and once I have done that, I must first wait for the dam to fill up again before I can irrigate. The hon. member then went on to say that he had listened to the “hackenyed dissertations” of four members on the fact that the growth rate in South Africa was greater than the inflation rate. I do not want to hear this again; he called it a “hackneyed dissertation”. Sir, here we have a person who wants to discuss finances in South Africa, but when someone says something favourable about South Africa, he describes it as a “hackneyed dissertation”. If four or five members on this side and five or six members on his side were to have mentioned figures which were to the detriment of South Africa, would the hon. member then, too, have described that as a “hackneyed dissertation”? The mentality of the hon. member is such that he wants to hear nothing which is in favour of the Government.

The hon. member discussed price control. He said that sectors of the public were being exploited by certain merchants. I reiterate: sectors of the public are being exploited by certain merchants. The hon. member asked why the Government was not preventing this. I thereupon asked the hon. member whether he wanted the Government to introduce price control on every item, and he said “No”. He did not want it. But if general price control is not introduced—which we do not advocate either—does he then want the Government to scrutinize every sale which takes place across a counter to ensure that no exploitation occurs?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go any further, but there is one important matter which the hon. member said nothing about. He said absolutely nothing about the question of gold. You will recall, Sir, that I referred to gold in my speech. The hon. member then merely referred to the fact that I had discussed the gold question. He had a half hour, but he did not discuss this matter—the most important subject in world economy today, and one of the most important factors in the South African economy today. The hon. member said nothing about it. In fact, one need only read through his speeches of recent years to see how he has failed to say anything on this subject. Why? Sir, he says nothing about this subject because he feels guilty. He feels guilty about the standpoint which he and his people adopted three-four-five years ago when the first gold crisis occurred. He feels guilty about the attitude he and his people adopted at the beginning of 1970, after we had concluded the agreement with America, with the International Monetary Fund, and had established a gold agreement which was one of the milestones in monetary history. He came here and made an attack on me. He feels guilty because he said that an increase in the gold price was “an exploded dream”. That is why the hon. member feels so guilty.

Sir, my time is passing. I am sorry that I have to teach the hon. member, who is such a “likeable fellow” outside, a lesson in this way.

Sir, in the time I still have at my disposal I now want to discuss very briefly the problem of inflation. I referred towards the end of my previous speech to the inflation figures and pointed out that the rate of inflation in South Africa was less than in most other countries of the world.

Tell us something about the price of food as well.

Sir, what were the causes of the inflation hon. members have been discussing? I want to say that in the first place the inflation we have today is no longer demand inflation, and I think the hon. member would agree with me. It is no longer demand inflation as it was two or three years ago when we wanted to curb consumption. Secondly, he will agree with me that it is no longer credit-creating inflation. We can glance at the figures relating to demand and credit and we will notice that credit was not increased to such a degree. Recently there has even been an increased in personal saving. Thirdly, this inflation is no longer inflation which relates in the first place to increased State expenditure. The hon. member will recall that they were constantly saying that there was inflation because the State was spending so much money. Last year I introduced a Budget which restricted State expenditure tremendously, and the strange part of it is that in the year in which the Budget was introduced which restricted the State expenditure so tremendously we experienced the highest inflation, which indicates that inflation was not attributable to the activities of the State. Fourthly, it is not owing to an overheating of the economy, as we had in previous years, and which we had to tackle with monetary and fiscal measures. What, then, is the cause of inflation? I think the hon. member will listen to me when I tell him the following.

In the first place the inflation we have today is attributable to devaluation. He probably agrees with that. I mentioned yesterday that up to October of last year we had had an effective devaluation of the rand as against other currencies of 13% Our imports from abroad are equal to approximately one-quarter of our gross national product, and if one-quarter is divided into 13 you get the figure of 3%. In other words, we can take the result of devaluation of 13% effective, divided by the import percentage, and then we have a 3% cost increase which is attributable to devaluation. In addition, we as an importing country, which as I said imports one-quarter of our gross national product, import from those countries which I mentioned yesterday and which still have an inflation of six to eight to ten per cent. If you again take one-quarter of those imports at the high external prices then it is still approximately 1½%. Therefore I think I can safely say that approximately 4½% of the inflation in South Africa has up to now been attributable to external factors, 3% to devaluation and 1½% to price increases abroad. This 3% as a result of devaluation will cease to have an effect. In the course of time it will no longer appear in the index. It will not appear again in next year’s figures, but the figure of 1½% will remain as long as prices abroad are so high. We are importing inflation. The second reason for inflation which I want to mention to the hon. member relates to our Railway tariffs, which I do not want to discuss, but I hope that the effect of this will also subsequently cease to be felt. A third reason I want to mention for the inflation in South Africa, is the labour productivity of our people. It is probably clear to everyone that the basic cause throughout the world today for the increase in prices is the diminishing yield per worker in comparison with the wages he is receiving. It is not only true of South Africa; it is also true of the rest of the world, that the level of wages is rising more rapidly than the productivity of the worker. In some countries there are strikes which further reduce the production per man-hour. It is the physical yield which does not keep pace with wages and which makes the prices of products more expensive. I hope my hon. friend agrees with me. Let us consider South Africa. In South Africa, in the past year, the productivity per manhour rose by approximately 2,25%, against which the labour remuneration increased by 6 to 7%. Wages increased by 6 to 7%, and this in spite of more capital and more machinery and more technology, which also costs money. In spite of all this the productivity of workers increased by 2½ % If I refer to further figures, you will fund that in the year 1963 the remuneration of employees in South Africa amounted to 62% of the gross national product; in the year 1971 the remuneration of workers in South Africa increased to 69,8%, almost 70%. This shows you that over the years workers’ wages have risen far more rapidly than that which other people were earning. We say that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I think the time has come—and I take it the Opposition shares this feeling for us to make an appeal to the workers of our country to realize that if all of us constantly increase our wages, we will eventually pay for that increase. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Eventually all of us will pay for it. My hon. friend who is now getting up and walking out of the House, put a question to me on the food prices. The fourth reason for rising inflation is the increased food prices. Of the increased rate of inflation of 7,4%, 2% is attributable to an increase in food prices, food prices which are determined by circumstances such as the weather and other causes, which you and I and the Government cannot control. In contrast I again want to mention what my hon. friend also mentioned earlier, viz. that not only did wages and salaries increase more rapidly than production, they also increased more rapidly than the costs. That “hackneyed dissertation”. The hon. member quoted certain extracts the other day, but he did not quote them fully. If one takes the wages and salaries of different industries in South Africa—I do not have the time now to mention them—over a period of years, from 1963 to the present, it will be found, if the purchasing power of the rand is taken into consideration and taxes as they were then and are now, are deducted, that our people have still had an increase of between 3 and 4% in their real income per annum. Our standard of living has become higher and better, and our real income has increased. The figures can prove this, but the hon. member does not believe in statistics. He had those figures in his hand.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot understand why the hon. member does not understand peoples’ salaries within a system. Let me mention an example. In any business one finds that the total salaries can remain the same, but inside there is fluctuation, for the workers’ salaries rise from notch to notch. Let me mention another example. For two years the salary scales in the Public Service were not increased. Does the hon. member want to tell me that no one in the Public Service was promoted during the course of those two years? Was no one’s salary increased? Within that machine there are constant increases apart from the figure I mentioned. There are also increases in amounts other than those in the State subsidies which amount to hundreds of millions of rand.

Lastly I want to refer to an important matter. I think we have performed a miracle in South Africa in that we have this figure in spite of devaluation while countries such as West Germany and others that revalued, have a far higher rate of inflation. If those countries which revalued, such as most countries of Western Europe, which revaluation increased the value of their money, could not succeed in spite of their revaluation in keeping prices stable, but reached a higher level of inflation, it is a tremendous achievement for South Africa that we had a lower rate of inflation in the midst of devaluation. The hon. member asked us how we are going to prevent inflation, and my reply to that is that we are going to prevent it by means of an increase in production in South Africa; by means of increased growth. I said that we were unable to grow as we wanted to, but now we are going to grow. There is an unutilized capacity of 20%. I maintain that if we stimulate growth to a greater extent, as we have already done and are doing, and we are able to utilize that 20% capacity in our industries and produce from 15 to 20% more goods without much additional cost, the unit cost of the produced article will have to decrease accordingly. This is the standpoint we have always adopted. The hon. member is accusing me of belonging to the growth school now, which I did not belong to before. I have always believed in growth. The point is, however, that we were not able to promote growth prior to devaluation and before our reserves were strong enough. Now we are able to do this, as I have already said. We believe that we will, by means of greater promotion and greater production of our own goods with the capacity which we have, reduce the unit costs of our products.

We have come to the end of a very important Third Reading debate. I should like to ask this of the hon. member: When we again hold a budget debate, would he please listen very carefully and reply to those things which he really heard and understood.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill. Parliament is requested to vote additional funds for the services of the Republic for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1973. In the Appropriation Act of 1972 a total amount of R3 584 435 000 was voted. Now a further R188 256 077 is being requested, namely R75 936 027 on Revenue Account, R110 048 800 on Loan Account and R2 271 250 on South-West Africa Account. The additional amount required is a little more than 5% of the amount voted in the Appropriation Act of 1972.

I will now refer briefly, in round figures, to the most important increases. Of the R75,9 million required on Revenue Account, R5,9 million is in respect of Vote Transport. Of this, R3,7 million will be paid to the Railway Administration for the loss on the operation of non-White passenger services to and from non-White townships. On Vote Public Debt, R10 million is required for the payment of interest on loans. The R21,3 million required on Vote Provincial Administrations is in respect of subsidies payable to the administrations. Of the R10,6 million required on Vote Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General, R10,3 million is in respect of the net expenses in connection with the price of bread. On Vote Bantu Administration and Development, R6,4 million is requested, of which R5,2 million is for payments to the Governments of the Bantu Areas. The last Vote on Revenue Account to which I wish to refer, is health. R4,9 million is required on this Vote. R2,1 million is for general expenses on tuberculosis and R0,9 million for medical poor relief.

As far as the Loan Account is concerned, R42,5 million is required on Vote A, Miscellaneous Loans and Services. Of this amount R42 million will be transferred to the Railway and Harbour Fund for capital expenditure on services already approved by this House. Of the R30,3 million required on Vote Water Affairs, R29,7 million if for government water schemes, mainly in respect of the Orange River Project. On Vote K, Community Development, R15 million is requested; R9,5 million is to augment the capital of the National Housing Fund and R5,5 million if for a further loan to the Community Development Fund. The R6 million required on Vote Bantu Administration and Development is in respect of a grant-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund. On Vote Q, Mines, R13,2 million is requested for share capital for the Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa.

The amounts required on individual votes of the South-West Africa Account are so small that specific reference to any particular vote is not regarded necessary.

The total additional amount requested is higher than I would have wished to see. This is the result of certain rather large payments which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the main Estimates were submitted last year. These include the additional R10 million required for interest payments on the unexpectedly heavy subscriptions to Government stock issues last year; the R42 million required by the Railways; the R30 million requested by Water Affairs mainly to meet an unforeseen payment in connection with a contract for the Orange River Project, and the R13 million required by the Uranium Enrichment Corporation on account of the unexpectedly rapid progress of the Corporation’s enrichment project.

More details of these and of other items will, if required, be furnished during the Committee Stage. In conclusion I wish to give the House the assurance that I am satisfied that the services for which these amounts are requested are urgently required in the interests of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is basically a Committee Bill and we will therefore deal with the details of the additional expenditure and with the new items when we come to the Committee Stage. I must say that we are somewhat surprised, despite the explanation of the hon. the Minister, at the very large amount which is being asked for as additional expenditure, an amount of some R188 million, or 5% of the original estimates. What concerns us is that it was the policy of the Government last year in March, a policy reiterated by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, that there was going to be curtailment of Government expenditure. I congratulated the hon. the Minister on that last year; it was one of the things I did congratulate him on. But now we have an additional R188 million of expenditure asked for. That could not have arisen over the last month or two. It must have arisen over the twelve-month period. You therefore really find the situation that almost immediately the Government has concluded its Budget figures and has given them to this House and they have been passed, large additional amounts are required. This we find somewhat distracting. Nevertheless, to demonstrate to the hon. the Minister that I can also be quite a decent sort of fellow in the House as I am outside the House, we are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Revenue Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, R15 000:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell us why there is an increase of over 50% in the subsistence and transport allowance of his department.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that the reason was very much debated this afternoon, the reason being the commission that was appointed, for which no provision was made in the original Estimates. This commission falls under my department and no provision was made, because this commission was only appointed in July.

So you were not just “gadding around” more!

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5.—“Transport”, R5 924 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 1.—“Transport”, R968 000:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister please give us the reasons for the big increase under subhead D—“Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”, an item which has increased in a number of Votes, and for the increase under sub-head H—“Purchase and Installation of Navigational Aid Equipment and Purchase of Equipment and Tools?”

Mr. Chairman, the additional costs in respect of printing arise mainly from the fact that a change-over has been made to the so-called “No carbon required” books for Government garages. An additional amount of R30 000 is required for the joint log and requisition books, also for Government garages. In addition there has been a general increase of 10% in the cost of stationery. Then there has also been an increase in the cost of advertisements circulated to recruit members for the Same expedition.

As far as sub-head H, navigational aid equipment, is concerned I must point out that the full amount refers to equipment which was to have been delivered in the previous financial year. Consequently no expenditure was incurred in that year and the amounts were transferred to the present financial year. Payment is therefore required to be made in the present financial year. For that reason the various amounts are reflected here. If the hon. member is interested, I can give him more details in this regard. The equipment is mainly radar and radio navigational equipment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister on item J—“Subsidy in respect of reduced rent of canteens at Jan Smuts Airport.” I would like him to tell me what these canteens are?

Airport Enterprises are the caterers at Jan Smuts Airport. A certain area of the old building at Jan Smuts Airport was made available to Airport Enterprises. With the erection of the new building a considerable additional area was required by them, and at a fixed rate of 15 cents per square foot, this amounted to the considerably higher rent they had to pay. Instead of lowering the rate we decided to give a subsidy to Airport Enterprises for the additional amount because they were showing a loss. Accordingly, this amount is budgeted as a subsidy to Airport Enterprises.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this has anything to do with the restaurants and the bars at the new Jan Smuts Airport. Is this all part of the catering done by this firm?

Yes.

If so, I would like to say a word on this matter, which is a new item. I find that the catering arrangements which are made at Jan Smuts Airport today leave very much to be desired. We have here an entirely new airport, the pride of the hon. the Minister; the culmination of 25 years as Minister of Transport is this new Jan Smuts Airport.

Eighteen years.

Well, 25 years as a Minister. What do we find there? When two persons go to Jan Smuts Airport today and one wants to have a drink while the other one wants a cup of coffee, there is no place at the Airport where they can have a drink and a cup of coffee in the same place. If I go with my wife to meet somebody or see somebody off, and I do not like coffee, she has to go to the cafeteria to have her cup of coffee while I have to go to another place where I can have some refreshment. This does not make sense. It does not happen anywhere else in the world. The hon. the Minister knows that the facilities which are being provided at airports today right throughout the world are first class. I think it a shame that we are not getting these facilities at Jan Smuts Airport.

The other problem, as I see it, is that as far as I know—and I stand to be corrected—there is no tearoom per se in the international section of Jan Smuts Airport. There is a self-service cafeteria but I do not think this is good enough either. In the old airport there used to be a section with a self-service cafeteria and a section where one could be served. This, I think, is correct. A lot of elderly people go to the airport and I am going to talk about them in another context a little later when we come to the votes. Today they have to go to the only place I know of upstairs, namely the self-service cafeteria where they can get a cup of tea only if they are prepared to help themselves.

They sometimes have to stand for a long time in the queue.

Yes, sometimes they must stand for a long time in the queue and also I think people dislike it to such an extent that very often there is nobody there. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister will give some attention to these two facets, which I believe are necessary, so that we can be proud of Jan Smuts Airport as an international airport.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member’s difficulty but I have another one. Instead of supplying liquor in the coffee room, perhaps we can try to arrange to have coffee made available there where he can have a drink. I think that would be the easiest arrangement.

Why?

I can look into the matter. I appreciate the hon. member’s difficulty. As far as coffee and tearooms are concerned, there are various coffee rooms, some of which are self-service while others are not. There is one on the balcony on the eastern side of the recently completed part of the airport. I am referring to the public balcony. There is another one on the arrivals side of the building. It is a small self-service coffee-room, or tearoom, if you wish to call it that. Then, of course, there is a larger one in the international part of the building. I have had coffee and tea there occasionally and I have never had the problem encountered by the hon. member, namely that I had to stand in a long queue. I have never had this experience and I do go there quite often. I have never seen a queue there. Personally, I have never had any reason for complaint whatsoever. The service was good and prompt.

I did not complain about a queue, but seeing that we are talking about facilities, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has had a drink in the lounge next to the restaurant in the international section of the airport. It is in fact a very interesting sight when you go there. There are long rows of what one might call low seats. I do not know what they are exactly called. In between, say, a row of eight seats there is a table. Now, you order a drink and wait until the waiter comes with a drink. If it is a beer, he will bring you a glass and a bottle of beer. You pour out your beer and you then look for a table to put the bottle on. But there is no table nearby because you are sitting on the fourth seat away from the table. The result is that you find all along this lounge glasses and bottles and everything else on the floor. There is something wrong. The lounge is very badly equipped. We have now dealt with the matter and the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister are aware of these facts. I am sure something will be done. It is just impossible. There are not enough tables and the arrangement of chairs and tables is such that you are forced to put your glasses and bottles on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I will look into the matter. That is all I can say at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us details on sub-head L, where there is an increase of R3,7 million in the loss on operating Railway non-White passenger services to and from non-White townships? I wonder if he has the information on the actual losses for the various townships?

Mr. Chairman, questions on this particular subject are quite customary. I am quite used to hearing the same questions repeated every year. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned this very item in his Second Reading speech. My department only serves as a post office here. It is an amount in respect of a subsidy which is being transferred by the Treasury to the Railways to make up the deficit of the Railways on this particular service. My department only acts as a post office in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I find the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister rather unsatisfactory.

Don’t you understand it?

There is no need for anybody on that side to try and be clever and ask me in Afrikaans whether I understand it or not. I wonder whether that hon. member understood what the hon. the Minister said when he was speaking in English. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that he is only a post-box, because, Sir, you know the rules and you will not allow me under the Vote either of the Minister of Finance or of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to raise this question. The only time that I can ask any questions about this R3,7 million is now during the discussion of this Vote. I submit that it is up to that Deputy Minister or his Minister to give an explanation to this House. We are entitled to ask about this amount. Surely, now is the time to ask it. If I am wrong, I hope that you will guide me. Which of the hon. Ministers must I ask about this amount?

Order! The hon. member may only ask the reasons for the additional amount.

I have asked for them, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has no reply. I am now debating his reply, which was in fact a non-reply, to the effect that he is only a post-box. He does not know the reason for this increase, where it arose or why it arose.

Mr. Chairman, this loss was incurred by the South African Railways. That is the proper authority which should really give the reply to the question put by the hon. member. I can explain this much to him: The accounts for this particular amount, which is now being budgeted for in these Additional Estimates were only made up during the course of the financial year. Therefore an additional amount has to be budgeted for. The loss was incurred by the South African Railways and this amount is being transferred from the Treasury to the South African Railways to make up that loss. I merely handled that amount which was handed over by the Treasury to my department’s Vote as a subsidy to the South African Railways.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport blames these losses on his Minister, the Minister of Railways. Could he tell us, in view of the fact that we are being asked to vote R3,74 million this afternoon for an increased subsidy, why it is that third-class suburban train fares were increased by as much as 16% and 20% in the Durban area? The fares from Umlazi and Kwa Mashu to Durban were increased and the reason given by his colleague, the Minister of Railways, was that the Government had stopped the subsidy.

When did I give that reason?

The System Manager in Durban gave that as …

You said I gave that reason.

No, the System Manager. I mean that the Railways had given that reason. I did not mean the Minister of Railways. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has gone a little off track here, because he says he is the Railways. But he has often said that he takes responsibility for everything that is done and said in his department; he accepts full responsibility, and therefore he must accept responsibility for this statement that the subsidy by the Government has been stopped …

The increase in fares only came into operation on 1st January. The fares in respect of all the services from the resettlement areas to the towns, for instance from Umlazi and Kwa Mashu to Durban, have been increased, but by increasing the fares, the subsidy that the Treasury has to pay to the Railways is reduced accordingly, except for the fact that costs have increased as a result of increased wages. Consequently, the reduction in subsidy will be almost infinitesimal.

Mr. Chairman, arising from the reply of the hon. the Minister, is it not correct that the hon. the Minister, when he announced the increase in fares and the increase in tariffs generally, specifically stated that third-class suburban fares would not be increased?

Third-class main line fares were not increased.

That was not the statement as read by the public, nor particularly as read by the Bantu themselves, who understood that third-class fares would not be increased.

They understood it wrongly, then.

That was one of the sparks which set off the trouble in Durban. The increase in fares on the Durban lines from the resettlement areas was the cause of the very first whispers of a strike. It was from that increase in fares that the word started going around that there was to be a strike. In fact, the whole Railway Police were out to prevent it.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. I cannot allow a wide discussion on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring it back to the issue before us. We are being asked to vote R3¾ million. In the one breath the hon. the Minister says that the subsidy on the fares will be reduced, therefore the amount that the Government must subsidize will be less, and yet we are being asked to vote more. He said this afternoon that because of the increase in fares, the subsidy would be reduced, but instead of that the fares have gone up and we are being asked to vote an additional amount. Does the hon. the Minister mean then that there has been such a vast increase in the cost of those lines that there had to be an increase of up to 16% and 22% in fares—a vast percentage for the Bantu to carry—and at the same time an increase in the subsidy?

Mr. Chairman, this discussion is quite out of order. As my colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister, said, it is merely a question of accounting. The Treasury pays the subsidy to the South African Railways. Instead of including it in the Treasury Vote, it is included in the Vote of the Department of Transport. If the hon. member wants to discuss the question of fares, then he must discuss it under the Railway Vote, not under this Vote. This has nothing to do with that at all, and I think he is quite out of order. All he can ask for is the reason for the increase, and the reason for the increase is very simple, namely that the Railway Administration advised Treasury that the loss was greater than anticipated and that an additional amount must be voted. That is the only reason for the increase.

Then your answer was also out of order.

Yes, it was out of order; I should not have answered the hon. member.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 10.—“Inland Revenue", R26 092:

Could we please have an explanation of the items “Refunds, remissions of grace or favour” and “undistributed profits tax”? I think there are five items.

These particular refunds represent refunds to the various companies as indicated in item E. I am dealing in the first place with the case of Project Participation (Pty.) Ltd. In terms of the provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, as amended, a tax, known as the Undistributed Profits Tax, is levied on that portion of the distributable income of a company which was not distributed in the form of dividends during the “specified period”.

In this particular case the term “specified period”, which is defined in section 49 of the Act, means a period (usually 12 months) ending six months after the “specified date” of the year of assessment. The specified date means the last day of the particular year of the assessment. The specified date of this particular company is 30th June and its specified period is the calendar year. The company was registered on 15th May, 1970, and its main assets consist of shares it holds in other companies and on which it has received dividends. During the 1971 financial year the company received and distributed the following dividends; it received dividends amounting to R9 552, and the date on which these were received—and this is important—is 3rd December, 1970, and the amount disturbed, was R9 000. This company distributed practically all its distributable income in respect of the 1971 calendar year. The dividends of R9 000, distributed on 3rd December, 1970, could not, however, be taken into account for purposes of calculating the tax on undistributed profits since they did not fall within the particular period of the company, and that is the reason for the refund made in this particular case. Sir, I think that is sufficient information.

†I can give the hon. member further details if he so wishes.

*In the case of “Provin Securities”, the position is more or less the same. The company was also registered on 15th May, 1970. The specified date is 30th June and the period is also the calendar year.

†In this particular case this company received dividends to the extent of R80 000. The dividends were distributed on 3rd December, 1970, to an amount of R79 600, and for the same reasons as the previous case this amount was refunded. The same principle applies in the other cases.

There is an old adage that a new broom sweeps clean and I hope the new broom, in the person of the hon. the Deputy Minister, is going to sweep clean. We have similar items every year on the Additional Estimates. They are all on the Additional Estimates for exactly the same reason, that the Income Tax Act makes certain provisions in regard to undistributed profits. There are good and solid reasons why companies are unable to meet those conditions and consequently the Government comes to us every single year and asks for confirmation of remission of these items. I really believe that the time has come when the Income Tax Act should be changed so that it will not be necessary to come to Parliament because if something happens with regularity then I believe it is wrong that it should be dealt with in this manner. I believe that the Act should make provision for the circumstances in which these charges for income tax should not be made—I want to take away nothing from Parliament—but that the Secretary for Inland Revenue should have the right to act in terms of what Parliament has said. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give some consideration to this.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 14.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R10 689 000; Revenue Vote No. 17.— “Agricultural Technical Services”, R13 500; and Loan Vote C.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, R2 090 000:

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether this increase of R10 million includes the previous season or whether it has nothing to do with the present wheat season; and if so, why could the recently increased bread prices not have been included here?

This increase is with regard to the wheat season which does not correspond to the season of the hon. the Minister of Finance. You are aware that we have adjusted the prices of wheat. We have introduced a reduction in the price of wheat for the farmer, an average of 20 cents per bag, while the selling price of wheat has been raised to make provision for a contribution to the Stabilization Fund. The baker’s price for flour has increased slightly. The main reason for this additional R10 million was the unforeseen production costs of bakers and millers as a result of salary increases and other adjustments which had to be made, such as fuel, tyres, and so forth. Since the Government would like to subsidize bread, we are asking you to approve this additional R10 million today.

I understand the hon. the Minister’s problem but he must also understand our problem.

†May I draw the attention of this Committee to an article which appeared on the use of gold to subsidize the farmers? I wish the Minister would make it absolutely plain to the whole of South Africa …

Order! The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

I am discussing the reasons for the increase, Sir. As I understand it, the subsidy is an amount to be paid to the millers, and the point I am trying to make is this. I want to find out from the Minister whether it was necessary then, in view, of the fact that the price to the producer has been reduced—it has been reduced for A1-grade wheat by 9 cents, grade B1 by 24 cents and grade Cl by 39 cents.

*Was the increase necessary, seeing that the subsidy per bag shows a reduction of R2,80? This is the reduction in the price of flour for bread-baking. The reduction for sifted flour is R2,87 per bag and for unsifted flour it is R2,86. This is the reduction in the subsidy which they now receive. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the reason for the increase is the reduction of the subsidy which is paid not to the farmer, but to the miller. After all, the farmer is receiving no subsidy at all. That is correct, is it not? I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is impossible for the baker and for the miller to carry these additional costs so that bread prices can be kept at the same level as before.

Do you know what you are asking?

Yes, I know very well. That hon. member will also have to pay more tomorrow morning.

I want to know whether it was necessary to increase the price of bread seeing that this subsidy to the miller has now been reduced, but the increase in the price of bread is only a question of 18% in the case of white bread and 22% in the case of brown bread. How does one arrive at these two figures? Did the hon. the Minister examine the books of the millers to find out whether this increase was justified, especially since the producer’s price has been reduced.

Mr. Chairman, to return to the additional R10,3 million which we are requesting from the taxpayer, I want to thank the hon. member for Sea Point for stating explicitly that that newspaper report is completely misleading. It is not to subsidize the farmer. The farmer did not receive a single cent as subsidy. What did happen, was that he experienced a reduction in the price of his product. The report gives the impression that the Government is increasing the price of bread to enrich the farmer. It is definitely not so.

Who then?

Be quiet and listen!

I will give the reason. I can mention a few increases. In the case of wages there was an increase of 21%. Everyone agreed that we should pay the labourers more. The railage which the millers have to pay, increased inwardly by 36% and outwardly by 40%.

Where is the hon. Minister’s 7% now?

The hon. member has always enjoyed eating bread; we can see that by looking at him. The price of protective clothing has risen by 26.% The cost related to the maintenance of vehicles has increased by 24% and the increase in the price of tyres and fuel was 8% owing to devaluation.

Is this imported or local inflation?

The Government’s contribution is not only to the baker and the miller. The hon. member should also remember that the farmer must be accommodated. A wheat-surplus was produced last year and the year before and a bag of wheat worth R6,80 has to be stored and handled. The money lost on a bag of wheat by way of interest, amounts to 50 cents per year. We store wheat in case we should have a bad year, so that the hon. member will be able to eat as well as he does now. The Government carries that expense and it is incorporated here. If the price of bread, as the hon. member said, had not been increased, the subsidy for the next season would have amounted to R60 million. The consumption of bread increases by approximately 3% every year. Must we subsidize bread by R60 million per year or by R35 million which will be the amount of the subsidy for 1972-’73 as a result of this increase in the price of bread? I just wanted to get in this sally; we shall discuss the matter again at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the explanation which he gave, but I still do not understand it fully; it is still not quite clear to me. The subsidy, and I am referring to the Government subsidy, on unsifted flour has been reduced by R1-60 per bag, while the subsidy on sifted flour has been reduced by R2-22 per bag. When the amount has been increased and the subsidy per bag is reduced by such a large amount, where does the amount of R10 million come from?

Mr. Chairman, I can let the hon. member have those figures. He is reading them incorrectly.

Order! Allow the hon. member to make his point first.

I have read what the hon. the Minister read out at the beginning, but the hon. Minister’s document is wrong because there is a small printing error in it. The one which I have, has however been corrected, but on the hon. Minister’s it has not yet been corrected. [Interjections.] The subsidy has been reduced and the hon. the Minister must accept that his department will say that the amounts which I am quoting here, are correct. I know that I also was confused at the beginning, but the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister would look at his document, he would, under the head “subsidy per bag of flour”, see the column “Type of flour”. In this column several items are listed, such as “Bread”, “Sifted”, etc. This column is correct. The column “Before increase” is also correct, as well as the column “At present—R per 90 kg”. This column does not list the prices, but the amount by which the subsidy has been reduced. The heading in the last column was originally “Increase”, but it was changed to “Reduction”, and that is the correct title. [Interjections.] I do not hold it against the hon. the Minister, because it was a printing error that should have been corrected in the hon. Minister’s copy, but unfortunately it was not done. I am not blaming anybody, but I tried to contact the hon. the Minister to show him what the position was. It does not matter, but what does matter, is that the amount of subsidy per bag has been reduced. Is this additional increase as a result of the greater volume, or what is the cause for the increase, seeing that the amount of the subsidy to the miller has been reduced and not the subsidy to the farmer?

You did not want to ask anything, Jack; you only wanted to make a speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wanted to help me and I appreciate it. He wanted to present the case of the producers. We do not differ on that matter. I can only tell the hon. member that the actual subsidy on bread flour was R26-44 per metric ton in 1971-’72. The subsidy on bread was calculated per bag of flour. That is why we always say that one can bake 147 loaves of bread from one bag of flour. The subsidy of 1 cent per loaf of bread amounts to R15 million per year. Now the hon. member can see, if he works it out, that the total subsidy per ton of sifted flour was R47-60 last year, while it is R56-57 per ton this year. That is what the baker has to pay. Now we must take the increased costs into consideration. The hon. member asked me whether the millers and the bakers are not making an unreasonable amount of money. There are bakers—I do not blame them for doing this—whose profit margin grew to be so small that they added too much water when they baked the bread. This bread was as hard as a rock within two days, but it was done in order to have the desired weight. Their profit margin was too small and subsequently they had to cheat to be able to stay in business. That is why he had to make these adjustments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that he has increased the subsidy by R10 300 000. In addition he allowed the price of white bread to be increased by 18% and the price of brown bread to be increased by 22%. Then the hon. the Minister says that this case is a result of increased wages, as a result of the increased price of clothing and as a result of the increased cost of transport for the millers. For that reason, the hon. the Minister says, the miller could not make any profit and as a result he had to grant an additional subsidy of R10 300 000. Furthermore he was also allowed to increase the price of bread by 18% and 22% respectively. Those same costs would however have applied to the farmer. Why, then, has his wheat price been reduced by 20%?

That’s it!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member simply did not understand me. When we drew up the estimates, and when the hon. the Minister of Finance received the estimates of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the subsidy was fixed at the amount which is given here, namely R31 million. As it happened, we had a bigger wheat harvest and the farmers had to be paid out at a lower price, quite rightly. Together with that lower price, the Government contributed R31 million to the wheat industry. The Government contributed to the storing of that wheat, the building of the silos, if hon. members understand that, and to the handling of the wheat. On the way the baker and the miller returned to say they still had these costs which had to be added. However, we had pinned them down and said they were not allowed to charge more than 9 cents for a loaf of brown bread. But all their costs had increased and our arrangement with them was that the Government would stand in for these cost increases. Hence all these things were added together and we actually misled the Minister of Finance by R10,3 million. Now it must be obtained as an additional amount.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could just clarify his explanation, because I find a little difficulty with it. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that the inflation rate is 7,3%. The hon. the Minister says that the millers’ costs have gone up by 18% and 22%. The price of bread to the consumer has gone up correspondingly. We are being asked to vote 33% more in money. Now here we have the Minister of Finance saying inflation is 7,3%; the Minister of Agriculture saying the costs are …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. I am not going to allow a wide discussion now on the question of inflation.

I am asking for the reason why we are being asked to vote R10 million and trying to see which percentage fits in with this. Does R10 million on R31 million fit in with 7 ½%, with 18½% or with 33 %? Could the hon. the Minister explain, please?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made a mistake. The millers’ costs did not go up by 18% and 22%. The price of brown bread went up by 22% and white bread by 18%, but not the cost to the miller.

But why did the cost then go up?

The whole thing is subsidized. If we take away the subsidy, the price will increase sharply. Can you not understand that? It is a simple thing.

By what did their costs go up?

It varies, but I gave you some of the figures. It went up by an average of 7%.

But the price went up 22 %?

It is not the price that went up, but the subsidy which was decreased.

Why?

Are you prepared to subsidize bread to the extent of R60 million of the taxpayers’ money?

Why not?

Are you asking for information or are you playing politics?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has come with some interesting replies and I want to discuss them for a moment. He says that on average the cost of the miller and the baker has gone up by 7%. Is that 7% each, because how does he justify an increase of 18% to the consumer? If there is an increase in cost of only 7%, how does he justify an increase to the consumer of 18% and 22% in the case of brown bread? This is a question which he must answer. I want to say quite categorically what the attitude of this side of the House is in regard to the question he put to us, namely, whether we believe that the Government should subsidize bread to the extent of R60 million per year. The answer is quite categorically “yes”, because we believe it is right that essential foodstuffs should be subsidized, and for this very reason I am going to ask the Minister a question right now about the increase in the amount that is being spent on butter. But the hon. the Minister has told us that notwithstanding the fact that he is going to spend during the present tax year R41½ million in subsidization of bread and notwithstanding the fact that he has put the price up by 18% and 22%, that next year he intends budgeting only for a subsidy of R35 million. How does he justify that? Does he justify that on the difference between the 7 % cost increase to the miller and the baker and the 18% increase to the public? Is his saving on the subsidy going to come out of the pockets of the public, because that is the only conclusion we can draw? As my hon. friend here suggests, an election might be the reason for this tremendous increase today in the price of bread, so that when they call an election next year or the year after that they can reduce it again.

Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with an election. What the hon. member must realize is that the last thing I would like to do is to increase the price of a poor man’s food. The hon. member must remember, however, that if everything stays the same and if there are no cost increases, the subsidy will be R35 million in the coming season, but if the farmers have another record crop—bearing in mind the cost increases to the farmers themselves—and if we are to keep the price of bread as it was, the subsidy required next year to pay the farmers the price for their surplus production and to pay the baker and the miller for cost increases, the subsidy could even be more than R100 million. Hon. members all have agreed that the workers in the mill and in the bakery should be given an increase in salary.

But you said R50 million.

I am not talking of this year, but of next year if there is another record wheat crop.

But you said that next year it will be R35 million.

Give me an opportunity to discuss the matter further in the debate to come.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that this increase and the way in which it will be applied, is going to have an effect which will be entirely different, probably, to what was intended. This disastrous increase in the price of bread for the ordinary man in South Africa …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the reasons for the original appropriation. He may only ask the reasons for the increase.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing the original price of bread …

The hon. member is out of order now.

… I am only discussing the increase which is partly catered for by this particular amount. Is it your ruling that I may not discuss the increase in the price of bread and its disastrous effects and the poor man in South Africa?

No.

Mr. Chairman, this subject is enough to keep us talking …

Order! The hon. member has not yet finished. He may proceed as long as he abides by my ruling.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall try to do so. This increased amount, as we have heard from the hon. the Minister, does not relate to the basic price, but to the increase in the price of bread. That is what I want to object to today on behalf of the ordinary man in South Africa, that one of the basic foodstuffs of our people and of our poor people was increased in this way today, with the possibility of starvation and of misery for many people.

That is for the main Budget.

Are people to starve until the main Budget comes? [Interjections.] Is that all that that side cares about the ordinary man in South Africa, while it has said on occasion that it is the protector of the ordinary man in South Africa?

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. member is genuinely concerned about the poor man. So am I. I want to tell the hon. member that there was an error in the announcement; the consumption of brown bread is not 40%, but 30%, and the consumption of white bread is 70%. The difference in price between white and brown bread is 2c. I am in favour of keeping our basic foodstuffs cheap. Hon. members are aware of the subsidies we have on some of our foods. I asked that we should only look at this situation in a realistic light. If there really is starvation, why is it that 70% of our bread consumption consists of white bread, while this already costs 2c more? If there really is starvation the masses will eat brown bread, after all, because it is 2c cheaper. All these aspects were considered. On the other hand we are in favour of salary increases. Then a man can buy bread. To an average family an increase of 2c in the price of bread means 60c a month. A larger family may pay Rl,20. A family now pays R40,60 a year for a bread a day; this is its basic foodstuff. We must not wrest these things from their context. It is still the cheapest bread in the world. A two pound bread costs 11c in South Africa, as against 23c in America. Of course, we cannot compare the two countries. If we have to start arguing this matter, I can point out that when the United Party was in power, the subsidy amounted to million a year. At that time the price of bread was 6c. Everything has gone up except the price of bread, which has remained disproportionately low. I am not pleading for an increase in the price of bread, but we have to approach these things in a realistic way. I repeat that I believe that the hon. member is sincere in saying that he is concerned about the poor people. I am concerned about them too. We should just retain our sense of values, because next year we may have a large wheat crop again. If we have to import wheat we are going to pay much more for it. We must see to it that the country has enough food. Therefore we must get our priorities straight and spend our money correctly. I feel that the increase in the price of bread is quite justified for the present. Along the way there will have to be other adjustments, too, as far as the wage earner and the salary earner are concerned. We do not want them to starve. But neither do I want you to say that I say they must eat brown bread. But they only eat white bread, and white bread costs 2c more. Perhaps they will eat brown bread now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has raised another interesting facet where he talks about the reason for this increase and why he has had to increase the retail price of bread. He said that if we did not have a record crop next year, we would have to import wheat and that if we had to import wheat, it would cost a great deal more than it was costing today. The hon. the Minister pointed out that last year and this year we had two record crops of wheat. He pointed out that included in this subsidy—this extra R10,3 million he is asking—is the cost of storage at the rate of 50c per bag for the surplus production of last year and this year. Well, if the world price of wheat is so high that we would have to pay a lot more than the present South African price of wheat, why is he not exporting that wheat? Why is he holding it here?

Order! That is not under discussion now.

But, Mr. Chairman, with respect, I submit that it is part …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that in terms of the Minister’s reply …

Order!

May I address you on this point, Sir?

Yes, you may.

I should like to address you on this point and submit that in terms of the hon. the Minister’s reply a portion of the R10,3 million that we are now being asked to vote is going towards the storage of the surplus production of wheat in South Africa. Now, Sir, surely it is up to us to debate the question of whether he should spend R10,3 million on storing that wheat or whether he should export it and save that money?

Order! The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

With respect, Sir, may I debate the reply of the hon. the Minister, the reasons that he gave?

No, I am not going to allow a wide discussion on the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister too was out of order.

Mr. Chairman, surely we are allowed to ask the Minister for the reasons for the increase; surely we are allowed to debate the reasons? That is the reason why the Estimates are before us.

That is so.

When the Minister has given reasons, surely the hon. member is entitled to debate those reasons. You agree that it is so.

I have given the hon. member an opportunity already to discuss the reasons as supplied by the hon. the Minister.

To debate it. You have ruled that the hon. member may not debate the reasons and that he may only ask the reasons. Surely, he is entitled to debate the reasons once the Minister has given them to him.

No, I said I would not allow a wide discussion.

But can he debate the reasons given by the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member has made his point; he has already discussed the reasons.

With respect, Sir, he is discussing it now. That is what he has been debating—the reasons which the hon. the Minister has given. That has been the subject of debate.

The hon. member may proceed. I will stop him if it is necessary.

Thank you, Sir. I was making the point that the hon. the Minister has informed this Committee that included in this R10,3 million, is an amount of money—we are unaware of the exact amount—calculated at 50c per bag for the storage of surplus wheat which was reaped in this country last year and this year. He also made the point that if we had to import wheat it would have to be imported at a higher price than the local price of wheat. The inference to be drawn from this is that the world price of wheat is higher than the local price. I now want to know from the hon. the Minister why he does not export that wheat at a profit and let us reduce the amount of subsidy or reduce the price of bread to the consumer. The latter is the better course, the course the Opposition would recommend. Why does he not take that course rather than come to this House and ask for extra money at the rate of 50c per bag to store that wheat where he could be making a profit outside? In doing so, it would not be necessary to increase the retail price of bread to the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, at the moment we are exporting a little wheat at a loss of R1 per bag. Let me explain. As soon as you have to import and you have to buy in the world market in a short year, it is altogether a different story. Because Russia had to import 300 million bags of maize, South African maize went up to R7 per bag for two weeks.

The world price of wheat is also very high.

The world price of wheat is not so high, and in the case of exporting maize you have to pay all the expenses involved in carting the maize from the interior to the coast, and then the shipping costs. As soon as you import, that altogether changes the price. That is a world fact.

Now the hon. member mentions the 50 cents per bag for storage. I mentioned figures, and the subsidy of R56 per metric ton means a subsidy of more than R5 per bag. Why does the hon. member then argue about 50 cents when the subsidy is over R5 a bag? Does he want to increase the subsidy? That is the main question. Does he want us to export the crop we have? What happened to our maize when we had just a small drought? Everybody said: What are you going to do? We had a surplus of 60 million bags and we had to stop exportation. I would rather take it now that the hon. member is upset about a 2 cent increase in the price of bread than to say we have to import wheat for R2 or R3 extra a bag after we have exported at a loss of R1 a bag, because the subsidy would be tremendous, and higher taxes would be required.

*Sir, these decisions are not taken overnight. We consider and reconsider them from all angles. This is my bread and butter, and I am a wheat farmer myself. Decisions are not taken without due consideration. The question I ask is this: Would the Opposition be dissatisfied if the Minister of Finance should ask “give us another R10,3 million to keep bread cheap”?

I can only say this in one sentence: I hope the hon. the Minister will remember the excuse that Marie Antoinette made under similar circumstances, and what happened to her and her husband. [Interjections.]

I refer to subhead B—Dairy Products. The additional amount to be voted in this case is R351 000. Would the hon. the Minister give us the reasons for this increase?

Sir, as you know, we paid a large subsidy on the price of butter. Especially after margerine was introduced we found that the sales of butter had dropped by approximately 40%. It just would not recover. We reduced the selling price from time to time. The Minister of Finance agreed to our making a contribution to the cost of importing butter, powdered milk and cheese, and paying a subsidy in order to reduce the consumers’ prices. Most of this amount, approximately R10 million, was in respect of butter. From time to time we adjusted the butter prices, to which the Dairy Board made a further contribution from its own funds. At one time we reduced the price of butter to 42 cents per 500 grams. In addition we found it necessary to import powdered milk and cheese, and those import costs resulted in our having a deficit of R351 000.

Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a similar situation now in the case of dairy products as we were faced with a little while ago in the case of wheat. The hon. the Minister tells us that he has had to increase the subsidies from R10 million to R12 million during the year but he does not really give us a particular reason for that. I wonder whether he can tell us whether the production of butter increased, whether the consumption of butter has decreased, and what happened to the butter that he imported. What happened to the profit he was going to make on the sale of that butter he imported? How does he tie in this increase of 20% on the subsidy for the year with the recently announced increase in the retail price of butter and cheese of 12 cents per kilo and 10 cents per kilo respectively?

Mr. Chairman, I think it was a case of very clever arithmetic to have had to go to the Minister of Finance and ask him for R12 million in respect of the consumption of butter, bearing in mind our Budget. Who can anticipate that our consumption of butter for the next 12 months will be more than 39 000 tons? Nobody can give us that figure. We could not forecast what the result of the introduction of yellow margarine would be. We cannot predict the caprices of the housewife. We do not know what they are going to want. We cannot tell you now what the price of skimmed milk powder or cheese will be when it has to be imported. We had to import these products because of the drought, and there were losses in respect of those products. Should the Dairy Board pay for this out of their funds, or should we go to the Minister of Finance and ask him to help the industry to supply butter and cheese at a low price? That is the reason why we cannot make a definite estimate. But I still think it was very near the target to be out by only R351 000.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that, from the Nationalist point of view, to be only 20% out is very close to the target. When one looks at these estimates as a whole and one sees just how much the estimates have been out, it is too tremendous. The hon. the Minister refers to the fact that he had to import dairy products, but he referred only to losses on those imports of dairy products. Will he tell us what profits he made on those imports and whether those profits have been taken into consideration, bearing in mind that he is asking the Minister of Finance for only an extra R2 million, of which we are today, of course, voting only R351 000, because the rest has been saved elsewhere? This is important to the people outside, who are now facing this increase, an increase in their cost of living which has been caused by the actions of this Government, and particularly the action which the hon. the Minister referred to. He was not aware of the effect that the introduction of yellow margarine would have, but is he now aware of the effect the introduction of yellow margarine is going to have? Is he now in a position where he can ascertain the dual effect of yellow margarine, which is now firmly entrenched on the market, and this increase of 12 cents per kilo on butter and 10 cents per kilo on cheese? What effect is this going to have and how much more are we going to have to vote next year?

Mr. Chairman, how can I know what the effect of yellow margarine will be in the future if the price of yellow margarine is not controlled? The yellow margarine manufacturer can charge any price for his margarine, and that will always have an effect on the consumption of butter. We cannot make an estimate now.

The hon. member talks about the profit we made on imports. We crossed swords about this last year. The profits on imported butter were paid back to the consumer by means of a special price which was announced during October. The hon. member will remember that the price of butter went down by another 2½ cents. The profit was absorbed by another subsidy to the consumer.

Did that absorb all the profit?

Yes, the lot.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 19.—“Tourism”, R182 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give us the detailed reasons for the increase of R182 000 for which he is asking?

Mr. Chairman, the answer lies in the losses on devaluation. The South African Tourist Corporation’s finances are involved here. It operates in a number of centres overseas, and there were commitments in terms of foreign currencies. The main impact of the devaluation in December, 1971, was felt after the first few months of devaluation, in the 1972-’73 financial year. The full effect of these losses we calculated at about R271 000, but Satour was able, by various devices, to economize on certain expenditure, with the result that we applied to the Treasury for an additional amount of R182 000, which we could not cover. As I have said, this amount was in respect of firm commitments.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether as a new broom he will be more realistic than his predecessor was in his attitude to the requirements of Satour, taking into account the very inadequate budget on which it is working?

Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question?

I asked the hon. the Minister whether as a new broom in this post he will be more realistic than his predecessor in fighting for an adequate budget for Satour?

Sir, I do not know whether I am called upon to answer that, but what I will say is that I am only concerned with the reality, and if there is a good case for asking for more money for Satour, then I shall certainly do so.

Arising from the reply of the hon. the Minister, may I ask him whether the devaluation, to which he referred, which has led to this increased expenditure, was the same devaluation which he described as the most brilliant devaluation in South Africa?

Order!

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 21.—“Indian Affairs”, R1 581 000:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister the reason for the additional amount of R229 000 to be voted under Item H, bearing in mind that this represents an increase of almost a third of the original amount voted.

Sir, that increase arises with the current expenditure of the M. L. Sultan Technical College. What happened was that there were considerable increases in salaries and wages towards the end of 1971. The M. L. Sultan Technical College hoped to absorb those increases as well as earlier increases in its own budget, but the effect of the 1971 increases were so far-reaching, particularly with the application, at the same time, of what we call the rank progression of the staff, that we had to make this provision for more money. I may just say that the M. L. Sultan Technical College, which is a college for advanced technical education, is financed according to a particular formula. Although provision is not made in that formula for this type of salary increase, the college hoped nevertheless to be able to handle this. In fact, when it was found that it could not do so, when the accounts came in in April, 1972, for the year ended 1971, when there was a substantial deficit because of these big salary increases, an attempt was then made to recover also some of the earlier smaller losses due to the fact that these salary increases are not covered by that formula. That is the reason for this substantial increase of R229 000.

I rise to ask the hon. the Minister about sub-head A—Salaries and Wages. Is the additional amount due to an increase in the number of staff or to an increase in the salaries of the present staff?

The explanation there is that on the one hand, again with the increase in salaries in October, 1971, and with the adoption of the so-called rank progression basis for the staff, there was a very substantial increase in the amount over and above what was provided for. It was possible at that time, i.e. before the Budget for the year involved, to get just over another R1 million from the Treasury but when the full effects of that salary increase were worked out, which was a very laborious calculation for well over 6 000 staff members, it was found that there was still an amount of about R648 000 required, which is part of the amount we ask for now. In addition to that we have another difficulty and that is that we cannot provide in the Estimates for a particular year for the salaries attaching to posts where the posts have not yet been approved. We have a very rapidly increasing department here. We have to provide at the moment for something like 200 extra teaching posts alone a year. In addition, therefore, to the impact of the salaries which could not be fully provided for in the year involved, we are also now asking for R459 000 to cover the salaries attaching to these new posts which have not been substantially provided for in these Estimates. In addition to that there are the vacation bonuses which go with these additional posts. This is a much smaller amount, but it all adds up. There is also the fact that the costs of the Ministry were formerly met under the Budget Vote Tourism, but from August, when I came in, the decision was taken that it would now appear under the Budget Vote Indian Affairs, and so from August to March provision has been made in this Vote. The amount there is another R23 000 and in addition there are further small amounts which add up to about R9 000.

Do the various increases result in a narrowing of the gap in the salaries of the professional staff, between Indians and Whites?

Yes, I think one can say that, although with the latest salary increases, which have just been announced, I think there will be a more effective narrowing of the gap. I cannot give the exact percentage by which the gap might have been closed under the 1971 Vote, but it is certainly the policy of the department to strive as much as possible towards closing the gap.

Order! That issue cannot be discussed now.

Will the hon. the Minister explain to us sub-head N, which provides for an increase in pensions, etc., to war veterans of R390 000? We understand that there has been no actual increase in the amount of pension paid, so do we deduce from this that there has been a large increase in the number of pensioners drawing a pension?

Yes, the department was not able to foresee the very rapid increase in the number of beneficiaries during this year. That is really the answer.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22.—“Foreign Affairs’”, R372 050:

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to subhead F. In the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs we are used to having the Vote drawn up very accurately, and it is very seldom that one comes across a big excess that must be covered in the Addition Appropriation. But in this case, in sub-head F, we see that there is an increase of about 38% of the amount requested for special services. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would explain precisely why there is such a large increase in the amount.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that the amount is a reasonably large one, but there is a very good reason for that. In almost all the countries where we are represented, there are special arrangements for social, medical and hospital insurance schemes. These schemes provide for certain benefits as far as local staff are concerned. In the case of Italy we have not belonged to such a scheme in the past. It was not compulsory to do so. To tell the truth, there was uncertainty as to whether diplomatic missions were compelled to belong to that scheme. We recently decided, in any case, after consultation with the Treasury and with a view to the practice adopted at other Missions, to in fact participate in that scheme, and to also make this retrospective in effect. The result is that an amount of more than R70 000 has come into play.

Mr. Chairman, I see that there is an increase of R132 000 under sub-head B—Subsistence and Transport. Does this include any foresight of return fares for any of our diplomats. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R6 411 000; Loan Vote N.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R6 000 000; and S.W.A. Vote No. 10.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R278 000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the reason for the increased expenditure under sub-head O.—Payments to the Governments of Bantu Areas, and subhead P.—Construction of access roads to Bantu areas, of R5,245 million and R485 000 respectively?

Mr. Chairman, the position in regard to sub-head O is as follows: The amount is mainly due to the provision which must be made because of an expected surplus at the beginning of the year being estimated too low when the Budget was drafted. The position is that when the Budged is drafted we expect a surplus or a deficit whatever the position may be. For the financial year in question we expected a surplus which did not materialize and in the course of the year, when the final figures became known, it was discovered that the surplus was lower than what had been budgeted for. It was therefore necessary to make provision for the additional funds by means of a request for an additional appropriation by Parliament because of the fact that money was not available because of an expected surplus which did not materialize. That is the reason for the main amount. In the second instance we had the position that as a result of salary, pension and allowance adjustments and adjusted figures in respect of contributions to pension and other similar funds, the figures were found to be higher during the course of the year than had been estimated for. This makes up the other amount. In total we get the amount of R5,245 million as indicated here. May I proceed to the explanation in connection with sub-head P?

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister proceeds with his explanation, may I ask whether these lower than expected surpluses were in connection with the Bantu Governments?

Mr. Chairman, these are estimates that are drawn up in advance in respect of Bantu areas, and it was expected that there would be a surplus at the beginning of the year that could be transferred from the previous financial year. It was estimated that the amount would be at a certain level. In the course of the year, as the final figures became known, it appeared that there had been too high an estimate of the surplus and that there would therefore not be enough money available from the surplus for expenditure. That is why Parliament must now be asked to make additional money available. The money relates to Bantu areas, and chiefly Lebowa, KwaZulu and Machangana. With respect to the additional amount needed under sub-head P, “Construction of Access Roads to Bantu Areas”, money is voted, as the hon. member knows, for the access roads in White areas and the money is indicated under my Vote. It has become evidence that that additional money was necessary for the road to Mdantsane in the Ciskei area. The additional amount is necessary because the funds voted for all access roads were not sufficient to finance that relevant road as well. The additional money has been voted for that.

Does it only relate to the Ciskei?

Yes, this extra amount relates only to the Ciskei.

Mr. Chairman, somebody was speaking at the time when the hon. the Minister gave a reply to subhead P. Unfortunately I did not catch which particular road he was referring to.

In the Ciskei.

Is it the main road to the Ciskei?

To Mdantsane in the Ciskei.

Thank you; that was what I wanted to know.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister’s reply regarding the increase of R5,2 million under item O. He said that this was on account of the fact that the anticipated surplus of cash available against expenditure for the previous financial year was lower than anticipated. I am afraid that I am a little bit at a loss, because as I understand the financial regulations, any surplus that is unexpended at the end of the previous financial year, should surely be returned to the Treasury.

No, it does not in our case.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us a further explanation on this matter. Why not in his case?

It is an old principle that the money is not returned to the Treasury because it is a grant. Therefore what we have left in the form of a surplus remains with us. That is an old practise; the hon. member should know that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister explained that in connection with three of these territories, the surplus was not materialized. I am surprised to hear that he budgeted for a surplus in the Estimates of Expenditure. Can he indicate to us how much he was out in his budget?

Mr. Chairman, I said that the amount of R5,245 million was chiefly in the form of a deficit on the balances. R3,140 million of that was necessary in the case of Lebowa, and in the case of KwaZulu the amount was Rl,79 million. In the case of Machangana it was R405 000. The R5,245 million is made up of these items.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister about sub-head H, “Pensions and ex gratia Assistance to Needy Bantus”. There was an increase of about R1 million. Is that due to a greater number who received help, or to an increase in the amount of money that was paid to them?

Mr. Chairman, it is not almost R1 million, it is only R681 000 …

Plus the R266 000.

Yes. This is chiefly attributable to a greater demand. As the hon. member knows, one must anticipate how many applications there will be in the coming year. The hon. member will know that with the development of the Bantu area, and the fact that they have their own treasuries and budget systems, a division occurs as far as such things as pensions are concerned. Previously pensions in the White and Bantu areas were channelled through my department. Now this aspect is being separated and certain pensions go to the Bantu Homeland Governments. This separation between the two departments, whether it be KwaZulu or Lebowa, furnishes the same problem. It is very difficult to anticipate the precise number of applications in the new area of the Bantu Homeland governments and in the White areas. In this way there was too low an estimate of pensioners’ applications to the tune of R60 per year, the amount applicable in the year under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister please give us some details regarding the amount of R6 million increase on Loan Vote N in respect of grants-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund? Could he tell us why it was necessary to increase this particular grant-in-aid by R6 million, whether it is earmarked for any particular purpose and, if so, for what particular purpose?

Mr. Chairman, with the exception of a small amount, this amount is all needed in connection with the Bantu townships that were being built in the Bantu homelands, and other Bantu townships that were to have been started in the course of the year in order to meet certain needs. The hon. member will understand me when I say that with the inflationary times we have experienced in the past year it is very necessary for us, in our request for money, to keep the amounts as low as possible. In the case of the Bantu townships that are, for example, being built to a very large extent on an agency basis by local authorities, the Xhosa Development Corporation and by all kinds of bodies, and with the restriction of the amounts, the figures estimated were too low. In the course of the year it became evident that we had to obtain the supplementary money because we could surely not tell the contractors, with whom agreements for the building of the townships had been concluded, to stop the work, dismiss their artisans and so on. We have a large number of townships that are being built, and the work on the townships we were busy with must be continued. Secondly, also in connection with Bantu townships, new needs have arisen, for example where industrialists became established in places close to Bantu homelands. They needed housing for their workers. This could not be postponed for another year, for which the budget only comes later, and consequently this essential housing work had to be commenced with. These are the chief reasons for this amount.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply. I wonder if he could indicate just one thing further, namely whether this amount is being spent primarily for the provision of housing, or for the provision of services or what he likes to call the infrastructure? Can the hon. the Minister give us any idea percentagewise of how many houses have been provided?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot now tell the hon. member here how many houses have been built altogether, because this does not fall under the increase. The money is going for the establishment of such housing schemes or townships, whatever one chooses to call them. This applies, of course, not only to the building of the house itself, but also to the installation of services, etc., although certain amounts of that money, which can be used for services, also come from other funds, for example the levy funds if applicable, as the hon. member probably knows too. This expenditure is, however, for the entire structure of a township that is being established.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 26.—“Justice”, R534 000:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister please indicate to us what the reasons are for the large increase in item M, “Legal Expenses incurred by the State Attorney”, amounting to R150 000, an increase of almost 42 %?

The reply is that the amount which is originally voted, is really guess work. We never know what number of cases the State Attorney will have to deal with. That is the full explanation.

The hon. the Minister has not indicated whether the item relates to specific cases.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister how this specific increased amount is determined. Is the cost incurred by the State Attorney in respect of each case kept separate so that one is able to determine what the cost was?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, the question has been asked whether the increased amount of R150 000 was occasioned by particular cases. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is not the case. I wonder if I can ask him whether any of this amount is involved in the case of Mr. Agliotti?

I would not be able to say. I do not think so.

You are not able to say, but you do not think so? In other words, the hon. the Minister is not certain?

No, I am not certain.

Mr. Chairman, I find the hon. the Minister’s reply very disturbing. He comes to this House and says it is guess work. Well, budgets are not based on guess work. When the R400 000 was put on the Estimates, it was I know worked out on a basis, at least, of probability. What we want to know from the hon. the Minister—we have not had a reply from him—is what occasioned the extra R150 000? He is now asking us to vote an extra R150 000; what does he want this R150 000 for? That is all we want to know.

It is really very simple. The State Attorney had to attend to more cases than were originally anticipated.

Mr. Chairman, another item in which there has been a high percentage increase is item D—“Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”—in respect of which the additional amount to be voted is R130 000. Would the hon. the Minister give an indication as to what the reason for this additional amount is?

The explanation in this regard is that the cost to the Government Printer during the past year for the work that had to be done, increased by almost 25%. This is chiefly the reason for this additional amount.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28.—“Mines”, R625 000; Loan Vote Q.—“Mines”, R13 221 000:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell me why he requires R625 000 more than he estimated for the administration of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act?

The reason for that is that in terms of the Finance Act of 1972 Pneumoconiosis pensions were raised. After we were able to effect certain savings under some of the other sub-heads, we were left with the situation that we had to find an extra R625 000. That is why that figure appears as an additional amount to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, surely the administration is a separate item and other items that are budgeted for should not infringe on this particular item? I do not quite follow the hon. the Minister’s reasoning here.

I can give the hon. member more details if he likes. The revised Estimate is for an amount of R6 614 000. From that the Original Estimate of R5 326 000 must be deducted. That gives you an amount of R1 288 000. The position is that under sub-head J we were able to save R12 000, which gives you an amount of R1 300 000. If the amount of R663 000 is subtracted from that, it gives you the sum of R625 000 which, together with the sum of R675 000, amounts to R1 300 000.

The hon. the Minister has given us an elementary lesson in mental arithmetic by doing some subtractions but he has not yet answered the question. Why is it that the administration costs under this head have increased by R1 300 000 above the Original Estimates? The figure we can all work out.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not understand the hon. member correctly. The position is that those pensions have been increased to an amount of R1 300 000 …

Is that an increase in pensions?

Yes, that is an increase in pensions. We were faced with a fait accompli. We could do nothing about it. Let me explain the position to the hon. gentlemen. The increase in pneumoconiosis pensions placed an extra burden on the C-account, i.e. the State account, of R1 473 000. Let me explain the position clearly if hon. members want the details. In the C-account itself there was an amount of R173 000, which gives us an amount of R1 300 000. The latter is the additional amount that had to be found in respect of pneumoconiosis pensions for which the C-account must answer. In this respect there was a saving of R12 000 under sub-head J, which could be used for that. That leaves a sub-total of R1 288 000. Furthermore savings could be effected under other sub-heads, totalling R663 000 as is indicated in the Estimate, i.e. under sub-head F “Grants-in-aid and Contributions”, and under sub-head K, “Assistance to Gold-mining Industry”. This amounts to an additional R625 000 to be requested.

The hon. the Minister is trying his best to give an explanation of this. But what he said has nothing to do with the amount that he has paid out in pensions? Here we have an amount which is set aside for the administration of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. I want to know why in the administration of this Act he requires a further R625 000. It is a simple question. Did he have to use more stamps, more envelopes, or did he get a bigger staff?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is really being a little difficult now. He knows that we have an A-account. The major gold mines fall under the A-account. Then there is a B-account in respect of the smaller mines. There is also a C-account, i.e. the account that is the responsibility of the State. The position is simply that for the extra pensions that have to be paid the State must accept responsibility. In the C-account there was an amount of R173 000, but on account of the fait accompli we had to face as a result of the increase in pneumoconiosis pensions we had to vote an amount of R1 473 000. In order to be able to vote that, we used savings made under certain heads, which leaves us with an amount of R625 000 which we still had to find. That is the amount that is being requested.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I want to come back to item J, under Mines. The Minister has given us information and an explanation as to the reasons why he requires R625 000 plus R663 000. If we look back we see under item J in the Estimate of Expenditure on Revenue Account for 31st March, 1973, that this amount appears as payment into the Compensation Fund in terms of section 129 to meet liabilities and is payable to the C-account. My submission is that if this is paid to the C-account it should not come under administration, although they put it under administration. It is in the wrong place. Now I ask the hon. the Minister to tell me whether he thinks this ought to be a matter of administration or whether he should put this under some other account.

I have given the hon. member a very clear explanation as to what this R625 000 is required for. Now the hon. member says it is required under sub-head “Administration of the Pneumoconiosis Act, 1962” and he says that it may be under the wrong head.

†Now the position is this. The hon. the member is an elder statesman in this House. He has been here many a year and if he looks at the Estimates of Expenditure under the Revenue Account for last year, he will see, and this has been the position, I am told, for very many years in this House, that Vote J is and has always been, for “Administration of the Pneumoconiosis Administration Act of 1962”. It is under this heading that we are now asking the House to vote this additional R625 000. But under sub-head J, the “Administration of the Pneumoconiosis Act”, as it appears there, there are different smaller sub-headings. There is for instance, administration, purchase of photographic and X-ray material, medical and X-ray examinations, expenditure in terms of medical practitioners and other persons required, payments to the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund, actuaries, and quite a few others. Then, under the last of these smaller sub-headings under J—and I emphasize that this has always been the position—there is also the payment to the Compensation Fund in terms of section 129 (1), to meet liabilities payable from the C-account. It is under this sub-heading, under the sub-heading “Administration” as it appears there, that we ask the House to vote this additional sum of R625 000, the details of which I have explained very carefully and in detail to the hon. member, and I sincerely hope that the hon. member understands it now.

I understand the position but after having heard the Minister’s explanation, I want to suggest to him now that he has put this under the wrong head. The amount is immaterial. I say he must alter this head and put it under the correct heading.

Order!

I would like to refer the Minister to Loan Vote Q. There we find a difference between the original estimates and the revised estimates of something of the order of R13 million when savings are taken into account. It is very close on R14 million, which is an increase in the original estimates of much more than 50%. When the hon. the Minister of Finance dealt with this particular item he glanced over it very quickly and said that it was due to the rapid progress being made in the development of the pilot plant of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. Now, this is a matter which contains an element of secrecy, and while I do not wish to press it too hard, I do feel that the hon. the Minister, who is asking us for an increase of nearly R14 million at very short notice and to be spent in a very short space of time, owes us an explanation in more detail, and a more satisfactory one, than the cursory reference made to it by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I appreciate the serious note and tone in which the hon. member for Von Brandis touched on this matter. This is indeed a matter of great importance to our country. I comply very readily with his request to supply a few pieces of information in regard to this matter. I want to point out briefly that the construction of such a pilot plant for the enrichment of uranium for South Africa is one of the greatest undertakings this country is tackling. I want to point out to the House that there are only five great powers in the world that have such pilot plants, and that South Africa therefore finds itself in very elite company. For that reason one would like to pay great tribute to those scientists of South Africa who made this discovery of world-wide importance, which has resulted in the construction of this pilot plant at Pelindaba near Pretoria. I want to state here this evening that the earlier expectations in regard to this pilot plant for the enrichment of uranium have in fact been surpassed, and that the production of this plant in its original size will be considerably greater than was initially anticipated. Sir, you must allow me to add one last point as well in this regard, because it is of importance to the country. This entire matter of the enrichment of uranium has with complete justification been described as something which could mean even more to South Africa than the discovery of diamonds meant to us approximately 100 years ago, and that is certainly saying a great deal. Now I am asking hon. members on the opposite side of the House to trust us in regard to this very important matter. The hon. member was quite right in saying that there are security aspects associated with this matter, but he could have added that there are also unprecedented possibilities for South Africa associated with this matter, and against this background I shall gladly furnish him with the reasons for the additional amount of R13,9 million which is being requested.

In the first place I want to say that according to calculations it would have cost Ucor approximately R40 million in 1972-’73 to establish this pilot plant. But as a result of the general curbs on expenditure which the Government decided on for the year 1972-’73, Ucor was limited to R25 million. After Ucor had then considered in what way it could then adjust its programme for the pilot plant to this R25 million, Ucor found that it could do so in only one way, which was that certain things would be done according to the existing timetable, and the completion of the rest of the plant would then be delayed. On closer examination it was then found by Ucor that an amount of R34 million would be required for 1972-’73 to achieve that object, i.e. to complete certain important stages in terms of the timetable, and then delay the rest. For this they would have required an additional amount of R9 million. Sir, after a very thorough study of the matter the Cabinet arrived at the conclusion that this additional R9 million was really justified in the light of all the circumstances—the interests of the country and the determination of priorities—and therefore granted this R9 million. But then Ucor, with a view to implementing this amended timetable construction programme negotiated with the suppliers, the sub-contractors and the other parties involved, and found that the firms involved in this matter had created, and still had to create, special production facilities. I may inform hon. members this evening that on more than one occasion I paid a personal visit there, and I can tell you, Sir, that what I saw there I, as a young man, found very impressive. I was, of course, informed about what was being done there, and when I saw this wonderful discovery which our own young—and old—people had made, I was on more than one occasion very deeply moved to think that our people in South Africa were capable of making such an incredible scientific breakthrough. In this process industrialists became involved. Those industrialists, in their turn, to make these things possible, made discoveries which, if these were subsequently to be disclosed to the world, would earn very great praise for South Africa, quite apart from the great scientific discovery which was made in regard to the enrichment of uranium. But in this highly specialized process of enriching uranium, involving some of these suppliers, some of whom are small suppliers, who had to create special production facilities with highly trained people and who did not always have at their disposal the finances necessary to fulfil these considerable financial obligations, Ucor found that the additional R9 million which had been voted was not sufficient to tide it over, and the development proceeded so rapidly that they then returned and requested an additional R4,9 million. Upon closer examination it was found that the expenditure of that R4,9 million, which was voted to Ucor by way of loan capital, and every penny of which, and far more—in fact, ten times and a hundred times as much in the years which lie ahead—will be recovered by the State when this enterprise begins to show a profit, was justified, and the Government agreed to it, inter alia, because if it had not done so the financing costs of the R4,9 million would have meant an additional R100 000, which would in fact have been a complete waste of money. Sir, if you look at this Vote, you will see that the additional amount which is being requested is R13 221 000, and that savings on other subheads amount to R679 000, which gives a total of R13 900 000.

Sir, I do not want to go into further details about this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that it is possible to spend this large amount of money in one year, and whether, if he does not spend it in one year, this money would go back to the Treasury, or could he retain it?

Most of these moneys have in fact already been spent and there is no question that they will not spend the rest of these moneys because the development is of such an order that it is more than likely that in the coming year they will need more money, so I can give the hon. member that assurance straight from the shoulder.

Mr. Chairman, we thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I believe that in a project of this nature there is more to consider than just high expectations. I think there are certain economic considerations and certain industrial considerations which need to be taken into serious account. I do not wish to press the matter very hard at this stage. I believe, for example, that the kind of money which is being asked for on the scale that we have heard this evening needs to be justified more adequately than in the general mood of euphoria which we have heard from the Minister this evening. Sir, this is a very large amount. We believe that it has got to be justified economically in terms of market developments and in terms of world demand. We have heard, for example, from the Minister, as we heard from the Ambassador in London some time ago, that the wealth produced by this development will exceed all the wealth produced by the diamond-mining industry in South Africa. Sir, one only has to do some simple multiplication to realize that this is a sum which is really not practical in terms of the price of uranium, the additional value derived from the enrichment of uranium and the world market for uranium. These things just do not make sense. We will press this matter further, but we are delighted in any event to see that the Minister is showing the same enthusiasm for this project, which we truly hope will be successful, as he has shown for homeland development and, we hope, with more cause.

He is on the ball.

Sir, I will not take the matter any further. We are not entirely satisfied with the explanation, but in view of the nature of the project I will leave the matter there.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 29.—“Health”, R4 953 000:

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to tell me why and how a quarter of a million rand is going to be spent on mental health services? Once he has explained that, there are other items that I want to raise.

Which item is that?

I refer to item H.

Mr. Chairman, in later years we are more and more applying our energies to the treatment of mental cases and directing them to out-patient services. There are many cases that you need not institutionalize, that you can treat in out-patient departments, and in cases of that kind you save a lot of money. The daily fee for these people is only 10 cents, whereas when you institutionalize them it is R2-70. That is just by way of general explanation. This R250 000 represents the maintenance cost of certified mental patients outside departmental institutions, that is to say, in certain licensed institutions where patients receive private care. Then provision is made for the treatment of mentally disordered persons as outpatients at departmental institutions or elsewhere. The amount is R190 000 in the second case, and R60 000 in the first case, making a total of R250 000.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell me whether any of that money is being spent on improvements in actual buildings of existing mental hospitals?

No, this is only for the patients as such. In the case of buildings, it is a question of capital expenditure; that is something different.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister, under subhead R, if he could explain the increase in the expenditure on SANTA, an increase which represents an amount of one and a half times the original amount voted.

Mr. Chairman, this is rather technical but in any case I shall try to explain it to the hon. member. It is a question of Treasury approval of 6th December, 1972 having been obtained for the payment of an additional amount of R35 000 to SANTA during the present financial year to extend the isolation facilities at George by transferring the amount on the 6th item—that is, “miscellaneous schemes”—to the 8th item. As the 8th item is a column 2 item, the amount of R35 000 will have to be specially voted. That is the reason for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to sub-heads H—“Mental health”, and L—“Tuberculosis: General expenses”. Will the hon. the Minister say whether any of these amounts are for the purpose of subsidizing other hospitals, for example provincial hospitals, which are treating mental health or tuberculosis cases in the meantime, until such time as they can be transferred to some other hospital? In other words, is some of this money being used for the subsidizing of other hospitals such as provincial hospitals? Does that apply to any of the surplus shown here?

No.

There is R2 million in connection with tuberculosis.

Mr. Chairman, mental care is the responsibility of the Department of Health and there is no provision in law that we have to subsidize any other institutions except those institutions provided for by law. I have already explained the position in regard to sub-head H. The amount appropriated under this sub-head is not intended for provincial hospitals; it is intended for licensed institutions, for single-care patients and cases like that. It is also for out-patient as I have said. However, by arrangement with the provincial administrations …

Yes, that is it!

We have made arrangements lately.

Yes, that is it.

But there is no legal provision for that. That is an arrangement made between us. We do pay them for the patient days. That is in terms of an arrangement made in between.

But that is what I am asking you.

I am sorry that I did not tell the hon. member that at the outset, but that is so.

Mr. Chairman, that was the point and I put it clearly enough to the hon. the Minister when I asked whether he was subsidizing patients who normally belong to his hospitals. When they come into a general hospital, they must be hospitalized. So there was in the past a standing arrangement whereby the Department of Health paid for those beds while they were occupied in a provincial hospital and other private hospitals; not necessarily provincial hospitals. The same applied to the T.B. cases. There is a R2 million excess under T.B. cases. It is not only to mental health but to T.B. cases as well that it applies. The provincial hospitals are not hospitals to treat T.B. cases. Those are cases which fall entirely under the department of the Minister, but when a patient is admitted to hospital in a seriously ill condition, it may take time before a diagnosis is possible and only then is that patient removed. It is standard practice for an account then to be rendered and I say some of this excess money is used for the purpose of paying for those beds which are occupied in provincial and private hospitals for the time being by mental health and tuberculosis cases.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. I have had experience of this for more than 20 years and I therefore know the position. However, there is no legal provision and in my answer I explicitly referred to legal provision because I was not sure as to what the hon. member was really getting at. I can now tell him that we have cases in so far as tuberculosis and other infectious diseases are concerned, but up to this specific moment we have not come to any real understanding as far as psychiatric cases are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell me whether or not any of this money either under sub-heads K or L is allocated for use in the Bantu homelands. The hon. the Minister is the agent for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and I was wondering whether any of this money is being allocated to those homelands which have not yet been given the privilege of looking after their own health services, like the Transkei.

With regard to sub-head L.—“Tuberculosis: General Expenses”, the Bantu homelands only come in as far as certain changes to the Act are concerned. Previously domicilium has been applied. Therefore if a case comes in from a Bantu homeland to a local authority, the cost of the treatment is charged to the Bantu Account. That of course was what was applied before. If a local authority in a White area finds a case of tuberculosis, it can recover the cost it has to incur to cure the patient from the Bantu Trust Account. However, nowadays that is not the case. Nowadays domicilium does not apply any more and therefore they have to pay for all the cases where they find them. Where these cases occur we pay for them. That is not only as far as tuberculosis is concerned. That is also applicable to other infectious diseases.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation. Let me make it a little more simple for him. Does he as agent get paid by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or does he provide the services and charge the Department of Bantu Affairs which later recover the money from the Treasury?

We do it to a certain extent to aid them in the drafting of their budget, but it is on their budget and not on our budget. It is completely a case of their budget with which we sort of co-ordinate because as agent we should know what they have to spend year after year. However, it is completely their budget and is no affair of ours.

Mr. Chairman, must I assume then that the major part of this R2 million expense on tuberculosis cases in those areas is spent outside the homelands?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can take it as a fact that most of this amount is spent outside the homeland on tuberculotics. We as a department are responsible for them.

Why is this such a big increase?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has now asked me that question while sitting down. The hon. member may at least rise and then ask me the question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can explain why we are being asked to vote an additional amount of R2 141 000 on an original estimate of R11 264 million? Can he explain why this big increase outside the homelands has taken place and what caused it?

That is a very reasonable question. [Interjections.] It has also been put in a proper manner. I cannot answer the hon. member in great detail; this I must admit immediately. There have been extraordinary requests and extraordinary demands in respect of the repayments for the treatment of tuberculosis. These have come especially from local authorities, local authorities which are treating tuberculosis all over the country. Then we also have the SANTA centres; we have 31 of them throughout the country. We have private bodies such as Smith, Mitchell & Co, who are treating many tuberculosis cases for us. These people are treating tuberculosis cases for us, and their claims have lately been increasing at a tremendous rate. True, costs are higher, but why there has been this extraordinary increase of R941 000, I am unable to explain up to the last penny. That is for the transport of people, for the keeping of people, for the services provided, and for the staff. Then there still remains a relatively large amount of R800 000. This relatively large amount was caused by the fact that initially the SANTA centres, the private people and the magistrates have been making claims through the local authorities against the Department. After these tuberculosis cases have been treated, the claims are made and must be certified by the magistrate. After this they are submitted to the department which has to pay for them. Then it takes approximately two to three months before these people receive their money. Initially people have waited for three months, but at present they do not want to wait any more, but want their money sooner. Now they claim their money for the treatment they have undertaken sooner. For that reason discussions were held early last year and a decision was taken in view of the fact that the SANTA centres, which are doing very good work for us, the private people who are helping to treat tuberculosis cases, and the magistrates all approached one another with claims to be paid sooner. We have a check on all tuberculosis cases that are being sent out and the regional head of the Department of Health is aware of every tuberculosis case. At present we have a system for speeding up payments under which claims are going to the regional head every month without delay. These are certified by him and paid out within the following month. This has led to our having to pay in one year five quarters’ instead of four quarters’ expenses. Now we must pay five quarters’ expenses in this current year. The contributions in respect of that extra quarter are approximately R800 000. The R941 000 plus the R800 000 amount to R1 741 000. Now hon. members would like to know about the further R400 000; or do they not want to know about that?

Yes, we do.

I can explain that also. Under section 50 of Act No. 36 of 1919, there is something called domicilium. Normally when a local authority provides services in connection with tuberculosis, it wants payment for the treatment of such tuberculosis case—I explained this briefly a moment ago—in order to cover its costs. It is entitled to do so and sometimes it comes from the Bantu homelands, as is the case here. But lately, after 1971, the Act was amended and we had to pay these moneys ourselves. We now have to pay for all tuberculosis cases that come to us and one does not ask any more where such a person comes from; one simply treats him. In other words, there is now an additional R400 000 payment on our part, but we are saving the same R400 000 on the part of, say, the Bantu homelands, which fall outside the areas we are under obligation to.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his detailed reply, and secondly I want to know if he has the statistics which will indicate to us whether or not there has been an increase or not in the number of cases of tuberculosis in South Africa, both inside and outside the homelands.

Order! That concerns the original estimate and not the additional estimate.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give an explanation as to why there is an increase of nearly R1 million under item K, “Medical Poor Relief,” where an amount of R965 000 is now required.

Mr. Chairman, the increased provision here is required under the second item of that subhead and is actually extra expenditure for medicines. The main aspect of that increased expenditure is required under the second item, that is the expenditure on medicines and dressings, etc. These have increased tremendously rapidly in price, and not only after devaluation. They have increased with 25%, 30% or more. That in itself has created a problem for us. When the draft estimates for 1972-’73 were prepared—and here I must tell hon. members what the real position is—we requested an amount of R5 600 000 because we needed that for our services. Treasury, however, had to cut down on this amount in the light of the decision to do this as far as possible. Eventually it did boil down to the medical services, being essential services, not being able to afford these reductions, because we are dealing with people in contractual positions here.

†These people must have their pay. So, we found towards the end of 1972 that we would need at least R5 200 000, an increase of R1 900 000 on the original estimate. If you make a few sums or calculations—R935 000 of this amount we may be able to save under other sub-heads. But then we still need a sum of R965 000.

*I want to tell hon. members that this extra amount we need and which has to be voted is mainly due to a considerable increase in the price of medicines. I am sorry that I cannot explain this in great detail. It was explained to me to what extent medicines had increased in cost. Then there is the provision of medicines free of charge to people such as pensioners. Hon. members must bear in mind that until three years or so ago our pensioners did not enjoy completely free treatment.

†Their medical treatment was not completely free. Perhaps they still have to show the order these days. In the past this order was required in every instance but nowadays the magistrate might make an arrangement with the district surgeon and tell him that a certain man is a pensioner and that, if he shows his pension card, he must receive free treatment. Some of these people need a lot of expensive medicine. The medicines that elevate the mind, so to speak, cost a lot of money.

Pink pills!

No; the hon. member should not be frivolous or light-hearted about this for it is really a very important matter. The large amounts of money that are needed nowadays for these pensioners and to cover other costs, make up the extra R965 000. This all forms part of medical poor relief. It is not for pensioners alone, but also for the work that district surgeons have to render to people in outlying districts. I do not think that the R965 000, as a percentage, is anything to worry about.

Mr. Chairman, under item N—Other Infectious Diseases (other than tuberculosis)—an additional amount of R388 000 is to be voted. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell the Committee whether or not any of this amount is being used for the combating of venereal diseases which, as he knows, are on the increase?

One would of course expect venereal diseases to be grouped with the other infectious diseases. Our refunds to local authorities have increased by R180 000. We do not have any control over that. It all depends on circumstances. It is a question of waxing and waning with these diseases. Although we originally got only about R650 000 in the original estimates, by comparing the various sums that we needed in the previous year we found after nine months that we would need at least R830 000 for this financial year. This does not cover venereal diseases. Then there is also an amount of R208 000. Here again, a mistake has been made in that domicilium was wrongly interpreted. Even in so far as infectious diseases are concerned, local authorities are not always responsible for those cases that come from another part of the country. In those cases the sum was also incorrectly determined. This is therefore one of those cases where we will save at least R208 000 under the Bantu Trust while at the same time we will have to spend a similar amount.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 31.—“Community Development”, R50, and Loan Vote K.—“Community Development”, R15 000 000.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about Vote 31. This is a new item and I want to discuss it in some detail. Provision is made here for an amount of R50 for “Interest subsidy on state-sponsored home-ownership saving scheme”. This arises from the Budget of March last year, when the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated that the Government had decided that some assistance was necessary to enable, especially young married couples, to purchase and own their own homes. As a result the Government introduced what was described as a state-sponsored home-ownership saving scheme. In order that the House should be clear as to what we are discussing I would like to remind the House that the scheme was intended for families earning less than R5 000 per annum. Families in that category were enabled to purchase a home costing not more than R16 000, i.e. land and house combined. For such a home the normal Building Society bond would be R12 000. The couples concerned would therefore be required to save or to have available an amount of R4 000 which they were to deposit or save in a Building Society. They were not allowed to withdraw this amount for a period of 18 months. The amount of R4 000 would be placed in what is commonly known as the tax-free savings account for which interest is paid at the rate of 6½% per annum. Now, the normal Building Society bond for houses is 8½% per annum and therefore the Government proposed that it would subsidize the difference between the 6½% which the family would obtain from the savings account of R4 000 and the 8½% which the Building Society would charge on mortgage, by providing 2% interest. Now we were all of the view that some assistance was required to enable young married couples in South Africa to purchase and acquire their own homes. This had become vital as the result of the increased price of land and of houses, inevitable increases as a result of inflation and the general rise in costs, including the cost of materials for building houses and the cost of wages to the artisans concerned. But we on this side of the House told the Government when the scheme was introduced that the conditions imposed by the Government were such that they would make the scheme unworkable and would not result in the object which the Government intended being achieved, namely to assist young married couples in acquiring a home of their own. Now, we were not alone in criticizing the conditions imposed by the Government. When the scheme was announced there was a great deal of criticism of the terms of the scheme from various responsible people, including people who knew what type of house could be produced for this figure and especially what type of house was likely to be available at the end of the 18 months’ saving period for the total sum of R16 000, land and building included. Now we find that this scheme has been given effect to in Vote 31 of the March, 1973, Budget with an amount of R50. I think the hon. the Minister of Community Development must give the House a good deal of information in regard to this item. First of all, this amount of R50 is obviously a token sum. I think the House is entitled to know why it is a token sum, because the scheme was announced in March, 1972. It is now almost a year ago. Surely if this scheme is a success, then the amount of R50 which has been provided, the token sum of R50, is a ridiculous provision and the hon. the Minister should by now, at the end of one year, be in a position to tell this House what success this scheme has had. By this I mean how many applications have been made to building societies to open a savings account in terms of the Government’s state-sponsored home-ownership saving scheme. How many accounts have been opened and what interest will the Government be required to pay in respect of those accounts which have already been opened? I believe that the hon. the Minister must also go a lot further and he must tell this House whether he considers, in the light of the applications that there have been, whether or not this scheme is a success; and if it is not a success, what steps the Government intends to take to make the scheme more attractive. Because, Sir, the Government has admitted, in introducing the scheme in the Budget in March. 1972, that young South African married couples require assistance in order to become owners of a house of reasonable proportions, of reasonable accommodation, a house of their own. I may say quite frankly that all the information which is available at this stage indicates that the scheme has been a failure, as we predicted it would be. I want to make it clear that when I say it is a failure, there have been some applications, but it has not achieved the object which it was intended to achieve. I would ask the hon. the Minister to enlighten the House as to the number of applications and the interest the Government will have to pay in terms of these applications; whether in his opinion the scheme is a success, and if not, what the Government proposes to do to amend the conditions in order to make the scheme attractive to young married couples and to achieve the object which the Government wishes to achieve.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with the plea presented by my hon. colleague, and I should like to deal specifically with my constituency. Port Elizabeth Central, in large areas of which renewal schemes are in progress. Quite a number of houses have either been demolished or have still to be demolished, which means that the people who stayed in those houses have to acquire new ones. I also find it quite disappointing that provision has been made in this Budget for an amount of only R50. I should like to present a plea to the hon. the Minister for this scheme to be simplified considerably. Particularly after the so-called successful devaluation we have experienced on two occasions and the consequent considerable increase in costs, the limit of R16 000 is too low, even for those whom the Government wanted to assist. I should like to present a plea for considerable attention to be given to the possibility of increasing this limit and to facilitating the entire process of obtaining assistance in order to enable the young people of our country and those replaced by renewal schemes to acquire their own houses. I ask the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration and to recommend it.

I am afraid I am not in a position at this stage to give accurate details to the hon. member for Musgrave, which he asked for. I am speaking from memory, and I think the last figures I saw indicated that something like 470 persons had invested under this scheme. I may be slightly out, but it was somewhere in the vicinity of 470. The sum invested up to that date I am also not quite sure about because I did not expect these questions, but according to my memory it is somewhere in the vicinity of R500 000. Judging by those figures I am not going to accept at this stage that the scheme has been a failure because we have in any case at this stage, say, 470 prospective home owners who may not have considered acquiring their own homes in the future if it were not for this scheme. Some encouragement may be necessary, however, by perhaps lifting the levels concerned, the R5 000 and R16 000 levels. That may encourage people investing under this scheme. But the position is that when one starts considering these loans, the same arguments which apply here, also apply in various other aspects of our endeavours to provide homes for people, as in our sub-economic housing schemes, our economic housing schemes and our housing scheme for civil servants. There are also other considerations which come into the picture. The position is that I have already been in contact with the hon. the Minister of Finance in this respect, and I am of the opinion that we will have to consider the entire picture. But when considering the entire picture, you also have to consider the availability of funds, because if you simply raise the ceiling of the loans and you have not got the funds available to meet the additional demands for assistance, then you are not going to achieve anything at all. I think I can reply in the same terms to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I have this matter under consideration, but I cannot give a definite reply at this stage.

Mr.Chairman, I appreciate the statement that the hon. the Minister has made in this regard, and I am pleased to know that he appreciates the problems and is giving proper consideration to the matter. What I would like to urge on him is this: The indications are that the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to present a favourable Budget. The indications are that he is going to have money which he will be able to spare to give to various persons …

He is to be Father Christmas.

He will have enough money to subsidize rent.

As is suggested, he will be able to act as Father Christmas in one way and another. Sir, I would urge the hon. the Minister of Community Development to press his case hard with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Community Development says that concessions can only be made when money is available to make them. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance will have the money available, and I ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development to press his case with the hon. the Minister of Finance as hard as he can, because I am convinced that assistance must be given to our young married couples if we wish to encourage them to acquire homes of their own. With the rising cost of land and buildings and the rising cost of wages, it is inevitable that the prices of houses must continually rise.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat all those arguments.

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to do that. I merely wish to lead to the point which I wish to make. The cost of housing must rise and the provisions of the Government’s State-sponsored schemes are being shown to be more and more unrealistic as time goes on. I do not need to elaborate; I am sure the Minister will understand what I am referring to. What I want to ask him before I sit down is this: I understand that quite urgent representations have been made to him by building societies and by other persons to revise this particular home ownership saving scheme, and I would like to know whether my information is correct and along what lines he has been asked to revise this scheme.

Mr. Chairman, it is correct that representations have been made to me, not only in respect of this particular scheme, but also in respect of all the other housing schemes, for the levels to be raised on the ground of the arguments advanced by the hon. member. The matter is receiving my attention.

Would you please speak up so that we can all hear?

Pardon?

Can we join in and listen, too?

If the hon. member would only remain quiet, I too would be able to hear what the hon. the Minister is saying.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Durban Musgrave heard me.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is receiving his attention. Could he give this Committee some indication as to when he expects to be able to come to a decision in regard to these matters?

No, I am not in a position to give that indication at this stage.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32.—“Public Works”, R1 142 000, Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, R10 250, and S.W.A. Vote No. 17—“Public Works”, R50.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some information with regard to item G in Vote 32, R870 000, for “Financial Assistance to Municipalities”. Can he give us some idea as to the municipalities to which this additional amount is going and for what purpose? Sir, I also require from the hon. the Minister a little more information regarding all the amounts shown under Loan Vote B, Public Works, R10 250. That is all that we are being asked to vote tonight. But, Sir, I think the attention of this Committee must be drawn to the fact that all of these amounts in fact represent new items which appear before us tonight for the first time, and that in fact what we are being asked to do tonight is to approve expenditure totalling R7 741 000. Included in that, of course, is the purchase and renovation of adjacent property at the Chancery in The Hague under the head of Foreign Affairs, and, under Prisons, the terrific amount of R5 900 000. Sir, I believe that before we should be asked to approve these amounts tonight, we should have further details from the hon. the Minister. But I must also point out that the official Opposition has on previous occasions taken exception to this type of budgeting. We believe that this type of budgeting is not right. We believe it is not right that we should be presented here tonight with a request in Additional Estimates to vote an amount of R10 000, whereas in fact we are being asked to approve the expenditure of R7,7 million. This is not the place to budget for such expenditure. That should have been done in the original Budget.

Mr. Chairman, under Loan Vote B one finds the following at the bottom of the page: Pretoria: Former Interior Building. An additional amount of R50 is being requested for that item. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister for what purpose this amount is required. I am not familiar with the, let me say, geography of Pretoria, and I do not know where the old Interior Building is. Nor do I know where the new one is. However, I understand that a base has to be brought in for that statue by Tienie Pritchard. Does it perhaps have something to do with that?

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister replies, may I ask him whether provision is made under item 6(b)—Purchase, Renovation, etc., for the Chancery at The Hague—for the tape-recording of Press interviews?

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the questions put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District concerning financial assistance to municipalities, I must point out that the provision under sub-head G is to a large extent concerned with the concession granted by the Treasury to municipalities which had not prior to 31st March, 1972, applied for the grant, under the scheme devised for grants to municipalities, in respect of Government buildings in their areas of jurisdiction, instead of rates and taxes which would normally have been payable on such buildings. To those municipalities which had not applied prior to 31st March, 1972, the Treasury subsequently granted permission so that they could still do so. This is largely the position in regard to the amount voted here. How many and which municipalities are involved in the matter, I cannot tell him precisely, but municipalities which do qualify and failed to apply prior to 31st March, 1972, are involved here.

Which municipalities are they?

No, I do not have the list of names available. By and large this is the explanation, and there was also something of an underestimate.

The hon. member also made inquiries in regard to Loan Vote B. I think he referred to the provision for prisons. In the course of the year it became apparent that the erection of these prisons was very urgent, and the Cabinet approved that top priority be given to it. That is why this parliamentary authorization is being requested now.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made inquiries in regard to the Interior Building. The Interior Building referred to here is not the Interior Building which the hon. member has on his conscience. That building will be known as the Civitas Building and the statues will be erected there. What is meant here, is that provision has to be made in the existing Interior Building for accommodating the Receiver of Revenue there so that in the old Government Building, in which the Receiver of Revenue is being housed at the moment, space may become available for other departments which are also housed in that building, such as the Department of Public Works.

Just to obtain clarity: The Civitas Building is the new one, the building where the group is to be erected?

Yes, no provision is being made for monitoring in the building in The Hague.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has failed to answer the essence of the question by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, namely why we are being asked in the Additional Estimates to approve R7,7 million of new expenditure on public works. The principle of budgeting is that this House has laid before it the Estimates from Revenue and the Estimates from Loan Account. In the past emergency expenditure or unforeseen expenditure has been met from the Additional Estimates. However, we are now being asked to vote token amounts of R50 in five of the cases, which indicates that nothing is to be done. They are purely token votes at this stage, the rest is going to be met, either by means of savings on other services or by other amounts having to be voted later. The issue is: Why are we being asked in the Additional Estimates to vote such large amounts on major capital expenditure? That is not the principle of Additional Estimates; it is a departure from normal budgeting procedure. We deal with the Estimates for the year, and later, under this Bill, we deal with those matters which were not foreseen or which, because of emergency or the urgency of their requirements, have to be dealt with separately. We are going to have the main Budget in a matter of a month’s time—exactly a month from now—and the question asked by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was: Why is it necessary to vote these amounts now and not one month later? That is the question to which we should like an answer.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of the two prisons, I have explained what the position is. It was believed that those two prisons should be given very high priority as they had become essential.

But why was the matter urgent?

What is being requested now, is parliamentary sanction for these two items of R50 each. Further provision will be made in the Main Budget. Now I want to continue. As far as the Johannesburg (Soweto) case is concerned, I can explain to the hon. member that the transaction concluded in this regard will mean a saving of approximately R1 million to the State. Provision had to be made for a new police station and a court room because of the increase in crime in Soweto. It is estimated that that building, if a new one had to be erected, would have cost approximately R1,75 million. At that stage a convent school became available, which was offered to the State by the body concerned for an amount of R424 000 but was eventually purchased for an amount of R370 000. It will cost less than R500 000 to convert that building, which was built with red bricks and is very solid, so as to adapt it to the needs that have arisen there. It was felt that this transaction had to be concluded in order that the State might eventually be saved approximately R1 million.

In looking at the other items, I want to explain first the position in regard to the Chancery at The Hague. An option has now been obtained on a property adjacent to the Borsumij Building, which has already been purchased by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The original intention was to erect another building on the site of the premises of the Borsumij Building in order to make sufficient office accommodation available to the Embassy there. At the moment its offices are housed in four different buildings in that city. That position had to be remedied. Then the building adjacent to the Borsumij Building became available. The State purchased that building for an amount of approximately R270 000. In itself this will also amount to a saving as against the amount of the original estimate, if an additional building had to be erected on the available site.

Then there is the matter of the repair and the restoration of the old Presidency. This building is reverting to the State. The building will be made available to the Department of National Education as a museum. It was found that considerable repairs had to be made. In particular it was found that an immediate start had to be made with repairing the stone work, otherwise it would eventually cost the State more. In order to make a start with that, we had to request this amount. That covers the whole position.

Mr. Chairman, on the item Johannesburg (Soweto) I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this includes the purchase of housing accommodation as well.

It is an office block.

Is it just an office block?

It is an office block with a police station, a court room, etc.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 33.—“Commerce”, R1 452 000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some information in regard to sub-head G, “Export Trade Promotion Services”, where a sum of R3 000 is required and under the same sub-head in respect of the item “Compensation to the Railway Administration in respect of special export railway tariffs” for which R1 449 000 will have to be voted. This gives an overall total of R1 452 000. Could the hon. the Minister explain these items when it is realized that the total amount involved is R5 003 000, the balance being met from excessive savings.

Mr. Chairman, during last year a soft loan of R4 000 000 was granted to the South African Canned Fruit Export Board. This loan was intended to assist the Export Board to carry their heavy stocks so that they would not be compelled to rush onto the market to find buyers and thereby force down the international prices. It is a regulation of the Treasury that whenever a loan is granted at a lower rate of interest than the usual, provision must be made for the difference in the vote of the responsible department. In this case it was anticipated that this loan would only be repaid on the 30th June this year and the required difference in the interest would then have been provided for in the Budget of 1973-’74. It so happened that the Canners’ Export Board paid back R500 000 of this loan. In that case it became necessary to provide for the difference in the interest on this part of the loan. In the circumstances provision is made for R3 000 which is the difference between the ordinary rate of interest on Government loans and the interest which is payable by the Export Board. That then, is as far as the R3 000 is concerned.

As far as the other amount is concerned, the amount of R1 449 000, provision was made for an amount of I think over R8 million under this item. Towards the end of last year, the Government decided to accept certain recommendations of the Reynders Commission as far as assistance for export on railway tariffs is concerned. It was then decided that the Railways would continue to provide concessions for export purposes in so far as it would be possible for them. But in those cases where it is justified according to the reasoning of the Department of Commerce that further assistance should be provided by way of concessions on tariffs for export, that would come from Government provided funds. In the circumstances an amount of R5 million was provided for the period from the 1st January, 1973, until the end of this current financial year. On the other amount which was provided under this item, “Export Trade Promotion”, there was a saving of R3 551 000 with the result that we only need to provide now for R1 449 000.

Mr. Chairman, this is a new item and I would like to take it a little further. Firstly, I would like to refer to the saving of R3 551 000 which was saved from moneys available for promoting our exports. In other words, it appears from this item that the assistance given to exporters to find markets has been reduced by R3½ million. Therefore our effort to sell these goods is correspondingly reduced. Yet we are being asked to vote money to subsidize the railage on those goods which are not helping to sell through aiding exporters. The hon. the Minister knows that the effort of his department in regard to assistance to exporters is generally regarded as a joke, that in comparison with other countries, like Australia, the assistance being given to South African industrialists to export is regarded as token assistance, assistance which is not even starting to break through the crust of the potential markets available to South Africa. This is the background against which we are being asked to vote money to subsidize railage. But this is only scratching and nibbling at the problem. This is only touching the surface of the problem of promoting our exports. What is more, the present system of exports is that two manufacturers exporting the identical item can find that one is paying full railage rates while the other is getting reduced rates from the Railways. We are now being asked to subsidize that system which provides for such inequalities. The procedure followed at the moment and the procedure that has been followed, is that subsidies on railage for export purposes are made on application. But they are not made according to any formula. They are not made according to the product to be exported. They are made on the individual application of individual exporters. If the Government wants to it can say, “I like the colour of your eyes and I will subsidize your exports” and to another exporter it can say, “No, I am not going to subsidize”, because there is no procedure laid down other than the ad hoc whim of the Government to assist in railage. I would like to have from the hon. the Minister a clearer exposition of how this money, this R5 million in effect, this R1 449 000 to be voted now and the R3 551 000 which has been filched from our exporters’ efforts, are going to be applied in the promotion and the assistance of exports.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the saving is concerned, I think it would be out of order to discuss it here since it does not appear under this Vote. I may just say in passing that export assistance is only given in so far as the exporters apply for it and wish to make use of it. In other words, if export assistance is made available according to a particular formula, surely the Government cannot spend more than the amount which the exporters want to use according to that formula. That goes without saying, surely, and consequently I think that the hon. member will understand it. Therefore, in so far as there was a saving on the particular assistance which had been budgeted for, that saving was effected because the exporters had not availed themselves fully of it. The hon. member made a speech here on the new assistance we want to grant in respect of railway concessions, such as railway tariffs which are too high for exporters who want to export their goods and who want to compete on the international markets. Then the hon. member said: “We are nibbling at it”—it is just a mere trifle.

I said in export promotion.

Yes, but this forms part of export promotion. I should like to tell the hon. member that, as I have explained to him here, we are now making provision in terms of this new scheme which I announced recently and which the Government approved at the end of last year, for an amount of R5 million for the period from 1st January to the end of this financial year, i.e. for a period of three months. We anticipate that during the course of the year provision will have to be made under this item for approximately R22 million, just for assistance in respect of cheaper transport on the railways for export promotion. The hon. member said that this was being done without a pattern and that I might or might not like the person’s eyes and decided on that basis. With respect, Sir, this is the biggest nonsense out.

I say that was the procedure of the Railways.

Anyway, that is the biggest nonsense out. Our present arrangement is—and this is the way it was announced—that the Railways are still making concessions in the case of the transport of the exporter.

Ad hoc.

In order to grant, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report of the Reynders Commission, further assistance to the exporter in cases where the concessions which are granted by the Railways or which the Railways see their way clear to grant, are considered to be insufficient for the exporter to market his exports competitively, some more additional assistance can be granted to the exporter from the funds voted from this amount for transporting his goods by rail. I do not know what more I can say at this stage. This is a new item; it deals with something we want to put into operation now. I personally believe that since transport is such a major item and plays such an important role in connection with the export promotion effort on our part, we shall find in this a means by which our exports can be promoted tremendously.

Will it be the same for all exporters of the same product?

Well, if the product is the same and it is justified because the product can compete in countries abroad, the concession will be the same.

For all exporters of that product?

I cannot see that it can be otherwise.

At the moment that is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions: Is any of this assistance in regard to railage rates going to be utilized for the export of ore and are we going to run into any trouble with overseas countries that this may be treated as a subsidy?

To answer the hon. member’s first question, it is not anticipated to be used for ore exports. I would not care to say at this stage that that possibility is altogether excluded. As with any other commodity, it might be considered, but I would like to say, at this stage, that it is not anticipated to be for the export of ore. As regards the other matter, it is such a highly technical matter that I think we should rather leave it and first find out in respect of which commodities we shall have to provide assistance for their export promotion.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Water Affairs”, R2 896 000, Loan Vote E.—“Water Affairs”, R30 397 500, and S.W.A. Vote No. 20—“Water Affairs”, R683 500:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to sub-head K of Vote 36 an additional amount of R219 500 is asked for. The amount is in respect of Subsidies and Extra-statutory Subsidies to Boards, Local Authorities and Persons. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us who the persons were that received extra-statutory subsidies.

It is the way it is worded.

I gather that there were no persons who received extra-statutory subsidies?

These are legal persons and not individuals.

Order! Allow the hon. member to finish putting his question first.

Mr. Chairman, there are three classes of beneficiaries set out here, namely, boards, local authorities and persons. From what the hon. the Minister said just now, I take it that by persons are meant persona in law, a legal persona. My question would be therefore whether in respect of those three types of beneficiaries namely, boards, local authorities and persons, any person received a subsidy or an extra-statutory subsidy.

Not individual persons. A person could be a board or a statutory board. An example would be a water board, for instance the Phalaborwa Water Board or the other big water boards supplying water to the West coast. Those are all persons.

Those are boards.

Yes, but they are also persons. Under this heading those people could be supplied with funds. These are not individuals. Individuals are being provided for under another sub-head.

You mean persons who are people?

The hon. the Minister says that if it is individuals then they are provided with subsidies under another sub-head. Can he indicate that to me? I cannot see any such sub-head so far as my estimates are concerned. I wonder why “person” is in this sub-head if in fact there are individual persons who are getting subsidies under some other sub-head.

I know of no subsidy being provided to an individual under this sub-head. That is the point I am trying to make.

The hon. the Minister says he knows of no persons or individuals. But why is this term used here? It says that subsidies are being paid to individuals and persons. The hon. the Minister’s explanation about legal persons is all very well. The crux of the question of the hon. member for South Coast concerned the statutory and extra-statutory subsidies. What are the extra-statutory subsidies? That is the question. What does the term “extra-statutory” refer to? To whom were they paid, be they persons or bodies? Why are they extra-statutory?

Mr. Chairman, this is what this sub-head has been called all these years. It includes that type of person who is not an individual person. Provision to individuals is made in the form of small subsidies or loans when boreholes or small dams, or whatever, are provided. This is the way it has been over the years. It is a category which appears like this. This is the way I found it, this is the way it was and will probably remain in the future. The important point made by the hon. member was to ask why it was done that way. My answer is that this is the way it has been described over the years. Now, if the hon. member is wondering whether there is a person who has received an extra-statutory subsidy, if that is what he meant, my reply to him is “no”. The only way to make a payment of that type to an individual is by way of an ex gratia payment. It does not appear here as being ex gratia. In such a case the Treasury would be consulted in the matter. That is the whole point.

Sir, I do not want to deal with the question of persons who are not people. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us the reason for his department having talked and written letters and sent telegrams to the extent of 40% more than they originally estimated, and also the reason for having been more than 50% out in regard to subsidies for minor water works.

The question is why the amount of R40 000 appears under sub-head C. The hon. member for Orange Grove and I have an appointment for discussing this matter, but now I want to tell the hon. member, if he is implying that this R40 000, as it appears here, also includes telegraph, telephone and postal services, that this amount is made up as follows: R4 000 is in respect of telegraph services and R36 000 is in respect of telephone services. The reason for the telephone services and the telegraph services being so much more expensive, is that the activities of the department have expanded to such an extent. The hon. member asked a question about the increase of Rl,5 million under G, i.e. about subsidies on minor water works. Now, here we are dealing with persons. The hon. member must listen now. What is involved here is the thousands of applications sent in by farmers for subsidies in respect of boreholes, installations on boreholes or minor dams. It goes without saying that this will show an increase because it was dry; that is why there was such an increase in the number of applications. Now, this is what happens. An application for a subsidy is an open application. It is available to every person or individual who owns more than 25 morgen. Now, what happens is that when it is dry, twice and even three times as many applications for subsidies are received virtually overnight, and that is what happened here. If the drought continues, it does not mean that in the same year the requests for the payment of the granted permission to sink a borehole or build a dam is effected in one year only. It may have an after effect, which may extend over a period of two or three years, and which in the case of this drought extended over a period from 1967 to 1970. This is absolutely unforeseen. One cannot anticipate what the number of applications will be. We cannot peg the amount. What we can do when it is dry, is to tell the people that this service is in fact available. The position here is the same as it is in the case of pensions. One cannot say that on a specific day one will have run out of money and that people may not send in any more applications after that date. As I have said, the reason for its being higher this year than was the case in previous years, is that the number of applications for payments have increased because of the drought.

Apart from the questions that have already been put, could the hon. the Minister tell me under J, “Subsidies on Minor Water Works”, whether these are perhaps private irrigation works.

That is the matter at issue here, works for individuals. These are minor water works for individuals, persons—not a legal person, but for an individual.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R2 834 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R100 000:

I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give the reasons for the increase under sub-head R, “Care of the Aged and Infirm”, to an amount of R700 098. Also under Vote 22, the additional expenditure to be defrayed from the South-West Africa Account, under sub-head J, “General Welfare service”, there is an increase of almost 100%. I will be glad to have an explanation.

The first case about which the hon. member has made inquiries, has to do with the fact that we founded a new settlement at Charlesville in the Free State. Actually, this township was indirectly given to us as a present by the Anglo-American Company, and we are very grateful for it. It is a splendid gesture on their part. But it is not merely the question giving it to us as a present. There are maintenance costs, the appointment of additional staff and the payment of all sorts of things, and these things have in part caused these additional costs. Another reason for the increase here is the fact that more and more old-age homes are being completed, old-age homes which qualify for subsidies under our normal subsidy scheme. We could not plan ahead how many of them would be ready. That is the reason for this increase.

As far as the South-West Africa Account is concerned, the matters involved are, firstly, subsidies for social workers appointed at old-age homes, and, secondly, the additional funds that were made available to the owners at the Hardap Scheme who had suffered losses because of the floods.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41.—“National Education,” R59 235, and Loan Vote M.—“National Education,” R50:

I should like to refer here to Loan Vote M and particularly to the new item in which provision is being made for the transfer of the Natal College for Advanced Technical Training. As you will see, Sir, the eventual cost of the transfer will be R11 million. Since this is a new item I wonder whether the hon. member will tell us the specific reason why the college is going to be moved to an area in Durban which was a residential area until recently and where flats were recently erected by the Department of Community Development and by the city council of Durban. This may result in the creation of a tremendous housing problem while there are areas close to the university, at Cato Manor, where Community Development owns land which is undeveloped at present and which is an ideal site for the technical college.

I also would like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to this new technical college and the reason why it is being moved. More particularly would I like to ask him whether he knows how many people will be affected by the siting of this new college and whether he can tell us exactly where it will be, how many buildings are involved, how many people of each race group and where they will be housed.

Sir, I wish to refer to this new item, but before the hon. the Minister replies, perhaps he could also indicate whether the Durban Corporation were fully consulted in regard to the choice of this site and whether any decision has been arrived at as to what is to become of the existing buildings.

Firstly, in reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Durban Central, I just want to remind hon. members that the council of the College for Advanced Technical Training is an autonomous body which must find its own site; that this specific site was recommended by the council of the College; that it was found to be suitable by the planners of my department, and that provision is consequently being made in this Vote to buy that specific site. It surprises me that the hon. member is not really interested in the provision which is being made, but has raised these points which may be discussed more fully under my Vote; nevertheless those are the circumstances. That was the choice of the council of the College itself.

†I come now to the hon. member for Umbilo. I am not aware of any objections raised by the city council of Durban, and I am sure that the council of the college would have been notified of any such objections, but I am not aware of any objections.

Were they consulted before any decision was arrived at?

As far as I know, Sir, my department has not received any formal objection to the way in which they set about choosing this site.

The hon. member for Port Natal wanted to know how many people would be affected. A portion of this site is already in the possession of the Department of Community Development, and two other portions of this site belong to development companies. I am not in a position at this stage to give the hon. member the full details, but if he is interested I could give him the details if he would table a question or raise the matter under my Vote. At present I have not got this information, but I know that this site is composed of three parts, one part belonging to the Department of Community Development and the other two to development companies.

Sir, can the hon. the Minister tell me whether in choosing this site the question of the expense of acquiring this property was investigated? Was there any investigation into the question as to whether there was not a cheaper site that could be acquired for the purpose of this college? My information is that this is almost the most expensive area that the college could have chosen for a new site in Durban. As the hon. the Minister says, it belongs to three different owners. Some thousands of people will have to be moved as a result of this, and if the college is to go to this site I want to say to the Minister that it will take many years before they will be able to rehouse the people affected. My question to the hon. the Minister therefore is whether due consideration has been given by his department to the fact that an expensive site has been chosen for this college rather than a cheaper site. Finally, can the hon. the Minister give me some reassurance with regard to the rehousing of the people affected?

In my earlier reply to the hon. member for Durban Central, I stressed the fact that the choice of the site was made by the council of the college. I take it for granted that they chose the best site or the site most suitable for their requirements.

But the most expensive from their point of view.

That could also be, but I am not in a position to judge that. That rests with the council. If the hon. member has any problems in that regard, I suggest that he take up the matter with the council in Durban. That is not my responsibility.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked a question to which I did not reply. He asked what was going to happen to the existing site. The existing site was originally acquired from the borough of Durban. I am speaking from memory now, but I think it has to go back to the city council and the college council will then be refunded the cost of any improvements made by them in the meantime. But, as I say, I am speaking from memory; I am not quite sure about that.

The hon. member for Port Natal also asked me about the housing of the people occupying homes in that area at present. Sir, a project of this magnitude naturally takes many years, and I can assure the hon. member that the people dealing with the replanning of this college, namely the council of the college, are wise and knowledgeable people, and I am sure that they are so responsible that we can rely on them to set about it in the right way, in cooperation with the various departments. [Interjection.] What I mean is this: We have here a project of this magnitude which is being handled by people of great responsibility, and I cannot imagine that responsible people like the members of the council of this college would simply evict people from their houses without trying to provide alternative accommodation for them. But, as I say, that is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to provide the money for them to enable the replanning and the rebuilding of this college in Durban.

Votes agreed to.

Loan Vote H.—“Planning and the Environment”, R200 000:

Sir, as this is a new item, we should be glad to have some details. Would the hon. the Minister also tell us how they differentiate between border areas and other less developed areas?

Is the question what this amount is required for?

Yes. I said that this was a new item and that we would like to have details. I would like the hon. the Minister also to differentiate, as they do here, between border and other less developed areas. What is the significance of that?

The amount of R200 000 which the Committee is being asked to vote will be used to purchase land at Mamre for the development of an industrial township. That land is costing us about R120 000, and the rest of the money will be used to provide the necessary services.

Is Mamre a less developed area?

Well, that is the distinction that is being made. As the hon. member knows, we have what we call border areas. These border areas are White areas bordering on Bantu homelands. Other areas in the Republic, not being border areas, which qualify for assistance under the decentralization scheme, are the less developed areas.

Less developed than what?

Than the Bantu homelands?

Sir, this is the terminology that the department has been using under this Head for the last number of years.

Mr. Chairman, I understand from the hon. the Minister that the amount is to be expended on the acquisition of ground, and I would like to ask him whether there is now to be another body other than the Community Development Board that is going to purchase land for development in various areas. This is a departure from the normal procedure. The acquisition of land for the development of areas for communities is dealt with by the Minister of Community Development. Now we suddenly find that the Department of Planning is to become a landowner as well. Is this a departure in policy? I have always understood that the Department of Planning determines the use to which areas shall be put, but the department is now entering into the field of estate …

Agents.

No, not estate agents, but owners of estates. Why should this be an acquisition through this Minister’s department? Is he now joining the land barons? Is he going into competition with the Department of Community Development?

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, this land will be bought by the Department of Community Development.

Why is provision made on this Vote then?

This amount is being voted to my department for the development of an industrial township at Mamre. We were in a hurry to develop that area. As hon. members know, we have proclaimed a certain area in the vicinity of Mamre as a Coloured group area. That area has been proclaimed, but the residential area is an area we intend buying, and it adjoins Mamre. It is not within the proclaimed Coloured group area. It adjoins Mamre and it is, I think, part of the farm Middelpos. We have an option on that farm. But in order to have the money available, I approached the Treasury and asked them for this sum to be voted on the Additional Estimates. Now the money is being voted. If we can use it, naturally we shall, but if it turns out that we cannot do so, we shall have to come to another arrangement with the Treasury.

You are asking for money you do not really want?

Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary departure from the practice of the Government. Are we going to have various departments which are merely involved in the procedural aspects of the establishment of group areas now entering into the field of buying property?

Speculators!

No, I think it is going a bit far to say that they are speculating, but I do think that this matter should have been dealt with under the Department of Community Development. After all, every building that is put up now for every department of the Government is dealt with by the Public Works Department, and the acquisition of land for the development of areas for the various race groups is a matter handled by the Department of Community Development. Now we are asked suddenly to allow the Department of Planning to buy property. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Department of Planning owns a single square metre of property in South Africa. Why must it now start entering the field of being a property owner?

May I just point out that this industrial land we intend developing is not for Coloured occupation solely. This is European land.

It makes no difference.

Yes, but I just want to make it clear. This is land in the European part of that area. It is not a proclaimed Coloured group area. This land will be purchased by the proper authority, and then the development will be done.

Which is the proper Government authority?

As far as I know, it could be the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This is, as I have said, an industrial area which we intend developing for Mamre. We intend settling there European industrialists as well as Coloured industrialists who at present can go there. At a later stage we intend developing an industrial area within the Coloured group area. This amount was very urgently required because we had no money available. According to our timetable it was intended to develop this somewhat later, but matters developed quicker and an option on the land was obtained and my information is that we intend using this money for the purchase of this land and for the provision of the infrastructure. My department does not buy land. That is true. It will be done through the proper authority. If we cannot do it, we shall come to another arrangement. The hon. member can be sure that we shall not spend money which we may not spend. I want to point out that we can, in any case, spend the money on the provision of the infrastructure, but we first have to acquire the land on which there is an option.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most amazing statement which we have had from the hon. the Minister. First of all he does not know whether his department has authority to do certain things and he is asking us to vote him money to do these things—I use that phrase specifically for the moment—which may be completely illegal. Then he tells us it is for buying land but then he changes his mind and tells us that it is for improvements on land. That opens up an entirely new vista of industrial development in South Africa which is being sponsored by the Government, because, for example, in the border areas the Industrial Development Corporation is the agency which builds factories, the home-industry buildings. They are the agency for providing the buildings. This does not have anything to do with the Department of Planning. As far as we know the Department of Planning—we have had a lot of trouble to find out what the functions of the Department of Planning exactly are; this I must admit—has the function to plan. Its function is neither to acquire land nor to provide industrial buildings on land. Its function is not to provide residential buildings on land. If those are not its functions, how can we, in this House, vote money. The hon. the Minister cannot even tell us for which purpose he requires the money. He tells us that if it is wrongly voted, he will adjust the matter with the proper authorities. I am afraid that unless we can get an explanation as to what the proper position is, we may have to vote against this particular item, because there does not seem to be any sense in it whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman if the Opposition wants to vote against this item, they are most welcome to do so. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that if he does not know that my department provides the infrastructure in all development and border areas, it is high time that he learns something in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member should go down to Berlin, Ladysmith, Newcastle, Richards Bay, Brits and Rustenburg and he should then have a look at the Estimates which have been laid before this House in the past. He will then see that every single item in connection with the total appropriation which, I think, runs into an amount of R20 million by now, has been provided on the Vote of the Department of Planning in this House and voted by hon. members on both sides. How can the hon. member now say that he does not know anything about it? [Interjections.] If he does not know that my department is responsible for the infrastructure, he does not know what is going on. It is the job of my department to provide the infrastructure in all these decentralized areas. By “infrastructure” I mean the laying out of industrial areas, measuring industrial sites, providing the roads, laying down a railway line, bringing water and electricity. These are the responsibilities of my department and we have been doing this everywhere. This Committee has been voting the necessary funds all these years.

Not for buying land.

Yes, I am coming to the land. I am just replying to the hon. member for Parktown. I hope this Committee is satisfied on that score now. We are coming to the buying of the land. Let me say that this has been done this way in the past and in every single case where land has been purchased in these decentralized areas, be it either at Berlin, or at Brits or wherever it was, the funds have been provided under my department’s Vote. It has been done so in the past and it has never been done in any other way. That is the reason why we are doing it this way. We are not the purchasers and the owners of the land. How it is done from here onwards I am not sure, but the proper buying authority in our country is the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Here we have the authority for the expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, I should like a simple answer from the hon. the Minister. What is the amount of R200 000 to be spent on?

He told you that twice.

I beg your pardon?

He told you three times already.

The hon. the Minister first of all told us that it was going to be spent on land, and now it is not going to be spent on land any more. Then it was going to be spent on buildings and now it is not on buildings. Now it is going to be spent on infrastructure and services, does not belong rightly to his department he will have it adjusted. Now we want two simple answers from the hon. the Minister and then we can agree or disagree with him. Firstly, we want to know what the money is to be spent on specifically …

To buy the land.

I am not asking the hon. member … [Interjections.]

He put his foot in it.

The hon. member for Carltonville may be sitting next to the hon. the Minister, but unfortunately he is not the hon. the Minister yet. Can I please deal with the hon. the Minister? What is the money to be spent on? The hon. the Minister must be able to tell us. Secondly, is he satisfied that the money is going to be correctly spent by his department? That is all we want to know. If the hon. the Minister will answer those two questions, we can be ad idem with him.

Mr. Chairman, at the very outset when I first got up I said that approximately R120 000 was required to purchase a farm on which we had an option. That I said at the very beginning.

What is the option price?

I said that at the very beginning. I said that the rest of the money will be used to provide the infrastructure. That was my reply. I never, never said that we are going to erect buildings. I do not know where the hon. member comes to that. What is going to happen there is that we come to an agreement with the IDC. They will come down and help us to erect the necessary buildings for industrialists, if necessary. This money will be used for the purchase of land and the rest of the money will be used to provide the necessary services, namely for the real planning and how it will work. However, this is the authority for the spending of this amount in those two different ways.

Mr. Chairman, it appeared to me that the hon. the Minister in giving a list of the types of infrastructure for which part of this R200 000 is intended, mentions that part of it is also for the building of a railway. Could he elaborate on that? I did not know that he had taken on some of the tasks of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Chairman, in these areas where an industrial township is being developed or has been developed in the past, the local authority, usually the city council of that area, attends to the extension of the railway system into the industrial township. That costs money and normally they do not have it. We then grant them a loan at a low interest rate to enable them to reach an agreement with the South African Railways to provide that railway facility for that industrial township.

You do not build it?

No. We have the local authorities who do the work; we employ them as our agents. We do not do the work ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, we are not entirely happy with the situation as it is, but we regard the development of areas for the Coloured people as of so great importance that we are going to let the item go.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 45.—“Interior”, R525 000:

Mr. Chairman, there is a new item on this Vote in regard to the Republic Festival. Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to tell us whether this represents the total cost—of course I am not talking here of municipal or local authority expenditure—or whether there is perhaps any expenditure involved in grants to the provincial administration in regard to the cost of this particular festival. Or is this a complete and final figure? If there were any additional amounts, how were they financed?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is very clear. The R94 000 is the supplementary amount added by the State for the losses suffered in this regard by the Western Province Show Association. They made certain improvements to the Goodwood showgrounds with a view to the Republic Festival. A certain part of it is in the form of a loan and the rest is the contribution of R94 000 to enable them to meet the costs in full. It is the State’s contribution to this.

Vote agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 accordingly agreed to.

Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in considering the Third Reading of this Bill we must bear in mind the international character of South-West Africa and the delicacy of the situation at this time while the negotiations are taking place between the Minister and the United Nations. In the Second Reading debate the Leader of the Opposition said that we would support the measure because it proposed to extend self-government to the various peoples of South-West Africa and because such political development was in line with our federal policy. We had one proviso, and that was that the proposals should fit in with the pattern of development discussed between the Prime Minister and Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher as his representative. It is envisaged that the talks that he is having with the officials will be completed by 30th April. Naturally we wanted an assurance that in discussing the matter and in agreeing to the extension of the powers for self-government as proposed, we would not be jeopardizing the present negotiations. After all, we are not seeking a confrontation with the rest of the world and we do not want to embarrass our friends at UN, who often have to bend backwards to defend us there. We do not want to give them a slap in the face. Any embarrassment to them must be avoided. What worried us, therefore, was paragraph 8 of the explanatory memorandum which affirmed the irrevocable intention of the Government to lead individual nations in South-West Africa to self-government and independence. We know that UN is opposed to development towards independence of each of the small population groups in South-West Africa. In fact, that is contrary to our policy too. Therefore, if the Government proposed to set out on a course directly contrary to the wishes of UN and was openly and purposefully defying the United Nations while negotiating for a settlement on this issue, we would have had to condemn it and resist the Bill. Had the explanatory memorandum not contained this paragraph 8 and had we then to judge the Bill as it reads and by the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, we would have supported the measure because it would have been in line with our idea of giving powers of self-government to the various population groups of the Republic. We sought then to get an assurance from the hon. the Prime Minister that this measure would not in fact be an embarrassment to us. The hon. the Prime Minister apparently does not read the explanatory memorandum as we do. In any event, it does not matter how anyone now reads it, because the hon. the Prime Minister has stated unequivocally what his Government intends. He quoted at length from replies which he gave to pressmen in a Press interview after he and Mr. Escher had come to an agreement on what they had discussed. I want to repeat some of the replies to the questions put to him there because of the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, who said in opposing the measure at the Second Reading that she was not as easily convinced as I was as to the bona fides of the Prime Minister and his Government.

Where is she? Where is the last-ditch fighter?

The hon. the Prime Minister in this House quoted from his Press interview and he said this:

He went on to reply to another question—

He makes it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, the choice would be theirs alone and that he would not force any future policy on them.

He then went on to say—

And then, Sir, we had the other day laid upon the Table of this House the final text—the Prime Minister called it an agreement—of what he and Mr. Escher had agreed upon. I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton is not here. It is important to bear in mind that this is signed by Mr. Escher who says that his mandate was—

We therefore see from this agreement that Mr. Escher was in sympathy with the Prime Minister’s views that the people in that area had to be first developed towards self-government and to learn to govern themselves before they were asked to make the choice as to their final destination.

Now, this Bill before us proposes to give the Minister through the State President the right to bestow self-government on these people. I have said before that it would be churlish for us to refuse to give these people a say in their government merely because the Nationalist Party Government happens to be the party which is doing it. We must bear in mind that these people have no representation or a voice in the Government. I therefore say that it is only right that we should help to give them a share in the government.

The hon. member for Houghton opposed the Second Reading. She was vehement in her attack both on us and on the Government. I am sorry that she is not here tonight. One would have thought that she would have been here to continue her protest against this Bill. I had more things to say to her, but in view of the fact that she is not here to oppose the Bill, I take it that she has now changed her mind and that she is accepting the Bill and agrees with us that it is in the best interests of South-West Africa. But I want to give a warning to the hon. the Minister in the event of anything going wrong. We have had assurances from the hon. the Prime Minister that this is in keeping with his talks with Dr. Waldheim. If anything goes wrong and we find that this is not so, the blame will be on him and he will have to bear it alone.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to express my appreciation in this House for the co-operation we received from the other side of the House in regard to passing this Bill. As the hon. member for Transkei said a moment ago, this Bill is being considered against an international background. Accordingly it is regarded in this light by many people and many bodies. The hon. member rightly referred to certain assurances given by the Prime Minister. There is nothing to be added to that. It has been said time and again, and I should like to repeat here, that the decision will be taken by the peoples concerned in South-West Africa. This Bill and I are concerned with the Bantu peoples. There are other peoples too, of course, and there definitely is a White people, too, that will have to decide. That is not my concern.

Paragraph 8 of the memorandum was referred to again. Paragraph 8 could perhaps have been worded differently. But the intention of paragraph 8 of the memorandum is obvious, after all, i.e. to be merely indicative of the nature of this legislation and of the direction in which we are moving with the Bantu peoples. Accordingly the intention is to enable them to acquire more experience in regard to self-government. Paragraph 8 is not a final step at all. It does not say that this Bill is a final step. That is very clear.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.