Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the documents which have already been tabled, hon. members will notice that provision is being made for additional expenditure amounting to R8,9 million to be defrayed from revenue funds during the financial year 1977-’78. Of this amount, R2,5 million is required for railway lines in respect of the Net Revenue Account: “Head No. 19: Miscellaneous Expenditure”, while the balance of R6,4 million is required under the Net Revenue Appropriation Account: “Head No. 55: Contribution to Sinking Fund (Reserve Account).” In this connection it may be mentioned that certain guarantee agreements in respect of railway lines provide for the capital invested in the projects to be recovered over a shorter period than the one on which depreciation rates are based. The additional expenditure represents the amounts transferred from revenue to the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund and is equal to the difference between the capital actually recovered and the normal depreciation.

Hon. members will note that the Railways have succeeded in effecting a considerable saving on the estimates of expenditure. I should like to explain that although the actual volume of traffic handled during the present financial year was not substantially lower than the traffic level envisaged in the main budget, the ratio between high-rated and low-rated traffic is relatively poorer than we budgeted for. Although low-rated traffic has generally come up to expectations as a result of fine achievements in agriculture, mining and exports, the commercial and industrial sectors—which are mainly responsible for the high-rated traffic of the Railways—showed a negative growth rate. As a result of pressure on the Republic’s balance of payments, a surcharge of 15% on imports was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech for 1977-’78, which also had a negative effect on the high-rated traffic of the Railways. The relative deterioration in the ratio between high-rated and low-rated traffic led to a lower level of revenue than was budgeted for, and in order to balance the books, the Railways was forced from the beginning of the financial year to take measures aimed at curtailing expenditure. The savings that have been recorded are largely due to the success achieved by the economizing measures. However, the savings were partially offset by the increase of the Administration’s contribution to the Superannuation Fund as from December 1977 and by the recent salary adjustment of Railway employees.

The revised revenue for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main budget is submitted to the House on 1 March 1978, so I shall not comment any further on it now.

†Mr. Speaker, I will now deal with the Brown Book items. An additional amount of R92,5 million requires to be voted to cover expenditure in respect of Capital and Betterment Works. Of this amount, R29,8 million has been raised by means of additional loans, while R7,9 million will be obtained from the Renewals Fund and R1 million from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. The balance of R53,8 million represents savings on existing appropriations. Under Head No. 1C: “Construction of Harbours” an additional cash provision of R6,3 million is required. Of this amount, R6,1 million is for stage 1 of the harbour portion of the new harbour at Richards Bay. As a result of the rapid progress made with this work the existing cash provision will be insufficient to meet anticipated expenditure in the current financial year. Hon. members will note that the estimated total cost of the work has increased by R6,5 million to R249,8 million. This is attributable to exchange fluctuations and the escalation of the cost of contract work.

An additional amount of R5,9 million is required under Head No. 1: “Construction of Railways”. The estimated total cost of the new guaranteed electrified double line between Nyanga and Strandfontein has increased by R6,2 million to R19,2 million, largely on account of increased costs in respect of bridges, permanent way material, signalling and telecommunication work, as well as higher interest charges. An additional cash provision of some R900 000 is required to cover the greater amount of work undertaken during the year. Owing to increased costs, contractual commitments and faster progress, the existing cash provision in respect of the new electrified double line from Table Bay Harbour to the Kensington— Chempet line and the new guaranteed electrified double line from Winternest to the Bantu township Mabopane will be insufficient to meet anticipated expenditure in the current financial year and the cash provision in respect of these projects requires to be increased by R1,2 million and R2,2 million respectively. Hon. members will have observed that the total cost of the latter scheme has increased by R2,7 million and is now estimated at R26,4 million. The increase is ascribed to the escalation of labour and material costs.

The additional appropriation under Head No. 2: “New Works on Open Lines” amounts to R13,9 million. An amount of R1 million is required to meet increased expenditure in respect of the elimination of level crossings as a result of faster progress being made by contractors on various schemes, as well as escalating costs, while R1,9 million is needed to defray belated debits for which provision has to be made in terms of a Select Committee resolution. Owing to factors such as the escalation of labour and material costs, the acceleration of work of an urgent nature—for instance the coal export project and containerization—and the rapid progress of contract work, an additional cash provision totalling R11 million is required under this head.

Under Head No. 3: “Rolling Stock” an additional amount of R40,2 million is required, primarily as a result of earlier payment of imported components, price increases and the unfavourable exchange rate with Japan. For the information of hon. members I wish to explain that when loan agreements involving contracts for the supply of material and/or components of equipment are concluded, a percentage of the contract price has to be paid immediately although delivery may only be effected during subsequent financial years.

An additional cash provision in the amount of R12,6 million is to be made under Head No. 5: “Harbours.” Almost the entire amount is needed to cover additional expenditure resulting from the earlier delivery of harbour cranes, increased costs and the rapid progress made with contract work.

An additional amount of R9,8 million is to be voted under Head No. 7: “Pipelines” in respect of the additional pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand, primarily to meet contractual commitments resulting from the work progressing faster than anticipated.

An amount of R3,4 million is provided for under Head No. 8: “Working Capital” to cover expenditure in connection with the partial repayment of foreign loans and suppliers’ financing.

Summarized, the position is that appropriations from revenue funds require to be increased by R8,9 million and those in respect of Capital and Betterment Works by R92,5 million.

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is rather pleasant to be able to stand up and say to the Minister of Transport that he has not gone on to establish a new record when it comes to additional appropriations. In fact, there seems to be a certain measure of restraint in today’s Additional Appropriation. Last year he came here with a request for R340 million, having overspent on several items. We had a lot of criticism of Railway budgeting at that time. Having had a look at the Brown Book, one must admit that the savings that are envisaged appear to be considerable. We are glad that the Railways are at the moment in surplus. Certainly, the picture is brighter than it was this time last year. Of course, there is a good reason for that, because as long as Railway rates are on the constant increase, we will be in a position where we are more profitable, because we are taking more from the customers. One thing which I hope this is not is a precursor of a further increase in rates when we come to the main budget on 1 March, because I should like to warn the hon. the Minister that that would have a disastrous inflationary effect on our economy. As the hon. the Minister well knows, the whole economy is influenced adversely by an increase in rail rates. It seems to stretch right through every aspect of the economy, and we find ourselves paying more and more for virtually every item that we need for our own existence.

I have listened with interest to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister. There are various minor questions I should like to raise, but there are also various questions which, according to a study of the Brown Book, give us further cause for worry.

The first question I should like to raise is that of the Durban passenger station which appears to have escalated enormously in cost. We are not being asked for a tremendous amount of money in this Additional Appropriation, but the escalation in costs appears to be out of all proportion. I say this because in the 1977 appropriation a total amount of R47 million was asked for, whereas now the hon. the Minister is suggesting in the Brown Book that the project is going to cost in the region of R91 million. This is an escalation of over R43 million. I see that the costs for civil works have increased from R23 million to R47 million, the costs for electrical work from about R11 million to just under R16 million and the costs for signal and telecommunications work from about R13 million to nearly R28 million. I should consequently like to hear an explanation from the hon. the Minister about exactly what is going on here. Perhaps I have misunderstood the situation and the whole of stage three of the Durban railway station project was initially going to cost this amount, but from an examination of what I have before me, a most disquieting picture is shown. Surely, when one is planning a project, and one asks Parliament for money to carry out that project, Parliament is entitled to be given a more realistic picture than the one we seem to have been given. When Parliament decides on its priorities for the spending of the moneys involved, the hon. the Minister tells Parliament, for example, that there is a need for a new railway station at Durban and that the project would cost a certain amount. Far too often, however, we have been faced with the rather unpleasant situation of having to pay two or sometimes three times as much for a project as the sum initially planned for. One realizes, of course, that frequently the hon. the Minister is in a difficult position. We live in inflationary times. There is no need to go into the reasons for that inflation at the moment. This does, of course, make pre-planning very difficult indeed, but we have been in this inflationary phase for quite some time now. In fact, we have been in this inflationary phase for long enough, I believe, to get some idea of what the inflation rate is likely to be. To be suddenly saddled, however, with a tremendous jump like this, without any warning, makes it tremendously difficult for Parliament to do its work because once we have commenced with a project there is no way of stopping it. This tends, however, to make a farce of parliamentary scrutiny. I know as well as the hon. the Minister just how much of an escalation there has been in construction costs over the last few years.

Let us look, however, at another line, the Nyanga-Strandfontein line. The hon. the Minister shrugs this off very blandly in his speech by referring to additional costs due to bridges, electrical installations and so on. The amount involved, however, is tremendous. It involves a threefold increase on what was asked for before.

I have had occasion to criticize Railway spending in the past. I must say that I believe that the department has made every effort to pre-plan adequately, but in this additional appropriation we are faced with this very nasty shock, and I do believe that the hon. the Minister, who has ignored this in his introductory speech, owes us some kind of explanation.

The same applies to the Berea road station relocation. Here I am referring to the provision of additional platforms, etc. In this instance costs have escalated tremendously from just under R10 million to over R25 million. The civil work appears to have gone up a tremendous amount. I found a slight anomaly in the fact that an amount of R1 197 800 which was provided in the previous Brown Book for the Transportation Department (D) seems to have disappeared entirely.

I want to come now to the whole question of the profitability of the Railways. I find it interesting that in this connection the hon. the Minister tells us that the high tariff-low tariff mix has not been very favourable. We realize that there is still a tremendous amount of uneconomic traffic as far as the Railways are concerned. One thinks for instance of livestock. Over the last couple of years farmers have been faced with a tremendous increase in the cost of the transportation of livestock. I can remember taking the hon. the Minister to task during the last Railway budget and asking him why he did not tell the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to build smaller abattoirs all over the place, to decentralize abattoirs, because the Railways obviously find it far more profitable to transport chilled meat than livestock.

Order! The hon. member must guard against making a main budget speech.

Yes, Sir, I shall certainly abide by that ruling and not make a main budget speech. As regards the aspect I mentioned, one feels that, when planning expenditure, there should be a little more interdepartmental planning because the hon. the Minister at that stage said that he had told the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on several occasions, but that he had not listened. I have that on record.

Coming back to the appropriations, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question about surplus rolling stock. From several sources I have had strong complaints that the Railways continue to order rolling stock while there are surplus carriages standing idle all over the country at the moment. I am referring specifically to coal trucks and to trucks formerly used for transporting livestock. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, instead of buying new rolling stock, it would not be possible to convert surplus trucks of a certain kind, for instance surplus trucks used for transporting livestock but unsuitable for anything else, so that these trucks can be used for more general work. One gentleman, a very irate gentleman indeed, wrote to me about cattle trucks that have been standing at Walvis Bay and rusting away—something like 100 trucks. He also talked of there being 7 km of trucks idle near Argent Station in the eastern Transvaal. I know that the transportation of coal from Argent Station tends to be seasonal, but I should like a reassurance from the hon. the Minister in this regard. I should like to know exactly what the situation is with regard to surplus rolling stock of this nature.

Another item for which we are asked to appropriate a considerable amount of money is the pipeline. The hon. the Minister explained that work on this had proceeded far faster than expected. I am pleased to hear that work on the pipeline is going ahead. We must congratulate the contractors concerned because without the pipelines the hon. the Minister would be in a worse situation than he finds himself in at the moment. The pipelines are very, very profitable indeed and, the sooner we get more of them operating, the more profit will accrue to the Railways and the easier it will be for the hon. the Minister to balance his books.

We were also intrigued to see that an additional amount is asked for to put the newly designed bogie on some of the ore trucks. Having seen the bogie in operation, I must say I found it very impressive indeed. I must congratulate the department, the inventor and the Railways for a tremendous technological advance which has put us in the front of the world. It is something we can be very proud of indeed. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the intentions are in respect of changing more existing rolling stock over to the new bogie. I should like to know whether this is possible, what savings are envisaged and what the advantages are. Obviously, one does not want to appropriate money if there are not advantages involved. I believe it will be a very good idea for the hon. the Minister to tell us exactly what his plans are in this connection.

I should like to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that it is often easier to balance one’s budget when one is in a time of comparative recession. We know that inflation has complicated his task, but the fact that he has seen fit to increase the rates enormously, that the Railways are not working at a maximum at the moment and that South Africa is in the grip of an economic recession, obviously influences the situation quite a lot. I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that, should there be a resurgence in the economy, we could cope with it. I am interested in the continuous capital expenditure pattern, in that I do not know whether or not we have been restricting ourselves a great deal when it comes to capital expenditure. Obviously the hon. the Minister has to walk a tightrope when it comes to balancing his budget, and he must spend what he can afford in a time of severe capital shortage. He must not overspend at a time when capital is very expensive indeed. I think he is financing R29 million of the money which he is asking for today by way of loans. I would be interested to know whether these are foreign loans or whether they are local loans and what rate of interest we are having to pay on these loans. There are difficulties in walking this tightrope. The question is just how much can one afford to spend in a time of recession when capital is very short and is needed by the Railways. In the past I expressed the opinion in this House that I felt that schemes which were not necessarily priority schemes sometimes seemed to enjoy priority as far as spending was concerned whereas other very important schemes were left on the sidelines. When one sees an increase in the cost of a scheme, as, for instance, in respect of the Durban railway station, one wonders whether one should have proceeded with it at this stage of our country’s history. I know that hon. members from Durban, particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, would feel very strongly about this.

We have been waiting for that for 20 years.

If that money had been spent 20 years ago when we were in a better capital situation, we would not be saddled with the tremendous escalation in costs that we are experiencing today.

Surely you are not serious?

I am very serious when I say I wonder how the Railways work out priorities. I realize that one has to plan many years ahead and that it is not always easy to do so. One can look at operations such as Richards Bay. Nobody can complain about expenditure on Richards Bay at the moment because that project is operating very profitably. The S.A. Railways can be very proud of Richards Bay and the work it is handling at the moment. Regrettably Saldanha Bay is not working quite as successfully. However, I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister just how priorities are worked out when increases such as this are borne in mind. I know we have had explanations in the past but I still look at some of the items and wonder why we are spending money on them compared with other items for which there seems to be a crying need.

All in all, in assessing this appropriation, we can say to the hon. the Minister that we are pleased that for the first time for many years he is asking for less money. He appears to be inhibiting these demands and has made savings. In this respect we see that the Railways are exercising a degree of self-discipline which we are very pleased about. On the other hand, are we very certain that savings are being made in the right place? When it transpires that a railway station is going to cost twice as much as the original estimate, one wonders what else is suffering as a result. What is being cut back? I would like to hear from the hon. Minister in this regard. Perhaps he has a very good explanation indeed because I realize the escalations have been tremendous.

Finally, I would like to offer a word of warning to the hon. the Minister. We have talked about increases in rates. I think one should look at this question vis-á-vis the raising of railwaymen’s wages. I think all of us would agree that in an inflationary situation, railwaymen need an increase in salary. They need it desperately. Many railwaymen are having a hard time trying to keep body and soul together because railway salaries are not of the very best. However, if we are going to raise rates—and I do not know what the hon. Minister’s intentions are—I would ask him to inhibit any thought of doing so because of raising wages. If we are going to raise wages, we must do so from income taking into account the present profitable situation of the Railways. I think the hon. the Minister must certainly give us an assurance that he knows that we cannot afford a further increase in tariffs. We do not want a nasty shock on 1 March. I cannot tell from the hon. the Minister’s face whether he intends giving us a nasty shock, but I have a feeling that it might be coming our way and a little reassurance at this stage that he will not do it, will be of immense benefit to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the last argument put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove, but with that exception it gives me great pleasure to inform him that it was a pleasant surprise to take cognizance of the positive approach of that side of the House. I wondered whether we should not attribute today’s rain to this sudden change of front, but then a further doubt arises in my mind as to whether we can trust the weather in such a case. The last argument put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove was concerned with capital spending, and he asked whether it would not be better to spend the capital at the right time—this is according to his own opinion—for then it would result in a saving. That is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Surely capital spending depends on planning and the priority of the project. Surely we are not building an outside toilet which one plans and completes in two days. We are dealing here with the development of a country, something which can take decades and even centuries. I think the argument that some of the capital should have been spent in good time so as to entail a saving is absurd.

In the case of the financial statements of the Railways there are a few basic facts in particular which should, for the sake of fairness, be taken into consideration. We are dealing here with one of the largest industrial organizations in the country. In addition we are dealing with an industrial undertaking that has, as a built-in factor, the greatest diversity I know of. We are also dealing with an industry which, in accordance with the provisions of our Constitution Act and of the Railways Act, is largely classified as a service organization. More than 40% of the transportation services which the Railways has to render, have to be rendered at uneconomic rates. If one does not take this into consideration in assessing a budget or the financial statements before this House, one has in my opinion lost a little perspective in regard to these matters.

What one finds when one scrutinizes the Revenue Account, for example, is to my mind simply wonderful. The normally accepted formula in the business world is: “If a person is 5% out in one’s estimates, one is doing reasonably well. If one is approximately 4% out, one is doing well. If one is between 1% and 3% out in one’s calculations, then it is a perfect budget.” If a vast organization such as the Railways shows a saving of 6,3% in its revenue budget, a figure which is 3,1% less than the expenditure budgeted for, it is, as the Gamat says: “’n Meer beterste begroting!” It is good enough; we do not desire any better. That is perhaps why the hon. member for Orange Grove could not but express a positive opinion in regard to the budget. It is truly a remarkable budget, particularly in view of the times in which we find ourselves. We must bear in mind that there were salary increases in 1976, to an amount of R66 million, and that another adjustment was made in January which totalled R16 million.

If the estimates of the past three years are taken into consideration, we find that this year’s estimates deviated by 5,7% from the 1975-’76 estimates. But if one takes the R66 million salary increases into consideration, the deviation was 3,6% and 3,1% in 1976-’77. This year, i.e. for 1977-’78, there was a minus, a saving of 3,2%. If one considers that the Railways has a revenue turnover of R2 814 million, this is truly an almost superhuman achievement, and I think this House ought to thank the hon. the Minister and his staff not simply as a matter of course, but sincerely, particularly in view of the times, and the financial position in which our country finds itself. We are living in extremely difficult times, and the example which they set, of building up a front and applying in practice what we preach to one another every day, i.e. that we should save and carry out scientifically the responsibilities which we bear, for that the hon. the Minister and his men deserve sincere recognition from all of us, not only for the value of their actions during the past year, but also for the inspiration to others to follow the same example. They have shown that it can be done by people who desire to do so. What is more: They have demonstrated to us that we are not dealing here with a financing body which simply ploughs along under its own steam, but that we are dealing with a national institution which, under all circumstances, takes the interests of its country and its citizens into consideration and tries to render the very best services.

The same applies to the Capital Account. In 1975-’76 there was a major difference, of 10,6%. In that case the argument put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove might have been a valid one, particularly if he had not taken into consideration the qualifications. In 1976-’77 the amount of the Capital Account deviated 16,8% from the amount budgeted for. Last year, however, the deviation was reduced to 4,8%—a reduction of 12% in a single year. In plain language and in his own language I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove: “It takes some doing”. To be an extensive organization with a staff of almost 200 000 which has to take the interests and needs of approximately 800 000 people into consideration, and still to qualify as a service organization, I think sets an incomparable example to the businessmen and industrialists in our country.

The deviations in 1975-’76 and 1976-’77 can to a large extent be attributed to the devaluation of the rand, the escalation of costs and the purchase of aircraft. The latter was an essential capital investment which was necessary in the times in which we are living, and which testifies to well-timed planning. If these factors are taken into consideration, this section of the statements before us also qualifies as being good enough in view of the circumstances we are experiencing in South Africa today. Throughout these statements there is a central theme, the central theme of saving. Without anticipating the main budget, they cover a great diversity of heads under which a saving has been effected.

When the Pharisees wanted to trip Paul up with their questions, they asked him whether the institution of marriage was a good one or not a good one. Paul replied that as far as he was concerned, those who married did well, but those who did not marry, did better. I want to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister that the marriage between the Railways and he is a good one. For us it is good enough; we seek no better. We want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely and wish him everything of the best for a prosperous and successful future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Witwatersberg can ever say that the members in these benches have not accepted the fact that the Railways play an extremely important part in the South African economy. Any industry which employs in excess of 200 000 people and has the type of budget which we see before us today has a major influence on the economy throughout the country.

While we accept that it is a good sign that this year the percentage difference between the original estimates and the additional estimates has decreased, I think it is a compliment to the Opposition, because over the last two or three years this is the very sort of thing we have been hammering the Administration about as in the past their budgeting has been so poor. Up to at least last year the main thrust of the Official Opposition was that the budgeting was at fault.

I should now like to talk about this current budget. In the current year there has been an estimated net saving on the revenue account of some R89 million. If one studies the figures for the past nine months of the current year, one can predict that at the end of this financial year the hon. the Minister is going to end up with a surplus of something like R60 million. I hope I shall be proved correct in that figure. This is indeed a very pleasant surprise not only for us in the House, but also for the country as a whole. When one studies the actual revenue and expenditure accounts for the last nine months, however, one feels that there is some cause for concern. For the first nine months of this current year the revenue actually dropped by some 1,4% on the original estimate. The hon. the Minister has said that some of this has been due to an imbalance in the high and low tariff structure, but even so, this amounts to a figure of some R30 million on the estimate. On the other hand expenditure has dropped by some R103 million, which represents 5% on the estimate. I believe that the drop in revenue could be an indication or reflection of the recessionary period we are going through. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment upon this, because we find that for instance the pipeline revenue is down 4,8%. I think the amount of fuel going through our pipelines reflects the state of the economy. I think the fact that this revenue has dropped by nearly 5% is indicative of the state of the economy. One would expect that with a drop in revenue due to the recession the finances of an organization such as the Railways would run into a bit of trouble and show a deficit because of the reduction in through-put. However, we find that the opposite is the case, and that the Railways is now running into a surplus situation, which, as I have estimated, could be as high as R60 million. There are a number of causes for this. The first cause could be what we in these benches have been asking the Government to do for some years, and that is to increase the efficiency of the operation of the Railways and to improve the economics of the Railways. On the other hand, however, it could be due to over-budgeting on expenditure or, alternatively, under-budgeting in the revenue account. Especially in the light of the tariff increases one could suggest to the hon. the Minister that these increases during last year were too high and that he could have limited those increases to some extent. However, if one looks at the actual expenditure over the past nine months, one finds that in respect of the transport services of the Railways it decreased by 7,5%, and the Railways overall by 5,3%. One also finds that in the case of harbour services it dropped by 6,5%, and in the case of pipeline services, by the extremely large figure of 23%. The overall expenditure dropped by 5%, as I have said. If this is the result of increased efficiency, we in these benches are extremely pleased. If this is the case, we want to congratulate the Railways. We do hear that there has been a tightening up on staff and discipline. We hear that they are not reemploying staff who have left for various reasons. I think this is a good move at this particular time.

As I say, we have been calling for this sort of action and we congratulate the Railways should this be the case. However, I would like to know the exact reason for this. I rather think that this reduction in expenditure could be due to poor budgeting, especially if one looks at the operating account which the hon. the Minister has placed before the House. On operating expenses expenditure is down by R11 million, which is 4,3%. Traffic and vehicle running expenses are down by 9,3%. An amount of R39 million has been saved here. These are very large reductions in expenses and are actual operating expenses. Therefore it would indicate to me that in the light of revenue being down only 1,4% there is a case here of over-estimating on these particular amounts. We believe that as a result of these figures which we have seen and the large surplus which it would appear that the Railways are going to enjoy this year, there will be no justification on the part of the hon. the Minister for increasing tariffs during the coming year. Like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication of this.

I, too, would like to refer to the Brown Book as it reflects the capital expenditure of the Railways during the current year. The increased amount to be appropriated according to this book is R92,5 million, which is an increase of 11% on the actual budget. If one takes the savings which have been effected into account, it results in a net increase of about 5%, which is not very high. But I believe it is a pity in a way that the hon. the Minister has had to come to the House and ask for an additional amount of nearly R39 million, especially at this time when South Africa is so short of capital. One of our biggest problems in South Africa today is the shortage of capital and, as I say, it is a pity that the hon. the Minister had to come and ask for more money.

One item which I am pleased to see mentioned under “rolling stock” in the Brown Book is the item concerning the class 7 E locomotives and in this case I see that an additional R32 million is requested for the purchase of these locomotives. I am particularly interested in this. The hon. the Minister will recall that this is an item which I had a lot to say about last year. It may interest the House to know that when this item was first placed in the Brown Book in 1975-’76 the estimate per locomotive was R280 000. A year later it rose to R346 000 and last year the amount was up to R920 000. Now, with another additional amount, the price is R950 000. Therefore my view is that the sooner we buy these locomotives the better, because at the rate at which the price is inflating, before we know, the price will be R1½ million a piece. In this particular case we are pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has gone ahead and will be taking delivery of these locomotives in the near future.

The matter of budgeting for capital expenditure is most important and I would like to refer to this matter along the same lines as did the hon. member for Orange Grove. In the Brown Book, the hon. the Minister submits estimates for projects and when these estimates come before this House we have to judge the merits of these projects on the figures which are submitted to this House. Inevitably these figures are approved. However, these figures are never adhered to. In my experience in this House, the ultimate cost has never been anywhere near that originally budgeted for. I have just quoted the example of the electric locomotives and the hon. member for Orange Grove has raised the question of the Durban and Berea stations in Natal. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: How is it possible that the costs of a project like the Durban station should be escalated to the extent to which they have been in these revised estimates? We find that last year it was estimated that the railway station in Durban would cost R47 million. We now hear that it is going to cost R91 million. This is an increase of nearly 85%. How is this possible?

What has altered in the plan? Have the hon. the Minister and his department made drastic changes to the plans for the Durban station? We do know that provision is being made for certain extra facilities to accommodate commuter traffic, especially from the Black townships. This, I think, is a very good thing. However, why is it that we are now faced with this tremendous increase within such a short period—actually within a matter of months? Suddenly the cost of the new Durban station has almost doubled. In the case of the Berea Road station, there has been an increase of something like 150%, from an originally estimated cost of approximately R10 million to R25 million. That means a 150% increase in the capital cost of this project. How was this arrived at?

Another question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is whether this change in design has resulted in certain losses being incurred as a result of design alterations. We know that when one is building a particular project, and halfway through one decides to change the plans, this can result in a considerable cost being added to the project. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether or not this has been incurred in this particular project. I believe that South Africa cannot afford this kind of budgeting where a figure is placed before a body such as this hon. House and then, before we know where we are, the cost has escalated considerably. We have the case of the Pretoria opera house, where originally it was estimated …

Order!

There are no trains running there.

Well, Sir, there are cases where costs escalate out of all proportion. The economy is such that there is a great need for growth, especially in order to provide employment for our exploding population. Therefore, I believe, every rand of capital must be directed to where it is needed most. Here I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove. We have to get our priorities right. The S.A. Railways’ capital budget is approaching R1 000 million. Last year we were told it could be as high as R1 600 million within a year or two. We in these benches believe that the Railways’ planning department must search their own souls and find out whether they are not committing this country to certain projects at a time when we can ill afford them, and whether the money which they do have at their disposal is spent in the best interests of South Africa, especially at this time when we are facing such an uncertain future in certain areas, of which the unavailability of capital from overseas is but one.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday it will have been exactly a year since our previous discussion of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill here in the House. When we listen today to the little doves cooing on the opposite side, it is almost unthinkable that these are the same hon. members who took part in the debate last year. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, you will remember that last year the hon. member for Durban Point still initiated the debate. [Interjections.] On that occasion the hon. member remonstrated with the hon. Minister, charging that the NP was making a mockery of the budget then before the House. Hon. members on the opposite side carried it even further. Those very same hon. gentlemen went even further last year. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove, also climbed onto the bandwagon and, with the hon. member for Durban Point, the three of them formed the choir. [Interjections.]

On that occasion they said that the Railways were in such a chaotic condition that we could not be sure that they were not in fact bankrupt. They emphatically alleged last year that the Railways had no creditworthiness. They even compared the position of the Railways to that of organizations like Glen Anil, Rondalia Bank and others. They went even further. Towards the end, the hon. member for Durban Point even levelled the accusation that the hon. Minister and the department were incompetent to budget. He said then that the Opposition wanted to advise the hon. Minister to appoint a directorate of experts. The hon. member quoted the British Railways as an example.

The hon. the Minister was advised to appoint an expert in the field of marketing. There also had to be someone who would be an expert in the field of economics. The directorate of experts was then to assist the hon. Minister, because the additional budget submitted last year differed by approximately 28% as far as the capital programme was concerned. Then, on top of that, the hon. member made the fatal mistake—it was published throughout the country—of saying that the operating account differed by 44%. The actual difference was 4,4%. The hon. member’s pocket calculator had let him down and had put the decimal point in the wrong place. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to note how the budget which is presently under consideration, differs from that submitted last year. How does the hon. Opposition compare? Last year, the debate on the Opposition side was introduced by the hon. member for Durban Point. I can understand the change in the ranks of the Opposition. I assume the hon. member used the same pocket calculator on 30 November and again put the decimal point in the wrong place. That is perhaps why only 10 members of his party are sitting opposite instead of 27.

Last year the hon. members quoted all sorts of percentages to bluff the country into believing that the Railways were in bad shape. Strangely enough, this year very few of them are drawing comparisons to indicate the extent of the savings and of the additional expenditure. I should like to take a closer look at the capital budget. We originally budgeted for an amount of R807 million and we are now asking for an additional amount of R92 502 800. There are savings to the amount of R53,8 million and the net additional amount which had to be financed, consequently amounts to R38,7 million.

Let me single out one item in the capital budget. I am referring to “rolling stock”, an expenditure head to which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has also referred. Here an additional expenditure of R32,5 million is being requested because the delivery of 100 7E electric locomotives is being advanced. The amount is actually intended for the purchase of spare parts. Those locomotives will be used on the Richards Bay section. If we were to remove this item from the capital budget, we would be asking for only about R6 million. In my view, however, it is absolutely essential that the R32,5 million be approved in view of the speeding up of the delivery of the locomotives, because the locomotives will help to earn foreign currency for us in that they play a role in the export of our black gold through Richards Bay. This single item is actually all that our additional capital budget amounts to.

If we look at the expenditure head “construction of harbours”, we note that the meagre sum of approximately R6 million extra is being requested. We can still remember very well how the hon. members of the Opposition kicked up a fuss last year when an amount of R52 million was requested for additional expenditure at Richards Bay. This year we are reaping the fruits of the expediting of those works, because if we had not expedited these projects, we would now have had to pay much more for them, since the escalation of prices would have taken its toll. Richards Bay is no longer a burden to South Africa, but a major asset, because as I have already said, it has made a vast contribution to the increase in our earnings of foreign currency.

Let us look at the head “Construction of Railways”. The additional amount being requested, is R5,9 million. If we look at all those projects in the Brown Book under that head, we see that the planning thereof amounts to a total of R38 million. Now these people, who are supposed to have made a farce and a mockery of budgeting and who are supposed to be incompetent, only request permission for an additional amount of R5,9 million.

Order! The hon. member probably means the hon. members?

Sir, I am saying that the hon. members said last year that the budget was being made a farce and a mockery.

I now come to the head “New Works on Open Lines”. An additional amount of R12,9 million is being asked for here. But let us take a look at a few of the works for which the additional money is being requested. I hope the hon. member for Berea is here. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the additional money being requested for the relocation of Berea Road station and the construction of additional platforms. This year an additional amount of R4,1 million is being requested. I am sure that during the recent election the hon. member for Berea told his voters to see what he had done for them. Do hon. members know what happened after he told them that approximately R4 million extra had been spent to move the station? He won by a mere 400 votes! I think he ought to buy a hat for the hon. Minister, because if it had not been for that, he would probably not have been in this House.

Don’t you know that it is not even in the Berea constituency?

The hon. member who is now making such a fuss, reminds me of the old story which I heard when we were children about ten Mozambiquans who went fishing; one was drowned and nine remained. He is leading the “Natal Resistance Party”. They are only nine, plus the fellow-traveller from East London North. If it had not been for that additional expenditure for Berea, however, they would not have been 10 but only nine. I want to refer to another vote. They have complained here about the additional expenditure on the third stage of the Durban station. An additional amount of R1 million is being requested for that this year and in that connection, I think the hon. member for Durban Central also owes the hon. the Minister a hat because he came to Parliament with a majority of only 603 votes. I am damned sure he also went about telling stories.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. I am sorry. I am quite sure that hon. member also told his voters that he was to be thanked for the fact that that extra money was being spent on the Durban station. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the additional money being spent on containerization. This expenditure amounts to an additional few million rands. I think this perhaps saved the skin of the hon. member for Durban Point. They might easily have been only seven in this House.

I now want to refer to rolling stock. I have already indicated that an additional amount of R40 million is being requested. For the harbours, there is also a request for an additional amount of R12 million, and an additional amount of R9,8 million for pipelines. This is therefore an additional amount of R92,5 million, which means an extra 11,4%. But there is a saving of R53,8 million, i.e., more than 6%. The net amount which must therefore be found for financing is R38,7 million, or 4,7%. It is recommended that R7,9 million should be taken from the Renewals Fund and R1 million from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. That means that an amount of R30 million in loan capital must be found, which amounts to only 3,7%. What an excellent capital budget!

Let us now take a look at the Revenue Account about which the hon. members opposite kicked up such a fuss last year when an additional 4,4% was requested. If we look at the Revenue Account, we notice that under the first head, i.e. Administrative and General Charges, a saving of R8 million, or 11%, has been effected. When an additional R2,5 million was requested under the same heading last year, the hon. member for Durban Point made the allegation that too much had been requested in respect of the General Manager and his staff, the accounting staff and all the others. There were objections to that additional amount which was requested. The hon. member went further and said that, as the salaries of the commissioners advising the hon. Minister fell under that head, he felt that the Railways should get rid of them. This year, however, the Railways saved R8 million, or 11%, under that head.

Let us look at a few other heads. There is for example the maintenance of rolling stock, which only involves wages and material. Under this head there has been a saving of R12,0 million or 4,7%. Similarly, there have been vast savings under different headings. The total savings by the Railways run into an amount of R92,0 million, which represents 4,3%. That is on the gross account of the Railways section. In the case of Harbours, there has been a saving of 4,3%, mainly on Working and Maintenance”, which again consists largely of wages and material. In the case of the Airways too, we find that there has been a saving of 3,5% in respect of Working and Maintenance, while the total saving in the Airways amounted to 2,8%. There has been a saving of more than 17% on the pipelines, while the total savings in respect of the whole account was R114 million, which represents approximately 4%. What a terrific saving!

There is a request for an additional allocation of R8,8 million, which represents 0,3%. What an achievement! None of the hon. members opposite have pointed out that this represents only 0,3%. But last year they converted 4,4% into 44% to give the country the wrong impression. [Interjections.] We can only take our hats off to the railwaymen in South Africa. When I say that I say that I do not speak of Management alone, but also of the staff on the outstations. If one goes into the savings which are ascribable to the efforts of the station masters, the foremen, the shunters, the conductors and all the others, one finds that they have made an enormous contribution towards the saving of R114 million. I think South Africa should take note of this. It is a fact that the Railways transported a greater tonnage, while saddled with the problem that as a result of factors beyond the control of the Railways, there was no high-rated traffic, nor were there the normal imports which make a real contribution to revenue. If we take that into account, we must really take our hats off to the Railway staff. This achievement was only made possible by the maintenance of high productivity and efficiency and by keeping a watchful eye on things and by practising economy. It is therefore a great privilege for me to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spent a great deal of his time analysing a speech that was apparently made last year by the hon. member for Durban Point. I do not see much point in further analysing that speech myself. What does, however, occur to me is that a great deal of what the hon. member for Durban Point said last year has in fact been proved correct. A great deal of the criticism he made has borne fruit. If the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark had taken the trouble to read in Hansard what was said in the Other Place last year, he would have realized that many of the things that were said in the House last year were also said by various members in the Other Place. The other point about the speech by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is that it is very unfortunate that he tried to make political capital out of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration. The Administration has a very special place in the constitutional and economic life of this country. This can be borne out by anyone who would care to consult the Act whereby the Union was constituted in 1910. I think it is a mistake to deal with the Railways in anything but a business-like way, as a business institution with 25 million shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to go a little deeper into the matter than the black and white print that we have in these two documents before us. I would like to make the point that this Bill reveals two major aspects of the Railways. The first is that we have come to the end of what I would term the development era as far as new harbours are concerned. We are now privileged to see the final coming into being of the great visions of Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay.

All of us, both on the Government side and in the ranks of the Opposition, those at managerial level and those at the labour level, can take pride that at last we seem to have come to the end of the decade of great spending. We are now seeing this great expenditure turn into real profitability. Looking through these documents one is pleased to find all sorts of interesting aspects as far as the coming into operation of these harbours is concerned. One sees for example that there are going to be two new tugs at Richards Bay. I do not know whether they have come into operation yet. I hope they have, but then again the old Danie du Plessis and Willem Heckroodt are apparently going to be returned to Durban where they belong. All sorts of interesting developments are taking place. For example, one reads that within one year of Saldanha Bay coming into operation on 22 September 1976, that harbour was handling 10 million tons of cargo annually. These are tremendous achievements which I think every South African should take note and be proud of. As far as the harbours are concerned, it is interesting that both Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay have virtually overtaken Cape Town as the second major port in this country. They are handling approximately one million tons of cargo per month. These are tremendous figures. They are of course way behind Durban, which handles three times that amount of cargo, but I think within the space of a year or two we have produced major figures as far as these two great new ports are concerned.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen as far as the dredging problem at Richards Bay is concerned. Does he expect the new dredger to be available fairly soon because I can see from the estimates that there is still work to be done. I am not sure that he is correct in allowing the previous dredger to be taken away before the new one—I believe it is called the R. E. Jones—has arrived at Richards Bay.

I want to mention a final small point in regard to our harbours. I was interested to read the other day that the Transkeian Government has agreed on the site for their new harbour which I think is approximately 50 to 60 km south of Port St. Johns. I wonder whether we are involved in any way, if only in the planning, and what effect the hon. the Minister thinks this long-term project may have upon our shipping operations and our administration.

The second aspect, as manifested by this Bill which is of great importance is that we have also come to the end of another era. The first was the development of new harbours and the second was the introduction of containerization in this country. I wonder whether hon. members realize that since the House was prorogued in June of last year, the most momentous developments have taken place in regard to maritime commerce in this country. Reading between the lines of the bill and, in fact, reading some of the terms of the Bill, one finds for instance that we are asked to vote extra money for the purchase of containers. I think the House will be interested in one or two aspects in regard to this problem too. Since we were here last, a new Ocean Freight Agreement has been concluded which will govern the commerce and the shipping world until the year 1991. Hon. members might be interested to know what type of pre-planning is required for this kind of operation. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there are any problems in regard to this agreement, because I understand there are. Apparently tariffs have to be or can be reviewed annually. Already consignors are having to bear an increase of 12½% in tariffs as from January of this year and another 6% as from June or July of this year. I have been wondering how long we can continue bearing this escalation of costs. It may be beyond the range of Government action, but I think the hon. the Minister should at least be able to tell us what he has in mind in this regard for the near future.

The hon. member for Orange Grove rightly said that we can be proud in regard to the concept and the manufacture of the new bogie. Hon. members may be interested to know that South Africa has also produced a unique form of container carrier called the Contransmatic. I do not know how earth-shaking it is, but the hon. the Minister has purchased three of these new container carriers, one for each of the major ports and, to my mind, it is a most interesting development which perhaps he would like to enlighten us about further.

Hon. members may also be interested to know that, as a result of the containerization era, since we met last we have seen the end of the mailship service in South Africa. South African overseas mail, that is non-airfreighted mail, is now being taken by container and not by the old mail-ship. I think it was on 4 October of last year that we saw the last of that particular operation.

I think we can all take pride in the fact that, in recent weeks, we have seen the coming into commission of the first fully containerized ship built in South African shipyards. I am, of course, referring to the Berg, a ship of approximately 9 000 deadweight tonnage. This is a tremendous achievement.

Discounting the fact that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark thought fit to analyse a speech made last year, I think these estimates, which I have been allowed to traverse a bit broadly, indicate that the Railways is in very good shape, and I think we can all be pleased with that situation. I am glad about the savings that have been achieved. I am always a little suspicious, though, when a Government Department or a Government agency tends to emphasize the fact that it has achieved savings. I would have thought that the requirements for saving was a constant thought in the minds of people who have to administer public money. [Interjections.] When conditions are favourable, the Government comes along and says: “We have made all these savings.” I think we must also slightly discount this savings prize that hon. members on that side of the House are attempting to attach to the lapel of the hon. the Minister. It is a “prestasie”, but I think we can overestimate it. There are certain matters of concern, but as these great new harbours come into major profitability and as we seem to have got over our growing pains in regard to containerization, we should all wish the Railways a happy year and a happy future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the remarks which have been made here with regard to the Additional Appropriation. I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House who have answered so many of the questions put to me. I see that they have real appreciation for good work and good planning which is being done. I would have been glad to have the same appreciation from hon. members on the other side of the House. However, I have not had this in the measure in which I had expected it, especially when one compares this year’s budget with that of last year. In fact, with the course taken by the debate, there were so many references to last year that one would have thought that we were discussing the additional appropriation of 1976-’77 again. The circumstances are completely different this year, however.

A simple analysis of the White Book shows that all I am requesting additionally is R10 000. This R10 000 is being made available to the CSIR for certain tests they have to do in connection with the detection of landmines. This is the only additional expenditure which is being requested in the White Book. The other items are there merely because I have to obtain the approval of Parliament for them and not because I want to spend the money. These items involve the collection of capital with regard to certain guaranteed railway lines, a part of which we want to transfer to the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund. In actual fact, the only additional expenditure requested in the White Book is the R10 000 for the CSIR.

In the Brown Book there is considerably more additional expenditure, and I should like to have a look at those items which were mentioned by several hon. members. Allow me to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that approximately 60 of the items appearing in the Brown Book are there as a result of belated debits. The hon. members probably know that an item is removed from the Brown Book as soon as it appears that less than R10 000 remains to be paid on that particular item. In this way, it often happens—I think we had far more items of this kind last year—that when an item has already been removed from the Brown Book, it is found that the amount still to be paid on the item is more than R10 000, in which case I am then obliged to put the item back in the Brown Book in order to obtain parliamentary approval for it.

The Brown Book which was tabled during the discussion of the main budget for the current financial year contained approximately 1 500 items. Approximately 60 of those 1 500 items have been omitted from the Brown Book and are now being put back for the reasons I have mentioned. Therefore the items which are giving rise to questions actually represent just a few of the total number of items in the Brown Book.

I want to begin with the first speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove. This hon. member asked me a very strange question towards the end of his speech. After commending us for having restrained ourselves in the additional appropriation and after saying that it was a good thing that the budget had been restricted to such an extent and that we were not asking for a great deal of additional funds, he asked to what extent I believed that we would be able to handle the traffic if there were to be a revival in the economy. By asking that, the hon. member gave me the impression that he thought we had spent too little. He is now afraid that I am not making sufficient provision for the expansion of capital works and that when the economy revives, I may not be able to handle the position. Of course, this largely depends on the extent to which the economy does in fact revive. I think the hon. members will remember how about two years ago, when entering Cape Town, one could see the ships waiting outside the harbour. In Durban one could see up to 30 ships waiting outside the harbour. To me this was a source of concern and I received many complaints about the delays in the harbours. However, the money came in. Today we have the opposite situation. Seldom if ever do we have ships waiting outside the harbours, as a result of a general economic recession in the world. Because of this, our revenue has been lower than we budgeted for and expected.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was inclined to anticipate the main budget. He spoke of tariff increases, something which is not relevant now. I am afraid that the hon. member will have to be patient in that connection. He also referred to the passenger station at Durban. He was not the only one, for other hon. members also referred to this case. I should very much like to give them the details. One of the major reasons why there has been such a great increase in the estimated cost of the station—from R47 million to R91 million—is that these estimates were originally made in 1972. Hon. members probably know that construction costs have increased by anything between 12% and 15% in recent years, according to our calculations. If one considers that alone, one must come to realize the extent to which escalation has had an effect on the cost of this project. I should like to furnish the particulars in connection with Durban station to hon. members who enquired about this. The particulars are as follows—

This is the one we are dealing with at the moment—

I think that is the reply. It is not only due to the escalation of costs which I discussed to begin with. It is also due to the fact that the facilities to be made available to the passengers have been expanded.

The hon. member also referred to the Nyanga/Strandfontein line. I refer to item 10 on page 5 of the Brown Book. I referred to this in my main budget last year. Because of limited capital funds we were forced to curtail or delay the work. Later in the year we came to realize that because the extension at Mitchell’s Plain was proceeding, it was very urgently necessary that work on this line be accelerated as far as possible.

Because of this, we have already worked faster this year than I envisaged at this time last year. In other words, we have accelerated the work there, and because of that we have needed this additional amount. I should like to refer the hon. member to page 5 of the Brown Book. The scheme is intended to serve the Coloured community on the Cape Flats, the area known as Mitchell’s Plain. Here the position is that—

That is the R6 million—

The hon. member also referred to Berea Road, viz. item 18 on page 8, and in that connection I should like to give the following particulars—

This is the position in connection with Berea Road. The hon. member referred, as did other hon. members, to an item under “Rolling stock”, for which a considerable amount was being provided, i.e. from R32 million to R33 million. This additional amount is required solely as a result of the early delivery of rolling stock, viz. the 100 locomotives referred to. I should like to give hon. members the details in this connection, as follows—

In other words, the R3 million to which hon. members referred and by which the amount of R92 million is being increased is for the purchase of radios so that the drivers can communicate with one another. Therefore it is not simply an ordinary increase because of escalation or whatever. The position here is—

That is why I said that this item—as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said, if this item were removed from the budget, little would remain—is only there because of an early payment in respect of this rolling stock. It is not due to additional goods purchased by us; it is simply an early payment on the rolling stock, earlier than we had envisaged.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me what kind of loans we had and what interest rates we were getting them at. It is not possible for me to tell him because the interest rate varies from one loan to another. However, the interest rates are substantially lower than the present interest rate in this country. In the case of the rolling stock, of course, arrangements have been made for suppliers’ credits.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the decline there had been in the revenue of the Railways. I have discussed that subject at some length. In our opinion, the major reason is the fact that the volume of high-rated goods has declined. The total volume of goods conveyed by the Railways was substantially the same, but there was a drop in high-rated goods because of a great variety of factors, including much lower imports than we had expected. Because of this, there have been indications since the beginning of this financial year that the revenue of the Railways would be lower than was expected and that the volume of goods offered for transport would also be lower than had been envisaged.

At this point I should like to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Groote Schuur, with regard to the reduction that has been effected in expenditure. When we speak of savings in Railway language, we do not mean savings in the popular sense of the word. We are not referring to money which is put in the bank or in the savings bank or anywhere else. When we speak of savings it means that we are trying to keep our expenditure lower than we have budgeted for, and that we are succeeding.

Because it appeared that the volume of high-rated goods would not be there, we made a positive attempt right from the outset to curtail our expenditure and keep it as low as possible. With reference to what was said by the hon. member for Groote Schuur I want to mention that this is an on-going process. We always try to do this, but we are not always able to. If economic circumstances cause a reduction in the volume of traffic because of a reduction in the amount of goods offered for transport and that volume is therefore smaller than in normal circumstances, this creates leeway, it offers an opportunity for manipulation because the traffic density is not such that the full capacity, the full carrying capacity of the section, has to be used. For this reason we introduced a system from the outset in terms of which we have trains running on weekdays whenever possible. We did this because we were able to in consequence of the low volume of traffic. If the volume of traffic had not been so low, it would not have been possible and trains would have had to run on Sundays, in fact, on every day of the week. In this way, Sunday time was kept to a minimum.

In the same way, because of the slump in the economy, we attempted to keep overtime to a minimum. In many other ways, which sometimes caused the public inconvenience, we tried to economize, in the sense in which the word is used in Railway language. I explained it a short while ago. Trains which would otherwise have run were cancelled. Stations were closed down. There are hon. members who can testify to the fact that they made representations to the Railways because of the closing of stations, something which probably caused the public great inconvenience—I accept that. With our more modern and more sophisticated arrangement of train services it has become possible for the Railways to close down smaller stations and to remove their staff. All these things have helped to reduce our expenditure and have made great savings possible for us. I hope I have not laboured this subject.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wanted to know from me what the reason was for the surplus. It is true that our revenue was lower than had been budgeted for. Because of our attempts to economize, however, the expenditure of the Railways was even lower. The hon. member also referred to the 100 electric locomotives. I have already replied to this. He also referred to the new Durban station, a subject which is naturally of great interest to hon. members coming from that part of the country.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Groote Schuur. He said that we had come to the end of the era of progress. He did not mean the very end, I suppose, for there must always be development. Nevertheless, I believe that we have for the time being come to the end of the development of harbours in South Africa with the completion of our two big harbours at Saldanha and Richards Bay. Richards Bay is still a bulk-handling harbour at the moment, but we are hard at work building clear wharfs there and it will not be long before it is possible to handle general cargo there as well. In the event of great pressure on Durban harbour, Richards Bay will to a large extent be able to relieve such pressure. We have likewise undertaken the development of Saldanha, which is also a bulk-handling harbour.

At the moment, however, there is no question yet of clear wharfs, but if circumstances demand it, such wharfs will be built there as well. However, there will be no need for us to look at the development of new harbours for many years to come.

The hon. member asked me about the harbour in Transkei. I am not aware of the fact that we are involved in the development of that harbour. If we are in fact involved, it will be in a very minor way; perhaps by giving a little advice. The hon. member also spoke of a shipping agreement. I assume that his question concerns tariffs, because he referred to commerce and industry. However, this is a matter which falls under my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He is sitting right behind me. He is the man who handles that agreement.

The question of containers obviously comes into it.

That is so, but it is something which has definitely been taken into consideration. The decision to proceed with containerization was not taken by the Railways in the first place, but by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Railways is simply obliged to fall in with it and to make the necessary arrangements for the handling of containerization to which the hon. member referred with so much appreciation. He also referred to the Berg, the first container ship built in South Africa. I am very well informed about this, for my wife launched the ship. I was also present on that occasion. The ship is the result of a splendid job of work.

I believe that we have now come to the end of the Second Reading debate. As has been customary in the past, if hon. members have any further questions to ask, I shall answer them and provide further explanations to the best of my ability during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate and in the course of his explanations regarding the increased costs on the Durban station, the hon. the Minister made the comment that this project was originally started in 1972. Since that time there has been tremendous price escalation and it is therefore quite reasonable that the total cost should now stand at the figure mentioned. If we are going to avoid nasty shocks of this nature in future, it seems to me that it may be a good idea to update estimates on major contracts of this nature more often than once every six years or so. If Parliament has to decide on expenditure, Parliament must be more fully informed and more up to date information will have to come our way so that we do not suddenly get saddled with another R43 million because a delay of six years has taken place. Perhaps I could ask the hon. the Minister how long the completion of Durban station is going to take. A rough idea would help to give us an indication of how much the project will cost eventually. It is obvious that should it take another four or five years to reach completion, we might well be saddled with another R40 million on top of the amount now asked for. Another item which I dealt with briefly during the Second Reading debate, and upon which I should like the hon. the Minister to comment now, is the question of the new bogie. On page 22 of the Brown Book there is an amount of R48 000 to be voted this year for cross-anchor bogies on 100 ore wagons. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention that all future stock will use the new bogie and whether there is likely to be a conversion process going on, on a continuing basis, as far as existing rolling stock is concerned.

Finally, I am worried about rolling stock that was used for the transportation of livestock. What is happening to this at the moment? Is it, as is claimed by my correspondent, lying idle? He spoke about 100 trucks standing at Walvis Bay and doing nothing. He said they had not been doing anything for months and were rusting away. I would be interested to know whether it is, in fact, true that we have surplus rolling stock in the department at the moment, whether stock is lying idle and whether the coal trucks at Arnot station at the moment—a string of coal trucks covering seven km of line—are likely to be used in the future. Is this situation of idleness merely seasonal?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to a subject to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has already referred, and that is the Durban station. I was most surprised to hear from the hon. the Minister that the estimates on the Durban station had not been updated since 1972. I should like to ask him how many other items in the Brown Book have not been updated over the last six years. Surely the Railways should update the entire Brown Book every year. I believe that some years ago the Railways installed a very large computer to assist with the handling of accounts—at least I hope this was the purpose of the computer—and therefore surely it is not difficult to feed every single item appearing in the Brown Book into the computer. Surely it is not difficult to update this information annually so that we know exactly where we are heading with our capital expenditure on the Railways. I know that businesses do this. This is the practise in the private sector. As was said earlier on by the hon. members for Witwatersberg, this is a major undertaking in South Africa, with 200 000 employees and a tremendous budget. I am rather concerned about it and would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is general practise to update a project as large as that of the Durban station only every six years. Suddenly we find that the estimate has doubled. This comes as a tremendous shock.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I should like to raise. The first relates to Saldanha Bay. I think the public were disturbed, a month or two ago, to read that sinkholes had manifested themselves at wharf 609 at Richards Bay. I believe there was an inquiry by the Administration into the possible cause of the sinkholes, but I do not think the public were informed of the result of the inquiry. I certainly did not hear of it.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister did not react to my inquiry about the re-transfer to Durban of the two tugs loaned to Richards Bay. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that Durban is going to be fully catered for, because I think the Sir William Hoy went out of commission last year? I wonder, with the two tugs coming back and the Sir William Hoy out of commission, whether Durban is going to be adequately catered for in the immediate future.

Finally, the hon. the Minister did not react to my question in regard to dredging operations at Richards Bay. Is there a particular problem there or is the new dredger simply going to undertake maintenance work? Has the new dredger arrived and, if so, is it fulfilling expectations? Perhaps the hon. the Minister could say a few words about that.

Mr. Chairman, I shall simply start with Durban station again. Hon. members must realize that a project such as Durban station is one of the most difficult because we have to work in the middle of the city. It is a much simpler matter if we build a railway line or bridge or undertake some project or other in the open countryside where land is expropriated and the project develops gradually. In Durban substantial changes have recently taken place. On the one hand we are moving the workshops from the centre of town and constructing them completely outside Durban. Hon. members who know the area, will know where the new workshops will be situated. It is miles outside Durban. The old workshops, which I believe were built more than 100 years ago, were in the centre of Durban. The removal of the workshops goes hand in hand with the construction of the new station. Because it is being done in the city centre and one therefore has to take the traffic and the movement of people into account, it is of course a very difficult task.

I cannot agree with the hon. member that a new cost estimate of all items should be made every year. Where it is necessary and applies to a project which extends over a long period, it goes without saying that such an estimate will be made from time to time. It is done where it is considered to be desirable. In most cases, especially with regard to smaller projects, I do not believe that something like that is necessary.

A question was also put to me with regard to the trucks for the conveyance of livestock. It is true that we have recently made certain arrangements with regard to the conveyance of livestock. We have also agreed to livestock being transported by road to a greater extent. We did so because it is so unprofitable for us. Where it can be transported more economically by road, we, the Railways will have no objection to it. Consequently far more livestock is today being transported by road than ever before. As befits any business undertaking, we are of the opinion that if a section of one’s undertakings is not unprofitable one should get rid of it. Strictly speaking it would suit me to get rid of the livestock side completely, because it is just not profitable. The more livestock I transport, the greater my losses are. The fact of the matter is, however, that we are a national transport organization and that we therefore have to undertake this type of service. That is why we are continuing with it, despite the fact that we suffer losses on the conveyance of livestock. It is, of course, not the only area in which we have losses. It is true that many of the trucks which were previously used for the conveyance of livestock, are not being used at present. We had 500 trucks for the conveyance of livestock on order, but we cancelled that order. For the time being we shall not proceed with that order, because we first want to determine what the position will be in future. I may say that it would seem as if this traffic is returning to the Railways again. It is always the case. The grass on the other side of the fence looks greener, but then people find out that it is not quite as green as they thought it would be.

The hon. member also asked a question about the new bogie, the Scheffel bogie, a completely revolutionary bogie which not only ensures greater safety and enables us to operate trains at much higher speeds, but also enables us to save on material. The friction on the wheels and on the rail, as well as general wear and tear on the carriage is greater when the old bogies are used, compared to the new bogie. That is why it is in fact of great importance that the new bogie be used wherever possible. You will realize, however, Mr. Chairman, that for an organization such as the S.A. Railways, which has a large quantity of rolling stock at its disposal, it is a long process to put the new bogie into operation, and that it costs a lot of money. In reply to the hon. member’s question as to what our policy in this regard is, I can inform him that the new bogie has been fitted to our two motor trains. They are block trains which go straight through from station to station. It has also been fitted to the FP trucks, i.e. trucks carrying packages. It has also been fitted to all ore trucks operating between Sishen and Saldanha Bay. In the case of those trucks the wear and tear is particularly great as a result of the heavy loads being conveyed. Besides these trucks, it will be fitted to all the new trucks that are bought, as well as the old ore trucks, wherever possible. That is more or less our programme for the future, but the hon. member will realize that it will have to be done gradually because the costs in this connection are so high.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur asked a question which I believe can be discussed to greater advantage during the main budget. I am not aware of any problems being experienced at Richards Bay. We had problems there before as a result of the fact that the ground was softer than was anticipated. However, I am not aware of any problem being experienced there in recent times.

†He also mentioned the sinkholes at Saldanha Bay, but I have not heard of them either …

No, they are at Richards Bay.

Are they also at Richards Bay? However, I will get the necessary information and will inform him as soon as I have it at my disposal.

Mr. Chairman, in schedule 4 a new single line from Fochville to Houtheuwel is indicated. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that project has been completed and, if not, which percentage of it has been completed?

On which page does that appear?

It appears on page 6 of the Bill. *

Mr. Chairman, I have no ready answer for the hon. member. I shall inform the hon. member about that at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, Durban station falls within my constituency and I have a question arising from the reply of the hon. the Minister in this connection. For the edification of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark Durban station is not situated within the constituency of Durban Central, but of Durban Point. The point I want to raise concerns the old station building. Although still in use today, this building is a historical monument. It has been in use from before Union and still Durban has to put up with it. When the people of Durban do not have to put up with this inconvenient railway station any more, they want to retain it as a historical monument, as a building which preserves evidence of the original character of Durban. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he has been involved as yet in the movement to save the existing main station building which is unique of its kind. There is no other like it in South Africa and it forms part of the history of South Africa. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given his attention to the matter and if not, to seek his support in preserving the building for Durban and for posterity. I know it involves difficulties with the planned double highway of Pine Street and Commercial Road, but it has been worked out that it is possible to preserve it and I hope the hon. the Minister will become my ally in trying to save that building for the city, the people of Durban and the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to one other matter, i.e. the Nyanga-Strandfontein railway. I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister’s sentiments, that it was necessary to complete the railway line if Mitchell’s Plain was ever to become a viable township for Coloured people. Could I ask the hon. the Minister: When is it anticipated that this line will be completed so that Mitchell’s Plain will enjoy a railway service? This is a question of immense importance to thousands of people and I would therefore like to hear from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the last question first. In regard to the completion of the Mitchell’s Plain railway line, it all depends on how readily capital funds will be available in the future. That also applies to the Durban station building. I think the hon. member asked me the same question in regard to Durban station earlier this afternoon.

Yes, I did.

All will depend on how readily capital funds will be available in future. Hon. members will realize that we have a shortage of capital funds at the moment and that we have to curtail certain projects. We have to follow a priority list in terms of which we proceed with certain projects and leave others for a while. Under these circumstances it is not possible for me to say for certain when these schemes will be completed, but we hope to have them completed in about two or three years’ time, although not altogether, because an extension of line to follow the coastline still has to come. This will be completed later.

The railway line that will have to serve Mitchell’s Plain will be completed reasonably sooner, provided the funds are available.

And on to Strandfontein?

The railway line to Strandfontein falls under the second stage of the project and is not nearly as important as the railway line to Mitchell’s Plain itself.

The hon. member for Durban Point has asked me to become their ally to retain the old Durban railway station for posterity.

Yes. The old main building; not all the tin shanties.

I have not been involved in this scheme yet. I do not know to what extent I can be involved, but I shall look into the matter and treat it sympathetically.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think the Third Reading debate of the Part Appropriation Bill will be a little more tranquil than it was last year, particularly as the hon. the Minister has done nothing more in this particular debate than to move the Third Reading. Furthermore, the Second Reading debate on the Bill concerned itself mainly with macro-economic and financial problems which face the country. What I think was significant of that debate was that, with very limited exceptions, it was a debate in which broad, superficial objectives were stated, with very little indication as to how such objectives were to be obtained; nor were there any forecasts made as opposed to mere expressions of hope and fear. This Third Reading debate comes as the last financial debate before the budget and, of course, it is a Bill which deals with expenditure for the following financial year. It is therefore appropriate that the stage should now be set as to the type of budget which we in these benches would like to see.

The meeting of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council scheduled for today, has been held, and we must ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to try and take South Africa out of the state of recession in which it is, whether he will continue to hold South Africa in a straitjacket because of balance of payments problems, and whether we will have continuously increasing unemployment and negative per capita growth for the following year. We know the hon. the Minister has said in so many words what his objectives are, viz. to have a strong rand, a healthy balance of payments, growth and prosperity. Like mother love we cannot object to these objectives; they are laudable objectives. However, objectives are merely hopes if there is no plan based on the realities of the South African financial and economic situation.

Therefore, I think it is not inappropriate that we in these benches should state how we see the budget. What fiscal and monetary measures do we envisage? What would we do if we had control of the Exchequer? The first thing, with respect, that we would do, and which we hope the hon. the Minister would do, would be to see in what respects we could improve South Africa’s situation in the world politically. What could a Minister of Finance do to improve our situation in the world? The hon. the Minister knows as well as we do that, after all, our economic plight and many of our problems are largely due to the politics of the situation. We would ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, to look at his own department to see what can be done. If we had the opportunity and if we could project ourselves into that situation, the first thing that we would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should do, would be to get together with the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development and repeal the Bantu Taxation Act and see to it that there is no discrimination against Blacks in South Africa in the South African system of taxation. I would hope that the hon. the Minister would be able to come here on budget day and say that he has now achieved a situation in terms of which that statute will be repealed, and that we will no longer have a situation in South Africa where Black people at lower levels of income must pay higher tax than their White counterparts and where they must start paying tax earlier than Whites do in South Africa. I would ask whether the hon. the Minister will not on budget day announce that discrimination on the basis of race and colour in so far as taxation of private incomes is concerned, has disappeared in South Africa. I would ask him in this debate to tell us whether it is his policy to discriminate against Blacks by making them pay higher taxation at the lower income levels or not.

I do not believe it is the hon. the Minister’s policy. I want to ask him to tell us whether that is so.

Secondly, while we are on the subject of discrimination, if we had the say, we would remove and reverse the tax policy in terms of which married women are in fact discriminated against. We would see to it that discrimination based on sex and discrimination against marriage would disappear. The hon. the Minister should know that we in these benches believe that that would assist productivity in the industries and the professions in South Africa.

Thirdly, we would not look at the budget as being merely an ad hoc affair which is dealt with on a 12-month basis. We believe that there should be a proper five-year budget plan which is adjusted annually in order to adapt it to changing circumstances. There should be more long-term planning and less patchwork. We should have long-term planning to deal with the problems and not merely patchwork to deal with situations as they arise. Problems must be foreseen and anticipated.

I want to refer to another matter we should like to hear announced on budget day. The hon. the Minister and his colleagues have said in the past that the money is not available in order to remove discrimination from education entirely or to have compulsory education for Blacks in South Africa introduced. Can one, however, imagine the impact there would be on the political scene if the hon. the Minister, on budget day, announced that he had a plan in terms of which within a specified period of years the money would be made available to ensure that there is compulsory education for all people in South Africa irrespective of race or colour, and that we shall have the same basis for all? That cannot be done, as the hon. the Minister will tell us, on an annual basis with a budget of this nature, because, as he says, he does not have the resources. However, if we were to announce this, the impact on the international scene and the benefit for South Africa would be tremendous. The long-term capital which is needed for South Africa may find its way to South Africa far more readily if that kind of announcement is made by the hon. the Minister.

Fourthly, there are two other priorities I should like to deal with, namely employment and inflation. A repetition of the lack of discipline in regard to the money supply which has been seen in past years, is likely to have serious medium-term consequences. A deficit budget financed from the banking sector will be inflationary and inflation will become an increasing problem as defence expenditure increases in the years ahead and our economy acquires more and more characteristics of a siege situation. The example of Israel is there for all of us to see. We can see what happens to inflation in that kind of situation. If South Africa does not maintain discipline we shall pay a heavy price in the years which lie ahead. I certainly support stimulation, but stimulation through the printing press is not a sound way of achieving solid economic growth. In the present circumstances existing in South Africa the hon. the Minister should be able to obtain long-term capital internally, provided that interest rates are maintained at the correct levels, without any undue difficulties. I believe that that source is one of the Government should tap while the opportunity for it exists. Concerning inflation, we have heard a fair amount of comment and speculation as to what the rate of turn-over tax is likely to be in the legislation the hon. the Minister will announce. I do not expect him today to make an announcement as to what the rate will be, much as I hope he will do so. I want to tell him that some of the speculation which has been published by banks and others indicates a rate which, I believe, will cause undue inflation in South Africa. When he introduces a retail turn-over tax, it should be a reasonable rate and not a rate which will add to the inflation which we cannot afford in South Africa.

I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do as little short-term borrowing as possible of foreign currency in the year which lies ahead and not to allow in his budget for substantial short-term borrowing in foreign currency.

I am certainly in favour of long-term borrowing, because we need it, but short-term borrowing, particularly if the hon. the Minister borrows as he has been doing in the Swiss frank market and the Deutsche mark market, is likely to cost us very dearly. Let me deal with what has happened in the last 12 months, on the information which I have available, because the hon. the Minister has made very little available. The first thing is that we have been borrowing at rates which are in excess of the prevailing rates in Europe for other countries which I regard as being far less creditworthy than South Africa is. That is the first thing that has existed. What is even more serious, is that the hon. the Minister has borrowed in the short-term market in Deutsche marks and Swiss franks, and if one takes a particular period, South Africa on a 12 month loan could have lost as much as 25% if the hon. the Minister borrowed in Swiss franks. Therefore the effective cost of that money for a year would have been more than 30%. That to my mind is a reason why as far as I am concerned the sooner we get out of the short-term market in Swiss franks and Deutsche marks, the better. The sooner we convince people of our creditworthiness and our ability to repay, the better. Our ability to do so is beyond equal in the international financial field, because South Africa has an impeccable record in regard to the repayment of its foreign debts. There is nobody that can better that record. They can equal it, but they cannot surpass it. The sooner the hon. the Minister gets out of the short-term market the better it will be. I believe that with an unstable dollar and with our own rand in a vulnerable position that to my mind is essential and the least amount of short-term borrowing that the hon. the Minister can do, the better for all of us.

I now come to the question of unemployment. The unemployment statistics for Blacks as they have been published do not show in what sectors the unemployment is heaviest. We can look at the industries which have unused capacity, when increased use of capacity would not be inflationary. Encouragement in those industries should be given by the hon. the Minister. An examination of consumer patterns in South Africa shows that Blacks constitute the bulk of consumers in many categories. Those statistics are available to the hon. the Minister. Therefore, unless a consumer demand is created or one exports, unutilized capacity will remain idle and new investments will not take place. If people are employed they have money to spend. If consumers have money to spend, production can increase and so can jobs be created. This is what I would call the prosperity circle, a circle of prosperity for South Africa. The key to this kind of economic prosperity lies in three fields. Firstly, there is exports, as I have indicated. Secondly, there is the increased purchasing power of a section of the community which does not have adequate purchasing power at the moment and, thirdly, there is productivity. Purchasing power can be increased only by the existence of more jobs to filled and greater productivity to enable more to be earned. However laudable and urgent normal educational needs are— and I support them as the hon. the Minister knows—the need for greater vocational and technical training is even more urgent. Therefore, in our view the budget must provide incentives for those employing more labour and, secondly, it must provide more money and incentives, as well as a plan, to hasten training in the vocational and technical fields. A perpetuation of the present labour system in which a shortage of skilled personnel exists, when in fact there is unemployment, is economically criminal. It is due entirely to political and Governmental management considerations that that situation exists in South Africa.

In the fifth instance I should like to touch on the question of pensions. Pensions need to be revised. There was more than 11% inflation last year. There are increases in the prices of foodstuffs almost every single week and there are increases in rent, the cost of clothing and medical fees. All are essentials for old people and they make the lot of the pensioner increasingly difficult. Therefore in our view, if we had a say in this budget, social and civil pensions would go up. I want to go one further. Under our proposal to have a five-year budget plan we would also announce a plan to remove pension discrimination. Let us look at the figures. R79 for Whites, R42,50 for Coloureds and Indians and R20,50 for Blacks. There are other matters too with which we would deal. Why penalize, for example, those who have contributed to private pension schemes? They are the very people who create savings and create capital for South Africa and who provide for their own old age.

They have saved for higher living standards and now find themselves being discriminated against. Is it not right that if we are going to remove a lot of these matters— the discrimination and abnormalities—that the pensions for everyone should be placed under one single department irrespective of the race of the people concerned? There are other principles. There are principles other than merely the monetary principles. Let us take even a simple example such as hospitalization. There are different principles that apply to the receipt of social pensions. It depends on one’s race whether one is going to be accommodated in a particular Government-supported institution or in a provincial hospital. Surely, this is not a just approach to the matter. [Interjections.] It is not a correct approach.

If we had the say in this budget we would deal with the question of increasing medical costs. We would increase the rebates. We would not allow those rebates to be reduced as income goes up. We would certainly not allow the technical problems which arise in regard to the production of vouchers. We in these benches would also, in our budget, do something to encourage savings. I have spoken very often about the question of indexed bonds. I have brought with me the examples and they are available to the hon. the Minister if he wants to see them, examples of the indexed bonds which are available elsewhere. Certainly, in our situation, we believe two types of indexed bonds are necessary. Firstly those for the individual saver, for the old aged, and secondly, an indexed bond which should be made available to pension funds. We in these benches would do something in the budget in order to encourage overseas investment and to encourage the money to remain here, including the interest and the dividends. We would, for example, abolish non-residents’ shareholders tax on new equity and loan stock investments, for private enterprise in particular, and we would give a guaranteed period within which this would not be abolished. In order to enable overseas residents to accumulate interest free of tax in South Africa without paying tax on it overseas when it is received, we would also create a special type of investment company which, if it is wholly owned from abroad, would be exempt from taxation in respect of income on, for example, Government stocks and on loans to private enterprise of a nature which I have mentioned.

We in these benches would review the spending priorities. We would postpone expenditure which is not essential for our immediate needs and we would do away with the ideological expenditure which is costing South Africa millions and millions of rands every year. We believe that, with the money which is available from the capital market, it would not be necessary to increase taxation and that despite the change of priorities we would be able to keep Government expenditure well within the limits of the rate of inflation. On the contrary, our policy would be to reduce personal tax in a measure which will not only be an incentive in order to create greater productivity, but would be a stimulant to confidence in South Africa. These are some of the approaches which we have to the budget. We believe that we need in the financial housekeeping of South Africa, good and tough housekeeping, but also imaginative financial housekeeping in order to give South Africa economic strength. We need economic strength to solve political problems, but we cannot get the economic strength if we do not, on the other hand, show the courage to tackle the political problems which face us.

Here I want to touch on one last matter before I sit down. That is a matter on which I would specifically like to hear the comment of the hon. the Minister of Finance on this occasion. It does not have to be dealt with in a budget speech. That is the proposals of the new constitutional government plan and how the hon. the Minister of Finance sees the financial structure of that new constitutional plan. How does he and his Government see this particular matter working? May I put some specific points to him? There will be three Parliaments and three budgets. Presumably there will be also three Ministers of Finance. Will the budgets for all three be dealt with in the Cabinet Council? Will there have to be consensus on the budgets? Who will decide on appropriations? Who will deal with levels of taxation and will the levels of taxation be different for different groups in South Africa? What seems clear to me is that there will be problems with regard to what will be general matters, to be dealt with in respect of all the races, and what will be group matters. Who will decide how money is to be allocated on major problems? Those matters are as yet unsolved.

If one actually elevates these matters to be decided by the Cabinet Council, the Cabinet Council really becomes a sort of Federal Parliament. Therefore the whole scheme begins to acquire more and more of the characteristics of the old UP’s race federation scheme without the Blacks being represented in it. That is the truth of it. If the scheme is to have any credibility—I appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard—with practical economists or with businessmen, then the hon. the Minister should respond to these issues without delay. Silence today will mean there is no answer and the scheme is a still born impracticality, announced without it having been thought through to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I should like to make a few references to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place I wish to point out that he said there were many things they would have done had it been their task to draw up the budget or if they were to have had some say in the drawing-up of the budget. We are very grateful that that group has no say in the drawing-up of our budget, because if they had, one would have had not only economic chaos, but also political chaos.

I object to the statement made by the hon. member that we were spending millions of rands on the implementation of our political philosophy, as though they, too, do not have a political philosophy which they would like to implement! The difference is, however, that the NP is implementing its political philosophy in a large degree of order and stability, whereas if the PFP had been in power and were to implement its political philosophy, we all know what chaos would have resulted from that.

What about the present chaos?

I shall come to the hon. member for Pinelands in a moment. The hon. member for Yeoville suggested that the Government did not plan and did not know where it was heading in the economic field.

Tell us about the plans.

Any decent, I should rather omit the word “decent” and say any right-minded hon. member of this House would surely know that any Government which is worth its salt—this Government has been worth its salt for 30 years—realizes that it has a task and a responsibility towards the country and its people to plan for sound economic growth and to strive to realize it and to carry it through. It also has the task of trying to maintain sound standards of civilization and to assist the people to reach such standards. It has the task of establishing and developing a sound infrastructure. This involves a multitude of things. It also has the task—even though the hon. member for Yeoville does not accept it—of assisting and trying to promote sound private entrepreneurship. This, in broad outline, is a view of the task of any Government which is worth its salt.

May I dwell for a moment on the many questions asked by the hon. member for Yeoville and on the many charges levelled by him? He said the hon. the Minister of Finance had made no “forecasts”. The hon. member came into this House at the same time as I did eight or nine years ago, and surely he knows that when presenting the main budget, the Minister gives a survey. [Interjections.] I apologize for being under the impression that the hon. member has been in this House for so long. As a person who has been in banking, the hon. member ought to know that the day on which the main budget is presented, is the day on which the Minister of Finance pins on his buttonhole and opens the curtain to show the country how he sees the future. That does not happen when the Part Appropriation Bill is introduced.

The buttonhole looks a bit sad.

The hon. member suggested that the Government did not programme for more than 12 months. Must I tell him again that the Government has advisers and does not look ahead for 12 months only? The Government looks ahead even for periods in excess of five years.

†The hon. member mentioned education. As regards our education policy, I do not think we need be ashamed of telling the world that the Government is working towards the upliftment of all the peoples in this country—irrespective of whether they are Black, White, Coloured or Yellow—as cultural and political entities. Those are the key words. We are spending millions of rands annually to uplift all these peoples as cultural and political entities. We do not intend to recast every Black or Brown person as imitation Afrikaners or Englishmen. We do not intend to recast these people as images of Whites, whether Afrikaans speaking or English speaking. I think that our educational policy is in line with what was accepted at the UN Conference on the Multinational Society held in Yugoslavia 18 months ago. There the representatives of all countries unanimously approved the principle of distinctive educational systems for the various and disparate peoples in a multinational State. I think this is conclusive evidence that we, as a Government and a party, are doing what the world expects us to do.

What was the date of that conference?

It does not matter whether the resolution was passed last week or the week before last. A resolution of principle was passed at a conference convened by the UN, and it was said that it was sound policy. One of the eminent financiers— I would like to call him a financier—in South Africa, Dr. Frans Cronje, who served, led and assisted in the Opposition party for many years, said certain things about the party of which the hon. member for Yeoville is a member. What did he say about their political policy as reflected in the financial sphere? I quote from the Sunday Times of 26 October 1975. That was a few years ago … [Interjections.] Yes, very well, but their policy is still the same. Dr. Frans Cronje said the following …

Be careful you do not quote the wrong bit!

I quote—

Now they must not tell me this afternoon that their policy is not heading for Black majority rule. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville. Does he agree with the hon. member for Groote Schuur about Sea Point’s swimming bath? But I shall go into that in greater detail later on, and he must give me an answer.

He is not going to swim with you!

The hon. gentleman said—

He is referring to the Progs. I quote further—

I merely put the question. He tells us that they want to draw up the budget and that they will then carry into effect certain political philosophies. Does he not agree that if they were to carry them into effect, there would be chaos in our country?

Last Thursday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and the hon. member for Yeoville has just referred to that—made mention of the Government’s new constitutional plan. He said—

I shall come to that in a moment, but first I want to say something to the hon. member. An election was held about this matter and the electorate has given its verdict. Now the hon. member for Yeoville must not tell me that only a small percentage of the people of South Africa took part in the election. What was the verdict of the electorate? It is no longer news. Before I say what their verdict was, I want to say that when the hon. the Prime Minister called the general election, he told the electorate that they should give a verdict on, inter alia, the question whether the world should dictate to us what policy we must follow; whether we should stop saying that the Black people should govern themselves; whether we should stop saying that the Coloureds and Indians should handle their own affairs; and whether we should stop saying that we are not prepared to jeopardize our future by surrendering our right over ourselves. These were the matters about which the hon. the Prime Minister wanted the electorate to give a verdict. The basic question put to the electorate, was: What road must South Africa take and what is the future South Africa to be like? The speakers of the hon. the Opposition have given different replies to this question. When they were asked what the effect of their political policy would be, the hon. member for Constantia, according to the Citizen of 1 November 1977, said—

That was his reply when they were questioned about the matter of “one man, one vote” and Black majority rule. I repeat: The hon. member for Constantia replied—

I must concede, however, that the hon. member for Yeoville said—

What did I say?

The hon. member said—

So is the hon. member for Constantia. Ask him.

No, the hon. member for Constantia said: “We are working in that direction.” I proceed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to express his view in this regard. When the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Groote Schuur also expressed their views in this regard by saying that they were moving in the direction of “one man, one vote” and Black majority rule, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he would repudiate these two speakers. His reply was that he first wanted to talk to them as he did not know what they had said. Mr. Speaker, I can read to you what they said, but we know the story of the hon. members for Groote Schuur and Houghton.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked: “Where is South Africa going?” I have pointed out the different replies which came from the PFP. And what was the result of the election? I am not speaking of numbers, because we know what the numbers were. The electorate said to the PFP: “You are living in an atmosphere of political dream luxuries and you will come to a painful and sudden end.”

Where are your people?

We are sitting here in large numbers. The hon. member for Mooi River made a discovery during the election. He discovered that South Africa was a multinational country and for that reason his party based their policy on “multi-nationalism”. I congratulate him on having woken up. Secondly, when the electorate gave the NP its overwhelming majority, it was a break-through—that is very important to me—for growing national and political unity. That was their second verdict. In the third place the electorate said by way of the election results: “We have rediscovered one another; where we voted for the present Government, it was a rediscovery of a common loyalty to South Africa; it was an enthusiastic joint statement of a viewpoint.”

The hon. members of the Opposition are afraid to talk about the election. [Interjections.] In conclusion I want to say that the results of 30 November 1977 were a personal triumph to our hon. Prime Minister. In the second place it was a mighty victory for the NP.

And for the television service.

For South Africa it was the formation of a solid, united front, a new national unity, against international pressure and threats. I think—and with these words I conclude—that all who supported the Government in the election, and also the hon. members on the opposite side—they will not say it aloud, but in their hearts they will agree with what I am going to say now—believe that our hon. Prime Minister already is a statesman of international stature. [Interjections.] They evidently agree. Moreover, we say: South Africa believes—and this is also our prayer—that in the days that lie ahead, this statesman will not fail, will not crack, but that under his leadership and with grace from Above, the great task of this Government, i.e., the ordering of peoples, will be given its final shape. I think they agree with that. In fact, they cannot deny it and they cannot differ from that.

I want to return to the financial aspect for a moment. I am astounded that the PFP cannot think positively about our fatherland. Let us look at a few things which other people— here and abroad—say what the Opposition ought to say. On a previous occasion I quoted from a speech by the former American Secretary for Finance, Mr. William E. Simon. I quote again what he said. The periodical I have in my hands is the Afrikaans version of …

Is anything wrong? Can we help?

No, no. It is the mining journal …

Turn it the right way round.

… published by … Hon. members must give me a chance. It is after a speech by the chairman of the Chamber of Mines. On the same occasion that day, Mr. Simon also spoke. What did Mr. Simon say about South Africa? He said South Africa’s trade obligations and its trade policy remained within the framework of GATT. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent testimonial which an outsider, somebody from America, gives to South Africa. He says we are acting within the trade policy and the obligations laid down by GATT. [Interjections.] In the second place, this man says that South Africa’s foreign exchange policy is within the framework of IMF guidelines. This is a fine achievement and for that reason this man could say, inter alia, …

This Simon is the Simon of Simon and Garfunkel.

No, it is Simple Simon.

Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that the hon. member for Yeoville makes such a sneering and dirty remark about a former American Secretary for Finance with whom he does not happen to agree. He refers to that man as Simple Simon. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Yeoville owes America an apology. This man has such a high regard for South Africa that he refers to South Africa as an important new economic power. The PFP has always expressed nothing but criticism. When it comes to inflation, South Africa is, according to the PFP, always the weakest country in the world. When it comes to unemployment, we are, according to the PFP, the only country which has unemployment. When it comes to price increases, we are, according to them, the only country which has price increases. I think the time has arrived for the PFP to say, too, that South Africa has become an important new economic power. We are proud of that because it has happened under the policy and guide-lines laid down by this Government over the past 30 years. I think they owe it to us.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur said on occasion during the election—

Who needs them?

The Progs. He said—

He went on to say—

He said that if they won 27 seats, that would be “the writing on the wall” for Mr. Vorster. I just want to tell the hon. member that there was a time when the NP had 27 seats in this House. But in those days the NP had a message for South Africa, a message of development, a message of co-operation, a message of “South Africa first”. That was why the NP grew. But as long as the Progs adopt a negative standpoint, they will never grow and they will never win 27 seats.

I want to return to the hon. member for Yeoville, not on account of what he said in this House this afternoon, because other members on this side of the House will reply to that. The hon. the Minister, too, will probably have something to say in connection with the complaint he had about tax discrimination. I want to confine myself, however, to an article which the hon. member wrote, i.e.: “I will tell you how partition could work.” In my view this is important, because the country’s finance can only develop and flourish if it goes well with us in the political field.

Do you agree with what I wrote there?

To a great extent I agree with what the hon. member wrote, because according to this report he is in favour of partition of the country. Our whole policy is based on the fact that we give the different nations freedom so that they can govern themselves. What did the hon. member for Yeoville say? I quote him—

As near the truth as one can come. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to a “bill of rights” and I was under the impression that there was a political party in this House that did not know whether or not it wanted a “bill of rights”. In this connection I am referring to the NRP. They formed a new party and then one of them said: “What we need, is a bill of rights.” Then another one said: “No, we do not need a bill of rights.”

Show us some examples of who said that.

I do not have the proof with me at the moment … [Interjections.] I undertake to let this House have the proof … [Interjections.] … the proof is in my office at the moment, but I undertake to show it to you, Sir, as well as to the hon. member for East London North in the course of the afternoon. One group of the party said: “We want a bill of rights.” The other group said: “We do not want a bill of rights.” We shall still talk to them about that if the opportunity presents itself.

I want the hon. member for Yeoville to indicate, especially when he talks of “I will tell you how partition could work”, whether in principle he supports the idea of partition.

To whom are you referring?

I am referring to the hon. member for Yeoville. Does the hon. member agree in principle with the idea of partition?

I asked you before if you still beat your wife; you did not answer me.

When I asked the hon. member last week whether he agreed with a certain person who had said that South Africa was acting unjustly towards its political opponents, the hon. member asked who had said so. In his heart the hon. member for Yeoville is a supporter of the NP view of the development of nations whereby each will get its own territory. However the hon. member lacks the courage to say so openly. I want to ask the hon. member—he need not be ashamed to say it—does he agree with the idea of the PFP’s Cape provincial leader that all seaside resorts should be thrown open to all, or does he agree—as the hon. member for Sea Point has said—that the Peninsula should be divided into areas and that the people of a particular area should swim at a particular place? [Interjections.] Wait, I am not finished yet. Is the hon. member going to agree by saying …

You may not swim in my swimming bath.

The hon. member says I may not swim in his swimming bath, but I want to ask him: May the Black man swim in Sea Point’s swimming bath?

You may not swim in my swimming bath.

I am not interested in the hon. member’s swimming bath; he must just answer my question. The hon. member for Groote Schuur has alleged that if they were to come to power, Sea Point’s swimming bath would be thrown open to everything and everybody—White, Brown, Black and Yellow. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Does he agree with the Chief Whip of his party? He must answer the question, because it is an important aspect of policy. The hon. member for Yeoville evidently has not the courage to agree.

What did the Sea Point voters say on 30 November?

The hon. member for Pinelands is asking me what is the view of the voters of Sea Point in connection with the matter. If we had had another week … [Interjections.] … then we would have taken Sea Point, because we only started working there at a late stage. The hon. member for Sea Point is a temporary member; he is not going to remain member for Sea Point for very long.

A final aspect which I wish to discuss, is the PFP’s striving for a national convention. The hon. member for Groote Schuur says they are going to put a question at that convention. According to The Cape Times of 6 April 1976 they are going to put the following question to the national convention: “What is the maximum the White man will concede and what is the minimum the Black man will accept?” The hon. member for Groote Schuur says he is going to put that question at the national convention. That is all very well, but the hon. member must tell me who is going to be at that convention.

You are not going to be there!

I am not interested in being there. I want to know from the hon. member whether Mr. Thula of the Inkatha movement is going to be there. I am asking that because according to Die Burger of 20 January 1978, Mr. Thula said—

Is Mr. Thula going to be there, or is he not going to be there? Secondly, I want to know from the hon. member for Sea Point or from the hon. member for Pinelands whether Mr. Motsuenyane will be at the convention. Mr. Motsuenyane is the president of the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce.

He is a very fine chap.

The hon. member for Yeoville says: “He is a very fine chap.”

He is!

He may be a very good man, but this is his political philosophy. He said—

I presume that includes the Progs—

This man is going to be at that national convention. The hon. member for Groote Schuur says that he is going to ask Mr. Motsuenyane and Mr. Thula: “What is the minimum that you will accept?” I can tell the PFP now already that the answer of those people will be that they will only accept one thing, namely “one man, one vote” and a Black majority government in South Africa. What will the hon. member for Yeoville say then?

I am mentioning these things to the hon. member for Yeoville to show him that if one does not have political stability in a country, one cannot have economic growth and development. This Government, and its record over the years proves it, is a stable Government of which the one great standard is stability and orderly growth, which it pursues by means of a policy of separate development. There is no other policy which can guarantee that, because the policy which can be substituted for ours is that of the PFP. They now deny that they are in favour of “one man, one vote” and a Black majority government. It is however recorded in Hansard and in many other places that that is what they have in mind for the future. For that reason I say that under their policy there will be political, economic and financial chaos in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester will not be offended if I do not react to all the points he argued with the hon. member for Yeoville. I just want to react to two statements which he made and which I believe to have a bearing on my own speech. Right at the beginning of his speech he said that the Government was implementing its political philosophy. In respect of the economy of the country, this is in fact one of our major problems, for in the implementation of the Government’s political philosophy, the normal economic progress of the country is being hampered. I shall come back to that later. [Interjections.] The hon. member also said that any Government worth its salt would plan and bring about sound economic growth. The problem we have in South Africa, especially in the ’seventies—I shall discuss this in greater detail presently— is that there may be planning of economic growth under this Government, but we do not see any real growth. The things that are actually growing are unemployment and inflation.

Oh, no!

The hon. the Minister furnished the data himself. He said with great pride that the unemployment among Blacks in South Africa was 12,4%, while the unemployment figure in America was 12,5%. The fact that the unemployment figure among Blacks in South Africa is 0,1% better than that in America does not mean that our position here is good.

We are engaged in the Third Reading debate on a part appropriation amounting to R2 900 million. Do you realize, Sir, that in 1971, the total budget was R3 400 million? Even if one makes the necessary allowances for increases and essential expenditure on defence, for example, one is immediately struck by the phenomenal increases in the budgets which have been necessary to govern and administer the country during the ’seventies. Of course, the question immediately arises whether the standard of living has risen accordingly. The answer to this is “No”. Unlike seven or eight years ago, when the inflation rate was 2% or 3% we now find ourselves permanently in a situation where one could say that the inflation rate has been fixed in double figures. Year after year there are predictions of improvements which are going to take place and of a revival in the economy which is just around the comer for us. Government spokesmen and newspapers sympathetic to them tell us just to be patient for a while. A typical example of this appeared in Sakerapport after the 1975 budget. The heading of that article read as follows: “Dis nou knyp. Later lag.” The trouble is that we have been feeling the pinch for a long time now but have not had any occasion to laugh. [Interjections.] A different atmosphere is now appearing among hon. members. They are trying to speak a little more openly and admitting that a problem does exist. I want to quote from Sakerapport of 29 January 1978. The headline reads: “Groot plan nou nodig. Later kan te laat wees.” That is the problem. We have come to a stage where it may be too late altogether. I think that we in this House are entitled to learn from the hon. the Minister when that big plan is going to be devised and, more important, when it is going to be implemented. This decade is nearing its end. In South Africa the ’seventies will be remembered as a decade in which, with the exception of one or two years, perhaps, the annual economic growth rate failed to reach the target set by the Economic Advisory Council and envisaged by the Economic Development Programme.

Although it has been generally accepted that the average growth rate of 6% maintained by South Africa during the sixties was not practicable during the ’seventies, the maintenance of the same level has nevertheless been urged. Hon. members will know that it was accepted in respect of the Economic Development Programme that a growth rate of 5,5%, later 5,75%, was to be maintained up to 1977. However, this growth rate is not being maintained. The backlog is growing every year. The writing has long been on the wall.

†The Government itself made sure that the target would not be reached. I am going to refer to minor examples. One aspect concerns the delay and neglect on the part of the Government to develop the homelands at the pace which the Tomlinson Commission originally envisaged. It was basically not done, because it was regarded that it would be the end of the world if one would, for instance, allow private White capital to be invested in the homelands. The formula which was applied still involved White capital in the sense that it was money from the White taxpayer, but it was an awfully slow process. It was early in the 1970s that the agency system was put into practice for the development of the homelands so that White capital could be invested there. However, in the process South Africa lost many years. This is the problem—and I do not know where the hon. member for Worcester has gone now—because all along the line the Government was busy trying to implement its political philosophy. Recently, Dr. Anton Rupert said that it was not “one man, one vote” that Africa needed, but “one man, one job”. If one really critically analyses the actions of the Government in the economic field over the past two or three decades, one will see that they were so preoccupied with ideological matters and trying to build up a political structure that they failed miserably to provide South Africa with an economic structure which would have made “one man, one job” possible.

Let us look at another example. Throughout the 1960s up to the ’70s the population of South Africa increased at a rate of approximately 500 000 per year. Common sense immediately indicated that first of all the economy should be so geared as to absorb within a generation or so approximately, but not altogether, 500 000 work-seekers. I say “not altogether”, because some people never enter the labour market. Secondly, provision should be made so that when these work-seekers do enter the labour market they must be fully equipped to become economically active, i.e. they must be properly educated and properly trained to be productive in our highly industrialized society. Unless that can happen, the population of the country, which is one of its greatest natural resources, instead of being an asset to the country, turns into its greatest liability. This is unfortunately what has been happening here, slowly but surely in South Africa. In this respect, once again, we lost many, many years in the achieving of that ideal of “one man, one job”. It was only recently that in-service training for Black workers was introduced, so that this could be organized in an orderly way in the so-called White areas. It was only in 1972 that the Bantu Education Act with its restrictions such as the pegging of the sum available at R13½ million was abolished.

I do not wish to elaborate further on these matters, except to say that the Government itself has placed many obstacles in the way of South Africa’s natural economic development.

I now want to say a few words about unemployment and, in particular, I want to highlight the plight of a certain group of people as far as unemployment is concerned. It was the hon. member for Durban Point who emphasized the other day that we should not treat these people as statistics, because to us these people are human beings. In this respect I want to highlight the plight of the White unemployed person, male or female, in the age group of over 40 years.

I want to say without fear of contradiction that on the labour market his position is even worse than that—strange as it may sound—of a Black or a Coloured person of the same age group. The reason for this is that the White labour market is very age conscious and it is extremely difficult for such a person to find either temporary or permanent employment. It is very difficult for a person who is over 40 years of age, but when one is over 53 years of age one can forget about any chance whatsoever of getting permanent employment. Then there is only the possibility of temporary employment. This is as a result of the White labour market being age conscious and placing restrictions on employment. During the past 18 months—and I think other hon. members may have experienced this as well—I, for the first time, became personally aware of this problem. Prior to that, as public representatives we faced perhaps the odd person who approached us and sought our assistance in finding employment for them, but during the last 18 months one has virtually been inundated with requests from people asking one to assist them. There was a time when one could easily place them in private enterprise, or where the Railways, the Post Office, municipalities or semi-government institutions could absorb them. Today we find this to be an altogether different situation. One realizes that, for instance on the Railways—and I am not criticizing it as such—someone over the age of 36 years cannot obtain full-time employment as a clerk. If one is 39 years old and one has worked for the Railways at an earlier stage one may be employed on a permanent basis, but if one is over 53 years of age neither the Post Office nor the Railways nor any other instance—most municipalities for example— would even offer one permanent employment. As a result of the present economic recession one finds that large business concerns are closed down and go into liquidation with the result that people employed by them suddenly become work-seekers, most of them, however, finding themselves in that unfortunate age group. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence in this respect because I believe that the time has come for an in-depth investigation into the labour opportunities available to middle-aged work-seekers. Necessary action by the Government in this respect is long overdue. In failing to solve this problem, a serious social predicament will develop in South Africa. One cannot just have a situation in which people who are skilled and can still contribute towards the general welfare of South Africa have to find themselves in this sort of dilemma merely as a result of a technicality such as their date of birth. They can in fact contribute to the welfare of South Africa.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to a report in The Argus of 14 February in which attention is drawn to the fact that this year was supposed to be the year of the consumer. Under the headline “Consumer Year looks a disaster” it is made quite clear that tremendous increases in food prices have occurred since the beginning of January. I am not utterly opposed to price increases. In fact, I realize that in some instances it has been necessary to increase the prices of, for example, farm produce and agricultural products. However, as is quite correctly stated in this report, it seems that what is meant to be the year of the consumer, is likely to turn out to be the year of disaster for consumers. I believe it is the task of the hon. the Minister of Finance to see to it that something is done in order to curb any unnecessary price increases. As far as I am concerned, the ball is in his court.

Mr. Speaker, as often in the past, we have had irrefutable proof again here today of the double talk of hon. members of the PFP as well as the NRP. The hon. member for Durban Central made a great point of alleging that the Government was making too little progress with the development of the homelands. The hon. member seems to have forgotten that not very long ago the Opposition condemned the development of the homelands in this very House. Today they take the line … [Interjections.] Today, however, they try to accuse the Government of delaying the development of the homelands. [Interjections.] Surely this is nothing but double talk on the part of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

I shall come back presently to what was said by the hon. member for Durban Central and I shall elaborate on certain aspects of the things he discussed. Patriotism, and more specifically economic patriotism, plays an extremely important part in our economic and financial set-up today. Disparaging comments on our country’s economy are a dividend in the hands of our enemies, and we have many enemies. I want to repeat: Let the Opposition criticize as the hon. member for Durban Point has just done. It is his right to do so and I have no quarrel with that. They can attack us, fight with us and criticize us as far as certain policy aspects are concerned. They can differ with us and point out to us where we make mistakes, but when we achieve economic and financial success, they must also tell this to the outside world. No Official Opposition has ever suffered or lost face through mentioning Government achievements of world importance.

I want to refer to only one or two examples in this connection. We are now paying back our foreign short-term loans. Every such loan is being paid back, and this is something which amazes our friends as well as our enemies abroad. It is a success we are achieving in spite of a difficult economic climate. How are we repaying those loans? They are not being repaid by means of other loans, but from our current account. How do we manage that? I want to state as a fact that it is the result of team work pure and simple, a national effort, an en masse demonstration such as the financial world has seldom seen.

The hon. the Minister of Finance used the dissecting knife when he introduced his budget last year and he cut deep. He exposed the root of the trouble. In his budget speech he was frank and open in what he told us. In spite of criticism from that side he pointed out the problems to us. I quote his words from Hansard, 1977, col. 4659—

This was not a popular statement for the hon. the Minister to make. In fact, it is a statement which is not readily accepted by the public outside. He went on to say (col. 4662)—

He was therefore asking for a shift in demand, a change of habit. The inhabitants of South Africa must now be thanked for having heeded this appeal by the hon. the Minister. Surely the sacrifices have not proved too great, but the fruits we are reaping now are very gratifying. Economic patriotism has been the decisive factor in this connection. If we continue along this road in the future, resisting the lure of the flesh-pots of Egypt, we shall never have any trouble with the current account of our balance of payment.

I want to advocate that we should employ all media to promote the “Buy South African” campaign and to bring our economy on an even keel. Even the official Opposition has a task here. They must stop their destructive criticism for a change and help to build a sound and prosperous South Africa, as true patriots would do.

Our foreign capital inflow has been largely restricted. There is not much to rely on. In spite of this, we negotiated a whole series of internal loans last week. So we have not yet been paralysed as regards the availability of capital. However, we are certainly more dependent on purposeful saving methods and a conscious desire to save. I know it may sound superficial, in the circumstances in which we live, to speak of attempts to save money, and especially of sustained attempts to save money, but I want to allege once again that we South Africans, with our inherent and proud patriotism in the economic field, will keep a tight control over matters and make a success of this as well. Once again there will have to be an adaptation in consumption. Do not assume that everything must necessarily be spent. First save and then spend. Let this be our slogan for the future.

I want to refer briefly to something which was mentioned by the hon. member for Randburg last week. I want to discuss the loss of revenue on the part of local authorities because of the exemption from property rates applicable to State-owned land. In this connection I want to refer more specifically to Pretoria. I want to discuss Pretoria in greater detail because Pretoria is more drastically affected by the measure than perhaps any other city. I want to make it clear that I am not unconditionally advocating the levying of normal rates on property owned by the State. On the contrary. I believe in the principle that a higher authority—in this case, the first level of Government—should not pay taxes to a lower authority, the third level. However, Government buildings and services are there for the benefit of all taxpayers, i.e. of the national taxpayers. Not a single Government building has been erected for the exclusive use of the payer of urban property rates. The exceptions may be the local magistrate’s office, the local post office and the police station, which belong to the community concerned. However, I want to leave the matter at that.

Pretoria has a unique problem or unique problems in this respect, and I just want to point out these problems very briefly. In the first place, I want to refer to certain figures, and then I shall try to prove my statement on the basis of these. Pretoria’s total revenue from municipal rates in 1976 was R20½ million. The total valuation of non-taxable State property was: (a) for land, R260 million and (b) for buildings, R252 million. The total municipal rates payable on the valuation of the land, at the present tariff in Pretoria of 1,92 cents per rand from 1 July to 30 September 1975 and 2,1732 cents per rand from 1 October to the end of that financial year, was R5½ million. We receive a fire-fighting contribution of R150 000 from the State which would not have been payable if State-owned properties had been taxable. As far as Pretoria is concerned, the contribution of the State is R1 009 480—this is according to the formula: 25% less 5/100. This shows us the problem that Pretoria has to contend with.

In the second place, Pretoria is the city which is suffering most from urbanization at present. In this connection I shall quote statistics in respect of the period 1951 to 1960. The tendency indicated by this is still continuing. The White population increased as follows: in Johannesburg 13%, Cape Town 14%, Durban 28% and Pretoria 37%. In respect of all races, the population increase was as follows: in Johannesburg 25%, Cape Town 28%, Durban 36% and Pretoria 48%. Where such a population explosion takes place, one is forced to provide streets, flood-water drainage, fire-fighting services, ambulance services, recreational facilities, etc., which must naturally be financed from property rates alone, and this can be described as dead or inactive capital. A tremendous burden of dead capital is therefore being created, and this burden rests exclusively on the shoulders of the inhabitants of the city concerned. The new inhabitant of the city must, for example, have water, sanitary facilities, electricity, transport, a hygienic environment, etc., the moment he arrives. These needs must be met immediately.

In the third place, every property, whether State-owned or privately owned, contributes to the expenditure incurred by the local authority to provide for the various community needs. This, too, holds benefits for all. If one group is singled out, therefore, and exempted from taxation, it simply means that the others have to bear the expenditure incurred on behalf of that group in addition to their own responsibility. Pretoria has long and gladly been doing this, but I really want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to have this matter finalized now. We know that a committee under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Finance is investigating the matter and will publish a report. May I ask that the committee should expedite its work and bring it to an early conclusion. The inhabitants of Pretoria can no longer meet this additional obligation without assistance. May I express the hope that the recommendations of the committee and the eventual determination of a more reasonable and more equitable formula will soon be announced by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my hon. colleague sincerely on a well-thought-out speech. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not at present in the House because, with respect, he reminds me of a rooster who finds himself amongst scattered grains of maize and pecks here and there without going into detail on any aspect. I have found over the past three sessions that the hon. member for Yeoville has the habit of making a number of popular statements and then simply leaving them hanging in the air. I want to refer this evening to only one of his statements and analyse it in depth, namely the separation of spouses’ incomes. This is one of his hardy annuals. He referred to it again this afternoon in the House. I hope and trust that he will make fewer of these popular statements in future, and instead analyse one of these matters in greater depth.

The acceptance of the married couple as the tax unit comes under fire from time to time, as occurred last year and again this afternoon, from the hon. members for Houghton and Yeoville. I am pleased that the hon. member for Houghton is in the House. Let me quote what she had to say about this last year. (Hansard, 8 June 1977, col. 9562)—

That is the hon. the Minister of Finance—

That report, of course, recommends that the existing system be retained. The hon. member for Yeoville had the following to say in this connection. (Hansard, 22 June 1977, col. 11159)—

On page 17 of this year’s Order Paper there is notice of a motion by the hon. member for Berea. It is a pity that he is not present this afternoon. The motion reads as follows—

The most important motivation for separation of spouses’ incomes is that the revenue of married women is taxed at rates which are too high, and that as a result, the existing system of taxation limits the entry of married women to the labour market. The acceptance of the married woman as the tax unit is based on the principle of the ability to pay, taking into account the means of the unit which has earned and can dispose of the income. Usually the joint earnings of the husband and wife are utilized for the benefit of the joint household. It cannot be denied that there are savings when two people, for example a married couple, live together, and therefore there is no unfairness. In a system which applies progressive scales of taxation, every additional increase in income, irrespective of the source, is subject to progressively higher tax scales. This corresponds with the principle of the capacity to pay, taking into account the total revenue at the disposal of the tax unit. I believe that from the point of view of sound tax administration and justice to taxpayers, the present system of joining the income of spouses is preferable to one of separation of income with all the problems and irregularities that entails. I believe that just like the hon. members for Houghton, Berea and Yeoville, the general public is often misinformed about the whole matter. That is why I should like to analyse the situation in greater depth. If one compares the taxation payable by a married couple where both spouses have an income, with the position if the income was separated, it is of importance to note that a married couple in the lower and middle income groups, viz. up to R12 000, are at present better off tax wise. It is only the married couples in the higher and particularly the very highest income group, viz. higher than R18 000, who are worse off. I am going to give hon. members a few examples.

A married couple with an income of R6 500 pays R150 less. The hon. member for Houghton must take note of that—Mr. Speaker, I am really speaking to her through you and I want to repeat what I have just said because I fear she did not hear it—that a married couple with an income of R6 500 pay R150 less in tax. A married couple with an income of R10 000 pays R12 less. A married couple with an income of R12 000 pays R32 less, a married couple with an income of R14 000 pays R67 more in tax. A married couple with a joint income of R18 000 pays R342 more and a married couple with a joint income of R25 000 pays R1 087 more. I am aware that different combinations will yield differing results, but basically, what this amounts to is that the lower and middle income groups gain by it and the higher income groups lose by it. Let us look at the percentages of households in the various income categories where both spouses are economically active. We find that the cases in which the taxable income of the household is less than R5 000 per annum constitute 20% of the total. Those earning between R5 000 and R10 000 per annum constitute 48%; between R10 000 and R15 000 per annum, 53%; between R15 000 and R20 000, 35% and above R20 000, only 25%. From this, therefore, it is clear that the majority of married women do in fact benefit under the present system of taxation.

Furthermore, it is often maintained that the main reason why married women do not work is the existing system of taxation. In the course of a study by Dr. Dina Wessels, women were asked what steps could be taken to cause them to return to their professions. Fewer than 5% mentioned the system of joint taxation as a reason. In the same report it was also found that the reasons why women work are the following: In the age group 15 to 24 years, 98% were financial reasons; boredom 0% and professional pride 2%. I do not want to weary the House by mentioning all the different age categories. Suffice it to say that as the ages increase, the percentage of financial reasons drop. I shall mention the following two cases: In the age group 15 to 24 years, 98% are financial reasons and in the age group 50 to 54 years they have dropped to 67%. Boredom as a reason increases from 0% to 13% and professional pride from 2% to 20%. It was also found that financial reasons played a greater role in the lower and middle income groups than in the higher income groups. In the former groups— as I have already indicated—there are no higher taxes.

In evaluating the justification or necessity to deviate from an established and proven system, many aspects must be taken into account and I fear that those hon. members are failing to do so. One of the aspects to be taken into account, for example, is whether an alternative system will not perhaps cause more unfairness than it eliminates. The second example I want to mention in this regard is the effect an alternative system would have on the tax yield. In the first place, the separation of the income of spouses for tax purposes could lead to inequality in the taxes payable by families with equal incomes but with varying contributions to that income by husband and wife. I note that the hon. member for Yeoville is back in the House and I think he ought to pay some attention to the statement I am making here. In case the hon. member did not hear what I said, I shall repeat it briefly. An inequality in taxes payable by families with equal income may be caused by varying compositions of that income. To prove this, I should like to quote three examples. In the first instance, the man’s income is R3 500 and the woman’s is R3 500. Their total income is R7 000 and the tax payable is R687. The total income of a second married couple is also R7 000, but the man’s income is R4 000 and the woman earns R3 000 while their tax amounts to R732. The third couple also earns a total income of R7 000, but the man’s income is R5 000, the woman’s income is R2 000 and in this case the tax is no less than R844. In other words, the first couple pays R155 less in tax than the third couple, despite the fact that both spouses work and their total income is precisely the same.

The second example I could mention is that a family with one breadwinner has to pay more tax on a given amount than a family with two breadwinners. Therefore dissatisfaction could be justified in both of these cases.

Consequently it would not be justified to differentiate too much between families merely on the basis that the wife works, because then there would be discrimination. Against whom would we be discriminating? In the first place, against the family in which the wife is unable to work due to circumstances. I have in mind a farmer’s wife, for example. In the second place, in the case of a breadwinner who supplements his salary by working overtime on Sundays, for example, or in any other way. In the normal course it would have been a sound principle to make any given income taxable, irrespective of private and domestic expenditure. However, it is admitted that if a married woman has to leave her home to earn an income, the family has to do without her domestic services and is therefore put to additional expense which would otherwise not have been the case. Consequently, although the income of the family unit is supplemented, it would be unfair not to admit that the additional income is gross and not net. That is another justification for deducting a certain amount for this, as is being done at present.

The basis on which a sound tax structure must be built may not be weakened by affording relief on, for example, social or other grounds. This basis must be established on sound tax principles. Rather than erode the tax basis by separating the income of spouses, every effort ought to be made to achieve the ideal of a general reduction in marginal tax scales. In this way all sectors of the population can benefit and at the same time complaints about the high marginal scales that apply in the high income groups due to the joining of spouses incomes, could be accommodated.

Therefore the solution should rather be sought in a general revision of tax scales, but I want to stress the fact that this final aspect is a matter which will, in the first place, have to be determined by budgetary requirements.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield has made a spirited case for the retention of joint taxation of salaries of spouses. It is possible to argue this case with great conviction from both sides. In fact, we had a very spirited argument in favour of the separation of spouses’ income in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Pinetown. I believe one can go on in this manner. However, the hon. the Minister has already given his decision on the arguments as advanced on both sides in the findings of the inter-departmental committee published about two years ago. The decision is quite simply that the hon. the Minister needs the taxation. That is the final decision and the final result of the arguments. While much can be said for both sides of the argument, the decisive factor was simply whether or not the hon. the Minister needed the revenue!

I want to return to the budget. I believe it is right to say that the budget—which of course includes the Part Appropriation—and the debates on these two issues should serve as a means to Parliament to examine, not just the current financial situation and the immediate policy objectives which arises from that situation, but also to measure the country’s economic performance against the long-term compulsions imposed by its population growth and the corresponding need for food, shelter, essential goods, services and employment. What can we use as a yardstick to test these longer-term needs and objectives? Several speakers on this side of the House have pointed to the necessity of referring back to the economic development plan in order to test the budget, not only against the current needs of the financial situation, but also against the longer-term needs, the foreseeable short- and medium-term needs of the country.

In the light of such an economic development plan we must be able to assess what overall Government policies, not merely the short term ones or just the practical expediencies and adaptations, are needed in order to achieve these fundamental objectives.

We believe that the hon. the Minister should attempt in dealing with the budget debate not only to deal with the matters of current financial significance, but also to relate his budget planning and his presentation of his budget to these longer-term needs. While the hon. the Minister has been giving us a closer insight into the workings of his mind in the preparation of his budget, he has so far, I believe, not been prepared to relate his budget to these longer-term compulsions in our national life. He has not been prepared to do this, but we urge him to do so. We believe it is highly relevant to the kind of debate which takes place in this Parliament that we should in fact be able not only to relate budgeting and financial control by the Minister to these immediate financial requirements and compulsions, but also to show the country how these fit into a longer-term plan and how they influence progress in the direction of long-term planning.

This debate has been distinguished by two features. There have been those who have tried to talk about the financial aspects of the Part Appropriation Bill and others who have tried to seek the opportunity to discuss party political matters. These issues tend to be so remote from each other in the way they are treated in this kind of debate that it is almost impossible to bring them together. Nevertheless, I believe that if the hon. the Minister would attempt to do what I have suggested, viz. to relate his budget to the economic development plan, he would in fact be relating the budget to the longer term policies of the Government. He would have to test whether the budget was anywhere near to achieving the minimum requirements imposed by the economic development plan. He would thereby be fundamentally implicating the overall Government policies in respect not just of economics, but in respect of social advancement and the political implications of that social advancement. Thereby he would bring together in a single debate not just the economic and financial issues, but also the racial questions and the great question as to how we are to organize our society in a way in which we will be able to maintain our growth, to create opportunities for our people and to create a peaceful society in South Africa. The budget is not remote from these things and I believe it is time for these two great aspects of our parliamentary affairs to be brought together in a single debate.

I now want to discuss another matter. It is perhaps a minor matter in the broader perspective of the financial plan. I believe, however, that it is nevertheless a matter of some importance. I want to refer in particular to the book trade in South Africa. I know that I need not persuade the hon. the Minister that a book is more than a pair of boots. A book is a part of our cultural life. It is as much a part of the cultural development of a nation as are such other arts, the theatre and painting. However, it fails to enjoy the kind of support and sympathy which the State gives from time to time to the other arts. These other arts are often assisted by the State. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is time to take a hard look at the book-selling trade as the distributors of a particularly valuable asset in our national life. If one looks at a typical high quality book for sale in this country and assesses the cost of production and eventual cost of sale, one finds that the book trade operates on a very precarious budget. I have some figures here, but I do not want to go into too much detail. Assuming that the cost of a book published in the United Kingdom was £5, roughly R8 in South African currency. On that price would be paid for post and packaging something like R1,60, making a total of R9,60. There would be a 15% surcharge, adding a further R1,44; there would be the Post Office handling charges, unless the books came in very small parcels. In this connection I may say that the book selling trade is grateful for a certain concession which the hon. the Minister has made.

In the case of high quality books, the fact has to be taken into account that they exist in large variety and have to be kept in large variety to satisfy the customers and would therefore probably have a shelf life, each book on average, of about one year. At the current rate of interest, in the case of the particular book we are discussing, this would add a further R1,50. To all this must be added the cost of renting premises, paying for staff and meeting administrative charges. We now come to a total cost on the basis of the original R8 of something like R13,20. That book would tend to sell in South Africa at something around R14 or even slightly less, which leaves a paper-thin margin of profit on which the bookseller has to operate. Bookselling has become a very precarious trade and there is grave anxiety within this trade as to whether it will survive. There comes now the further question of retail price maintenance. This would simply mean that certain people who are not booksellers, but who are traders in other things, would be allowed to cream off the most popular books, very often reprints, but books which because of films or other forms of stimulus suddenly become popular and are easily saleable. This would mean that the booksellers would be deprived of the cream and would have to attempt to maintain the sort of standard which is required in the interest of good bookselling or in the interest of the reading public. Experience in Australia, where they abandoned retail price maintenance for the protection of the trade, has led to total disorder in the bookselling market. It has not led to a reduction in prices; prices remained roughly where they were. But it has led to a total decline in the trading of books. In Sweden, which is another country where the retail price maintenance of books was abolished about six years ago, the trade has gone steadily down and a point has now been reached where the Swedish Government, in the interest of maintaining this valuable asset in the cultural life of a civilized nation, has in fact had to subsidize the publication of books. It has had to come to the aid of the bookselling trade with the aid of subsidies.

As my time has almost expired I merely wish to say that the hon. the Minister, whom I know needs no persuasion as to the valuable part which books play in the civilized life of a country, should look at this problem. It is a grave problem as we face nothing less than the destruction of a most valuable asset in the cultural life of the nation. *

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Constantia spoke about the book trade, and in the nature of the matter I have no fault to find with that. I believe that we all love a good book and we should like that book to be sold as cheaply as possible. I believe that the hon. the Minister will give attention to the ideas he expressed.

At the start of his speech the hon. member expressed the opinion that the hon. the Minister of Finance ought not to budget for present requirements only, but that there should be an economic development plan and that budgeting should be in respect of the long-term as well. Then, too, the hon. member finds it difficult to understand that politics should be discussed in a debate such as this. My reply is that the budget is not aimed solely at the existing needs of the country, but also keeps pace with the economic development of the country. As such, it is impossible to separate the political development of the country from the economic development. After all, we have already been told by the Opposition during the Second Reading that it is the internal factors of the country that are responsible for our economic situation. This very afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville said that our political situation was responsible for our economic situation in this country. He then suggested certain financial measures with a view to alleviating the political situation and solving the political problems. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that our image abroad was being harmed by our internal political situation. I am of the opinion—in fact I am convinced of it—that this debate has shown us the full reality of the political set-up in South Africa.

That reality is that we have on the one side a Government which sees to growth and progress and strength, a Government which is aware of the responsibility of government, a Government which is carrying out its policy, a Government which seeks for answers to the problems of South Africa. On the other hand the debate has also shown us that we are dealing with an Official Opposition which does not have the same progress and vitality, but which is experiencing virtually a total collapse in its ranks. I want to make the statement that this is the case because our Opposition parties have their heads in the clouds, because they have only a vague understanding of the problems of South Africa and because in many respects they are being wilful about our problems and the issues at stake.

I believe that if we want to solve the problems of South Africa—the economic, the financial and political problems of South Africa—we must keep both feet on our South African soil—and I stress “South African soil”—and consider our problems and receive the message of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is why I am unable to agree with the hon. member for Constantia, when he says that our economic and political affairs cannot be discussed in one and the same debate. In my opinion these two things simply cannot be separated from each other. I believe that if were to obtain support from the Opposition for the implementation of the Government’s policy, and if they were to spend less time trying to undermine it and were rather to make a positive contribution— and they are fully entitled to criticize—we could solve South Africa’s problems and make this country a happy fatherland. [Interjections.]

I believe that we in South Africa have a choice between one of two political systems. On the one hand we can choose a multiracial political system. On the other, we can choose a multinational political system. There is absolutely no alternative political system for South Africa falling between those two. This had been very clearly proved by hon. members from the ranks of the Opposition. It is these two political systems—the one of multiracialism and the other of multi-nationalism—which are as different as day and night. They are two entirely different political systems, two systems which are absolutely irreconcilable with each other. I want us to analyse this today. In the first place, we must consider their point of departure. What is the point of departure of the political system of multi-nationalism? We must take note of the method adopted to make that system a reality in South Africa. However, the most important point is that we should ascertain where that political system takes us. When one looks at the point of departure of multiracialism, one sees that the PFP, which is a champion of such a policy— after all, that is the political system for South Africa which they are striving to bring about—adopts the premise that there will be one integrated State and one policy. If that is one’s policy, one’s political system which one wants to establish in South Africa, it must be one integrated State and one must accept people as they are. One draws a line through their culture and all their traditions. One brings them together in one State. Surely, then, one must be honest in wanting to carry it out and one must not try to throw up smokescreens around the system. One must not try to come up with qualified franchise; one must have the courage of one’s convictions and say: My political system for South Africa is one of multiracialism and I want to carry it out. I believe in one integrated State.

There is a second point of departure. If one accepts multiracialism as the PFP does, one must be prepared to say that all races must be able to decide on all matters by way of majority vote. Again, one must come forward with honesty and sincerity and again one must not beat about the bush with qualified franchise and the exclusion of certain people. One must say that in this discussion of this matter of common interest, all races will be present and a decision will be taken by way of majority vote. This is the point of departure of the political system of multiracialism.

As against that we have the political system of multi-nationalism, in which we adopt the basic standpoint that every nation must retain its say in full. These are the two political systems which are irreconcilable with each other in South Africa. That is why we are dealing with an Opposition like the Official Opposition. They want to undermine South Africa’s image because they do not want to accept the system of multi-nationalism. On the other hand, however, they do not have the courage to come forward and say that multiracialism is their standpoint and premise. If you are unable to find each other on this point, and if the policy of multi-nationalism is not acceptable, we in South Africa will continue to struggle with our problems. We must reach the situation in which every nation retains the say over itself. What is the method in accordance with which this policy must be carried out?

Is that your policy now?

I shall come to our policy. First, I want to ask: If one states that one’s policy is one of multiracialism, how is one to carry it out? One must have a method, a political procedure or channel in terms of which one wants to implement it. I find it striking that in Die Burger of 6 September 1977, a day after the founding of the PFP, it was reported that the leader of the party, Mr. Eglin, expressly said—

He went on to refer to his old party, the PRP. There are many old parties and the hon. members’ party is also part of that and then there is the hon. member for Yeoville as well. The hon. member came here in 1974 as a member of the UP. In the following year, in 1975, he had his own party, the Reformist Party. In 1976 he belonged to the PRP and since 1977 he has belonged to the PFP. [Interjections.] I believe the hon. member for Yeoville can lay claim to a world record. I now come back to the report in Die Burger from which I quote as follows—

Then he goes on to indicate the method by which he will carry out his multiracial policy. He states—

We had an election on 30 November 1977, and after all, that hon. member went to the voters with that method of his. However, the voters rejected it. They rejected it because if one states that the political system which one advocates is multiracialism and one comes up with this method of carrying it out, then one and one will never make two. One will then never get the right answer. In other words, we are not dealing here with an honest method in accordance with which the PFP wants to carry out its policy of multiracialism in South Africa.

In the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Rondebosch said the following, and I quote (Hansard, 2 February 1977, col. 353)—

That statement by the hon. member for Rondebosch, if he thinks about it very carefully, does not fit in with the political system which his party advocates, that of multiracialism, because he is speaking about effective political participation.

But surely there is no such thing. If one has accepted multiracialism as one’s political system, one must say that there is one common voter’s roll, and if everyone complies with the necessary qualifications they appear on that voter’s roll and they vote for one integrated State and one political dispensation. One cannot beat around the bush in politics. There is honesty and sincerity and there is a policy which one must carry out in accordance with a certain method. An hon. member asked about our policy by way of an interjection.

The NP has no reason to apologize for the implementation of its policy of multi-nationalism. It has done so consistently. We can point this evening to the dividends this has paid in the sense that we have two independent republics in this country, and there are going to be others, and we shall continue to carry out our Bantu homeland policy.

In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Orange Grove put the following question to an hon. member on this side: Have the Indians and the Coloureds full citizenship? If that hon. member knew the politics of South Africa very well—I do not know whether he does—and if he were to look at the constitutional development of the Coloured in South Africa, he would know that throughout the history of South Africa up to 1948 it was not possible to give a reply to this question. There was no reply. What was the position? I do not want to repeat it this afternoon. Hon. members know that some Coloureds were on the common voter’s roll and how they were represented in this House. Let us be honest this afternoon and reproach no one as regards this situation. If we go back in history and look at the constitutional development of the Coloureds, we must agree that the facts indicate that there was a search for an honest, just solution, and that is why the NP came to the fore and in the 30 years of its rule carried out its policy of multi-nationalism in regard to the Coloureds by, firstly, accepting them as a separate population group in this country. However, that is what the PFP refuses to do. Because they refuse to do this, they are doing this population a disservice in South Africa. However, this party went further. It came forward with definitive proposals in regard to the Coloureds. It approached this population group and said: “Here is our hand of friendship. It is not only a hand which you must take, it is a hand which wants to give you opportunities at the constitutional level.” We have seen how it has developed. It has developed so far that in the recent election we gave the voters of South Africa the opportunity to decide on a new constitutional dispensation for the whole Republic of South Africa; and it was accepted. This afternoon I want to challenge the Opposition to attack the new dispensation among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. I challenge them to point to the weak points—they will find no weak points in it. [Interjections.] Why have they never, from the time we started until now, availed themselves of the many opportunities to do so? They were unable to attack it because the effect of this policy is that a White citizen of South Africa can face a Coloured citizen and say to him: “What I am among my people and what I can achieve among my people, you can be and achieve among your people without one of us dominating the other. You retain your right of self-determination and your opportunities just as I, as a White person, retain mine.” I want hon. members opposite to refute that. Since we began, they have had opportunity after opportunity to do so, but up to now they have failed to do so. They are unable to do so. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Orange Grove put the question to another hon. member whether the Coloured and the Indian have full citizenship in South Africa. I want to tell him that under the National Party’s new dispensation which the Government will implement, the Coloured and Indian will have their full citizenship in South Africa. The Whites will have it, the Coloureds will have it and the Indians will have it.

In one State?

Hon. members opposite must refrain from putting words into these people’s mouths. If they love South Africa, if they want South Africa’s economic problems to be solved, if they are in earnest in wanting to develop the image of South Africa, if they are really concerned about the fatherland, they must not put words into peoples mouths. They must not help people from the frying-pan into the fire. They must be honest and sincere. I want to tell them: “Carry out your policy of multiracialism, but let this party and the Government continue with its policy of multi-nationalism which it will carry out in respect of these people in honesty and sincerity.”

What does the hon. member for Port Natal say?

However, we have not only come up with a constitutional development. The question was put to the hon. member for Port Natal and he replied to it. I want to say to the hon. members this afternoon that the reply to that is that under the new constitutional dispensation the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians will have full citizenship in this country.

But what did the hon. member say?

I want hon. members opposite to refute that. They have had a great deal of opportunity to do so.

Under this Government we have also had the further development of a situation of coexistence in this country. The Government has given its official word that we shall move away from discrimination. What, however, do we have on that side of the House? We have a leader who, when his party was founded, expressly said “The party’s fourth policy standpoint is an open community in which all people will have equal rights to public facilities.” He went on to say: “However, the emphasis must fall on individuals and groups determining their own relationships with each other without being dictated to by the State.” In other words, he drew a line through the State. He wants an open community. Does he think that he will be able to maintain order then? Does he think that he will be able to preserve stability in South Africa?

Yes, of course. Very definitely.

I have one prayer as far as my children and the future of the country are concerned, and that is that Providence should preserve this country’s Government from ever falling into the hands of the Opposition. The open community advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, a community in which the State controls virtually nothing, is heading for chaos and disorder.

Among you, yes.

Among us? Looking at the hon. member, I must say that he looks in good shape and that he looks very well in South Africa. I think that when he goes to bed tonight he will thank the Lord that the NP Government is governing the country. We shall continue to move away from discrimination as our affairs develop, but we shall not simply throw open doors indiscriminately, thus causing the ruin of nations in this country, as those hon. members want us to. We shall establish a peaceful, stable and orderly society. We have developed our policy further. Have those hon. members looked at the constitutional development which has taken place? I have said that there is coexistence in this country. We have reached the stage—and I am referring specifically to the Whites and the Coloureds this afternoon—at which we live together in this country. We work shoulder to shoulder in the interests of this country against foreign interference. I know Coloureds who displayed a far better attitude towards South Africa abroad than many of those hon. members do. I make this statement and I am prepared to go and test it outside the House. I shall bring to those hon. members people from the ranks of the Coloured population who stand firm behind South Africa and who are prepared to defend South Africa. These people do not parrot criticism of South Africa abroad, nor are they prepared to sell South Africa down the river. [Interjections.]

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

No, I do not have the time to answer questions now.

On the part of the Coloureds there is coexistence with the Whites as regards our economic problems. Furthermore there is understanding among the Coloured population, because they do not believe the stories dished up by those hon. members to the effect that our economic problems are due to internal factors, as those hon. members call them. We have people among the Coloureds who stand with us in developing the image of South Africa. What is more, we also have Coloureds who stand shoulder to shoulder with the White soldier to secure and defend South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

There have been discussions between the leaders of the Coloureds and the hon. the Prime Minister. I read in the newspaper that one of the Coloureds said that he doubted whether the Whites would accept the new dispensation. If those Coloured leaders do a somersault shortly afterwards, the question occurs: Who is it who put ideas in those people’s heads? Who is it who states that? After their discussions with the Prime Minister, those leaders walked out saying: Here is a new dispensation for us which we accept and which we are going to carry out. I ask those hon. members to go home and consider the role they are playing in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we carry out these two concepts, namely multiracialism and multi-nationalism in South Africa, our methods must be right because we must see where we are going. If we carry out the system of multiracialism, the White man will be rejected in his own country and his political self-preservation will disappear, because by doing so one rejects the group culture peculiar to the Whites. The policy of multi-nationalism, however, is our aim because we want every nation in this country to continue to exist and to preserve that which belongs to him. I believe that if we all stand together to carry out this policy, we shall be able to establish a fine and happy South Africa for the future. However, if we play with South Africa, as some political parties are playing with the country, then we shall ultimately destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, is the same as that of so many of his fellow-party members. That problem is the false notion that only one of two options is open to South Africa: Either total integration or totally separate States. He is unable, however, to see the essence of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy, because in terms of that policy three separate Parliaments are envisaged within a single State. In other words here we already have that nucleus of three different groups that will have to co-exist in one State. This is not multiracialism, but a unitary State, which, however, need not lead to multiracialism. Nor need it be the kind of state which that hon. member fears. That hon. member does not realize that there is a third option. It is an option which retains the group identity, but which unites groups in matters of common concern, with loyalty to a single state. This is the idea of confederation which we advocate. This is the idea which the Government rejects, but eventually thinking people in South Africa will realize that one is able to retain one’s identity, but that the machinery has to be created for dealing with common interests.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned I had said that the fatal flaw in Government thinking was that there is a choice only between two extremes, i.e. between multiracialism and total integration or total partition as the alternative, separation or separatism. Whatever you like to call it, it remains the old philosophy of apartheid, only in a new dress and with new names. I had started to make the point that there was, in fact, a third choice which I believed was the ultimate choice which South Africa would have to take. I had made the point that the three-Parliament system of the Government, within a unitary system, was in fact a unitary form of Government with one State President, one patriotism and one State system, only with three organs of government in which persons could participate in matters concerning themselves. We believe the third road is the road of pluralism in its true meaning. I am not referring to the pluralism associated with the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations … [Interjections.] … which is in fact concerned with only one population group.

He represents and administers one population group. That is not, however, pluralism. That is the exact antithesis, the exact opposite of pluralism. It is singularism; it is the isolation of a population group. We believe that one can maintain the identity of population groups, their local autonomy and self-government over matters intimate to themselves, but that there must be a linking mechanism at the centre in which responsibility for matters of common concern can be exercised jointly.

That is the bull’s eye.

Yes. This is the bull’s eye. The PFP believes that the system must be based on a common voters’ roll, a common political control which, in effect, means majority control—in other words, majority rule. The hon. member for Groote Schuur says it is the bull’s eye. Yes, once one has majority rule, those who are the majority exercise that majority rule and it becomes domination. Similarly the Government believes that there should be rule by one group. They will evolve structures and systems for consultation between the three Parliaments, for devolving power, but they shy away from the central fundamental element, the linking mechanism through which different population groups or communities can participate in decision-making on matters which concern them all. Tonight is not the opportunity to deal with this matter.

In the few minutes at my disposal …

I am glad you cannot continue.

Yes. My hon. friend is very glad I cannot continue, but there will be other opportunities for me to deal with the matter. I want to deal, instead, with the other statement made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. He said: “Die volk is teen buitelandse inmenging verenig.” In this context I want to deal with an event which took place outside South Africa, but which I believe has a message and a lesson for South Africa.

I refer, of course, to the progress which has been made towards agreement in the negotiations for an internal settlement in Rhodesia. I want first to make it clear that I am referring to the negotiations for a settlement and not to the contents of that settlement. This is an agreement between Rhodesian and Rhodesian and it is not my business and it is not South Africa’s business what the content of that agreement is. What I want to say, however, is something that, to my mind, has not yet been said clearly enough. On behalf of the NRP and I believe also on behalf of most South Africans, I want to congratulate all the parties who have been negotiating in Rhodesia, who have sat around a table and who have demonstrated to the world that there is an alternative to settlement through the barrel of a gun, that there is an alternative to settlement by violence. That alternative is to sit round a table, to thrash out your problems and ultimately to find agreement. I believe not many people believed it would be possible there. I congratulate them on having gone a long way, and I hope the whole way, to achieving what seemed impossible: a basis for a settlement by peaceful means, a settlement towards which the peoples of South West Africa of all colours and races also made their own progress and reached their own agreement.

I want tonight to address a special appeal to the nations of the West. I speak as one opposed to the Government, one who has been in opposition for 22 years. Therefore I do not speak as a Government stooge, but as a South African saying what I believe the vast, overwhelming majority of South Africans feel. I want to say to the West: “Please keep your noses out of this.” The West should keep their noses out of Rhodesia and South West Africa. I appeal to them …

South West as well?

Yes, South West as well. I appeal to the West to let us, not South Africa, but the peoples of South West Africa settle their own destiny.

Hear, hear!

But the West initiated a settlement.

I do not care who initiated it. I believe the peoples of a country, of a territory, should settle their own destiny, and as Rhodesia and South West Africa is settling their own destinies, I believe South Africa must settle its own destiny.

Hear, hear!

I appeal to thinking peoples overseas not to allow their Governments to become the stooges of communist puppets, which is what is happening. To take the line that they will sabotage or not accept an internal agreement in Rhodesia because the known, identified terrorists and murderers who call themselves “Patriotic Front” demand it of them, or to say that they will not accept a settlement in South West Africa unless the terrorists, the murderers of innocent civilians, are satisfied with that settlement, is to become the spokesmen of the puppets of communism. I do not believe that is the role which the Free World should play in the settlement and the creation of peace in Southern Africa.

In the time I have had available, I have tried to say this from my own heart as I believe most South Africans believe.

You can have another 10 minutes.

I believe what I say cuts across all the lines of political thought, although I was surprised at the interjection I got from my right about South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Disgusted by it.

Finally, I want to end where I started by saying that I believe that this has a lesson for us in South Africa. [Interjections.] To my interjecting friends in the PFP let me say the lesson is that one does not solve problems by national conventions, television spotlights and the sweeping up of emotions at large public gatherings. One gets it by group talking to group, by a leader talking to a leader around or across a table. We in this party believe that negotiation should be face to face, group to group, at the same time recognizing the identity and the interests of the different groups who are negotiating … [Interjections.] … and not as some hotchpotch, free-for-all national convention which fails to recognize the ethnic identities of the communities that make out our plural society. [Interjections.] The Turnhalle talks was exactly that. It was ethnic group to ethnic group, talking as groups. The national convention we have heard about is one which denies race identity.

Are you opposed to a national convention?

I am not opposed to negotiation, but to a free-for-all which denies communities the opportunity to talk to other communities across a table. I believe there is a lesson contained in it for the Government as well. Had they, in putting forward their three Parliaments, negotiated first instead of creating it first in the Cabinet of a White party, had they in in evolving it first talked around a table group to group, there would have been a much greater possibility of its success.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to dwell for a moment on the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point, and after that I should like to exchange a few words about the arguments which the hon. member for Yeoville raised. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we on this side of the House have no objection to the congratulations which he expressed towards Rhodesia. On the contrary, I can assure him that we on this side of the House are of the same opinion as he and his party. However, I want to tell the hon. member that what happened in Rhodesia— and I am not referring to the content of the settlement—corresponds precisely to the views which this side of the House has always held. For the first time in the history of Africa, the ideal situation has been achieved in two respects in Rhodesia. Firstly, it was possible for negotiations to take place with people who advocated Black nationalism and the Black consciousness idea, while the advocates of the Black power idea, viz. the Patriotic Front, were excluded from the discussions. The difference between “Black Power” and “Black consciousness” is clearly illustrated by the situation in Rhodesia. It is also clearly illustrated in our endeavours as far as SWA is concerned. It must be a lesson for us, the Whites, the different Black peoples and population groups of other colours in South Africa, that those who strive towards “Black Power” must know that in that process there is no place for White nationalism and those who are seeking “White Power” must know that there is no place for Black nationalisms in that concept. There is no place for those two as far as South Africa is concerned.

That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we associate ourselves with his congratulations towards those who played a part in the settlement agreement and its motivation. However, this has always been the philosophy of those on this side of the House. Now, if the hon. member says that he concedes that we on this side of the House have drawn this distinction over the years and if he accepts that the people of Rhodesia could find one another in one of the most difficult settlement situations ever, he must admit that the policy of this side of the House contains the seed which will enable us to deal with the situation in South Africa. This is the philosophy on which our policy rests.

We must just make that seed a little stronger.

I shall refer to that seed again in a moment. The hon. member for Durban Point must not worry about three Parliaments and citizenship for three groups of people within the same geographic unit. In recent times it has been very interesting to note how people throughout the world are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. In the process, when it becomes apparent that there are certain things which cannot be reconciled, those things which can in fact be reconciled, are picked out and carried on with. If the hon. member is worried about three Parliaments, I just want to point out to him that Belgium decided on seven Parliaments last week. This did not set the whole world agog. This is merely an indication of how the people themselves try to resolve conflicts. I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point, since he is satisfied with the way in which the settlement in Rhodesia is progressing, that we have basically the same philosophy for reaching a settlement. We are doing this in respect of the Coloured and Indian population groups. It is our method too. I think the hon. member will agree with me that there will be an opportunity later on to discuss this with one another.

I should like to come back to the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Parktown has not yet participated in the Third Reading debate, but I believe he is still going to participate tonight. The hon. member for Yeoville will excuse me if I just make one remark about a speech which the hon. member for Parktown made during the Second Reading. The hon. member for Parktown said then that under economic integration, where people are at the economic focus, where economic growth takes place, the political aspirations of people will also have to be given expression. We on this side of the House are tired of that threadbare idea. One can see very clearly that the hon. member has not been in this House for 17 years. Many things have happened since the hon. member was last in the House. Amongst other things—and I want to let this suffice—a body like the EEC has come into being. The object of the EEC is economic co-operation and economic integration to a large extent, but political identity is always maintained. It has already been spelled out in this House how we on this side of the House see South Africa, with its politically autonomous nations, but we have never denied interdependence at the economic level. As soon as homelands or fatherlands become independent and we have a link-up in the economic sphere, a link-up which we already have with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and we can let the economic concept take effect, we shall be right back where we always were in this country. No one on this side of the House has ever denied that there has always been economic interdependence. Hon. members are still trying to make something of the fact that the late Dr. Verwoerd once said that the total desire of this side of the House was absolute territorial separation. He may have said it; I do not deny it. I do not want to argue whether he said it or not. As far as the reconcilability of the economic interdependence and political independence of the people is concerned, and we have found this in various respects, inter alia, in the foundation which was laid down in the Tomlinson Commission which those hon. members are so fond of using, the philosophy of this side of the House is that there will always be an increasing degree of economic interdependence in Southern Africa. Furthermore in South Africa and in Southern Africa an increasing number of independent political systems will be created for peoples in Southern Africa. This is what the pattern will be and this is the pattern towards which hon. members on this side of the House are working, knowing full well that this has been the case in the past and that there are several places in the world where it does in fact work.

Therefore I can tell the hon. member for Parktown that he may just as well forget about that illusion of his. He may just as well forget about trying to prove that economic centralization must result in total political centralization.

Now I want to address myself to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members on the other side are always admonishing hon. members on the Government side by saying that our political policy is the cause of our financial and economic problems in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister admitted it himself. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has never … [Interjections.]

Of course he did.

When did the hon. the Minister admit it? [Interjections.]

Ask him!

Let us dwell on that briefly. Now the hon. member for Yeoville is alleging this afternoon that what he most holds against the hon. the Minister is that he—the hon. member—considers this Third Reading debate a first step to a disclosure by the hon. the Minister of what we are waiting for in the main budget. I cannot understand why hon. members on the other side are so deuced inquisitive. [Interjections.] Surely they could try to contain their curiosity a little. The main budget is not so far in the future any more. It is only just more than a month from now. Then they will be able to hear what they are waiting for. However, the hon. member for Yeoville alleges that the Government does not have any financial policy or any financial planning. He maintains that the Government should institute a five-year plan.

Of course, we can inform the hon. member about everything which is being done by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, by the advisers of the Minister of Finance, by the Prime Minister’s personal economic adviser, etc. Oh, I think we must content ourselves with a few practical examples for hon. members. In the first place, I want to point out that we in this country are all pleased that the current account of our balance of payments has improved to such an extent. However, I want to know when the seed was planted, the seed of this financial reality which we are experiencing now, the reality of such an improvement in the trade balance? Was it not planned that this should happen now? [Interjections.] No, it is not simply something which happened overnight. It happened as a result of planning. There was …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member can have another opportunity to speak. Surely it was clear that as far back as 1973, when the oil crisis arose, South Africa, together with other countries which I have already referred to— the oil producing countries which are geared for primary production manufacture—-came to an agreement in terms of which a low economic growth rate was adopted in order to deal with the situation which had been created by the oil crisis. South Africa was one of the first countries to comply with those requirements, one of the first countries to fulfil the conditions of the agreement. However, it was also South Africa’s economy which recovered first. South Africa’s balance of payments recovered first out of all the countries concerned. That was because South Africa took precautions in good time. Surely this is planning. If we in South Africa had not planned—and I concede that we have a relatively high unemployment rate—do hon. members opposite therefore want to allege that projects like those at Saldanha Bay, Richards Bay, Koeberg, Sasol 2 and others would never have been tackled? Do those hon. members allege that all these things took place without planning? They cannot simply make wild allegations that the Government did not carry out any financial planning.

Last year the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet announced that an additional amount of R250 million would be allocated for housing, non-White housing in particular. It was also said that this would take place over a period of three years. Is this not planning?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want us to try and steal a political march on one another concerning these matters. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville knows just as well …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville cannot try to make a second speech now by means of interjections. He can speak again later. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your protection. However, I want to tell you that it was not really necessary. I can defend myself against the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] If hon. members want to allege today that the hon. the Minister of Finance does nothing in connection with this matter, then I really do not know. The hon. member for Yeoville, however, does not tell us what that five-year plan should embrace. What is the first thing he tells us? The very first thing he says we must do, is to reconsider legislation concerning Bantu taxation. According to him, this legislation discriminates against the Bantu taxpayer in this country. This is the very first thing which comes into his head when anything is said about what the Minister of Finance must do in order to rectify matters. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him one hundred per cent that the tax scales for the Whites and non-Whites should correspond. In this case, of course, it is the Whites, and the Bantu who should then pay tax according to the same scales. I do not have any objection at all to this, but then we must at least be fair. Then we must say that also as regards hospitalization and other similar services provided for the Bantu today, he should be placed on the same level as the White man. Is the hon. member prepared to say that a Black man should not enjoy hospitalization because he is not financially in a position to be able to do so? What do we find in practice? In terms of Government policy, it is possible for the Black man to be admitted to any hospital, where he receives specialized treatment, for the amount of R0,50. Then, if we want to adjust taxation to the same level and scale, I am quite satisfied, but then we must have everything else on the same basis too. Then we come to the top scale at which people in this country pay tax, and we do not differentiate at all between a White and a Black man.

The hon. member for Yeoville must take these aspects into consideration before making the bare statement that we must eliminate these differences. If anything can be found in the system of taxation which really discriminates against the Black people, I will oppose it. Furthermore, I maintain that at this stage, our legislation for Bantu taxation is still of such a nature that it protects those people.

The hon. member also referred to a number of other matters. I should like to dwell on them for a moment. The hon. member spoke about the payment of tax by married women, but the hon. member for Smithfield answered this so well that I do not think the hon. member will hold it against me if I do not dwell on it further.

I now come to the question of compulsory education. The hon. member says that we should have done something about this long ago. At the same time I want to deal with statements by the hon. member for Durban Central.

I did not talk about that.

It seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Central cannot remember all the nonsense he spoke. He did in fact deal with this. It was said that there was no planning in the situation. Do the hon. members for Yeoville, Parktown and Durban Central want to tell us tonight where the country is going to get the money if the Government simply says that we are going to implement a system of compulsory education for all Black people in the country?

But it can be done in phases.

Hon. members cannot simply make an accusation like this. After all, this side of the House is committed, because we said that we are going to look at compulsory Black education. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training said himself that this would be considered on a regional basis and I think it is a very sensible approach to the matter, because it may work in some parts of the country and not in others.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that if we should make an announcement that we were taking the first steps towards compulsory Black education, we would get more capital from outside. Let us tell one another one thing clearly. In the ’sixties and in the early ’seventies, South Africa maintained a growth rate of approximately 5% per annum. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council said that the 1974-’79 plan must be based on at least 6,3 to 7% if we are to provide for all the people entering the labour market. We cannot achieve this and the mere fact that the Economic Advisory Council said that it should be 6% plus, whereas at this stage we are working on a basis of 1% up to a maximum of a possible 2%, is already an indication of the fact that we are faced with an unemployment problem. We are not prepared to ignore that fact. In the ’sixties and early ’seventies, when we maintained a growth rate of 5% to 6%, and in some quarters as high as 7%, so that the Economic Advisory Board said that there had to be a levelling off in the growth rate, what policy was being followed in the country at that time different to that being followed today? Surely there was no other policy. The NP policy has always been followed. In other words, at that time we grew and flourished in the economic sphere. However, what is happening now? In the early ’seventies, in about 1973, there was no country in the world whose economy was prepared for the shock caused by the oil crisis. However, South Africa must be made an exception, and the fact that such a shock was caused in the world economies, is being blamed on this Government. It is absurd! I think it is because this Government has already done so much to absorb that shock that we were able to recover so rapidly subsequently. This does indeed be speak planning. Therefore, I have a question to put to those hon. members. Is South Africa the only country in the world today which is struggling to obtain capital from outside? Surely this is not the case. At the beginning of the ’seventies, up till 1975, South Africa obtained capital to the tune of R1 700 million per year.

That was in the ’sixties.

No, it was at the beginning of the ’seventies. Three years ago, in point of fact. However, what changed the situation to such an extent that South Africa cannot obtain it any more?

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member for Yeoville is talking politics now. If the riots in Soweto contributed towards it, I would have readily admitted it to the hon. member. However, are those hon. members not prepared to admit that the overall Southern African situation must be taken into consideration when one looks at the capital flow to South Africa? I am not only talking about the politics within South Africa, but also about the overall Southern African situation. I am referring to the withdrawal of Portugal from Mozambique and Angola, the situation in Rhodesia as well as the instability of places like Zaire and other African States. These are all things which have contributed towards a critical eye being cast at the economic stability in Southern Africa.

However, the hon. member for Yeoville criticizes the hon. the Minister by saying that we are trying to get loans from abroad whereas the interest rates for loans abroad are high at this stage. However, that hon. member must please be specific. I am not saying that there are not bodies in South Africa which are not trying to obtain loans abroad, but the South African Government, as a borrowing entity, has made no effort whatsoever to obtain loans abroad during the past two years—during the past year in any event—due to the very fact that we know that the interest rates are high and that if one is forced to borrow at a high interest rate, one’s critics talk about an unstable economy. Let us take another look at the question of foreign capital. We are experiencing a shortage at this stage and we are rapidly paying off our short term loans. However, it is also the case that as a result of projects under way at the moment, South Africa is assured of a certain percentage of foreign capital invested here. I only have to refer to a single project which is in the making, and that is the Koeberg power station. A large sum of money is invested in it. Surely this is not merely a cutting off of the flow of foreign capital to South Africa. It has always been possible for us to handle these things.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban Central. He quoted Dr. Rupert and said that what was important, was “one man, one job” and not “one man, one vote”. Then the hon. member went off the deep end about our education or training and the qualifications of our people. The hon. member went on to say that we on this side of the House are not developing the homelands quickly enough. I want to dwell on this for a moment tonight. The hon. members opposite accuse us of not developing the homelands rapidly enough, but when the hon. members opposite, the whole lot of them sitting there, were more or less in the UP ranks, they were not in favour of the development of the homelands. [Interjections.] They only paid lip service to it. Every time the BDC or any of the other corporations spent money in the homelands, it was those members who objected to it. It was those hon. members who, every year, violently opposed every cent which this side of the House asked for in order to consolidate the Bantu homelands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I knew the hon. member for Durban Central when he was wet behind the ears: He cannot ask me questions. [Interjections.]

What about private capital?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central cannot make a second speech now.

He is only realizing now what a poor speech he made and now he wants to do it over. However, I want to carry on with mine. Hon. members on that side of the House knew, as we on this side of the House knew, that it was essential, if one was to develop the homelands, for one first to see to it that one’s promise of 1936 had been kept and that one had purchased the necessary land so that the development could take place. Let the hon. members opposite give me a single example of where they agreed with this side of the House as far as the consolidation of the homelands was concerned. They did not agree with us once, but now they say that we are developing the homelands too slowly. I think the hon. members of the NRP will have the opportunity during this session of openly expressing their support for the development of the homelands. We hope and trust that we will have that reaction from the hon. members of that party.

However, I cannot expect that we shall have the same reaction from the Official Opposition. We have been listening to the Official Opposition for quite a while now, and they will have to ask themselves a few questions. The most important one which they will have to ask themselves if they really want to be the effective Opposition, is whether the hon. Chief Whip and the hon. member for Yeoville are talking the same language in the circle they are sitting in. They will have to decide on that.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a short time to say the few things that I should like to say, but the temptation is irresistible to follow the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke on the road he has taken. In the first place he addressed me personally when he talked about the theory of economic integration and political integration. Is he trying to tell the House that the European Economic Community is an example of a structure in which there is political sovereignty together with economic integration? The reason why there can be political sovereignty in the European Community, however, is precisely because every one of those countries is sovereign in its own geographical area. [Interjections.]

The English, the Germans, the French and the Belgians do not all live together in one area. What the hon. member is trying to tell us is that there can be sovereignty for different racial groups where all inhabit the same area. The classic question then crops up: If there are going to be two Parliaments in the Cape, one for the Coloureds and one for the Whites, and the one tells its subjects to drive on the left-hand side of the road, while the other tells its subjects to drive on the right-hand side, what is going to happen?

Even you can do better than that!

In England people drive on the left-hand side of the road and in France on the right-hand side. There it is possible because there is a world of difference between them.

Furthermore the hon. member states that the economic problems which we face today are mainly attributable to the oil crisis. He asks whether our economy was not the first to recover from that crisis. Anybody will concede at once that the oil crisis had something to do with our economic difficulties, as was the case in other countries. It had less to do with our problems because we are so much less dependent on oil as a source of energy than most countries of the world. It did have something to do with it, however. It is really asking too much to expect us to agree that our economy has recovered while we have a growth rate of approximately 1% compared to the 5% and 6% the hon. member himself talked about tonight. How is it possible that our economy could really have recovered, when it still has to contend with that measure of unemployment which the hon. member conceded? It is an altogether too optimistic view of the situation as it is today.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister revealed that he resented what I had said about the level of our reserves. I believe the words I used were “alarmingly low”, while the hon. the Minister said he did not regard them as such. I should be very pleased if this were not the case, and I think the House and the country would very much like the hon. the Minister to give us the true facts on which we can base our opinion on whether the reserves are in fact alarming low or not. The hon. the Minister did say that the net reserves were on the increase. I was pleased to hear that because it was the first time during the debate that I had heard such a positive statement. The hon. the Minister said that short term debts were being paid back on a large scale, and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also referred to that. If the hon. the Minister were to furnish more details about that, giving chapter and verse to the hon. members and stating the figures, and if it were then found that those figures are impressive, I am sure we would not only be grateful, but it would also do a lot to assist the economic recovery which everybody in our country would like to see. What we are really trying to find out, however, is what is happening to the capital account of the balance of payments. We keep asking this question. It is in this regard that the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the gold content of our reserves is still being assessed at the old price today. We obviously know that. The hon. the Minister stated that should it be reassessed at market prices, the gross reserves would amount to R2 000 million and not R620 million. Granted, and if the hon. the Minister wishes to do so, he will encounter no objection from the benches on this side. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that does not answer our question. What we are trying to say is this: We have an excellent performance on the current account, but that performance has apparently been cancelled out completely by whatever has happened on the capital account. We simply want to know what has happened on the capital account. Once we know that, we can look at the future and assess what has to be done so that the economy as a whole can recover.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would tell the House, in his reply, what he envisages for the current account in 1978. Certain figures, which are not at all reassuring, appeared in the Press today. The figures for a single month do not necessarily mean anything, because a swing could occur in the months that lie ahead.

However, it would seem already that we should not be too confident about the ability of the economy this year to repeat its performance of last year as far as the current account is concerned. Last year’s good performance was partly attributable to the excellent agricultural yield. The climatic conditions may favour us again, but then again they may not. Furthermore, that performance was largely attributable to the excellent exports of various raw materials. There is a world recession at the moment and nobody here can be blamed for that. In the steel industry in particular the recession is such that exports of manganese, chromium and vanadium are very bad. That is nobody’s fault, but can only be attributed to the recession. Even coal is no longer in the strong position it occupied a few months ago as an export commodity. There is a general weakness in the economies of our client countries and I doubt whether we can be fully confident of repeating last year’s performance on our current account. Under these circumstances it is even more important that our capital account should recover.

†I have said it before and I shall say it again: The problems we have in our economic life are not, to my mind, directly attributable to the management of the economy by the hon. the Minister and his department; they are attributable to the lack of confidence which is engendered by the policy of the Government as a whole and it is there that the hon. the Minister must look for the reasons for the problems he has.

I want to mention something else which touches the confidence that people have in our economy. I shall do it as briefly as I can. I want to refer to the remarkable story, which was debated at some length in the Second Reading debate, of the Sunday Times, The Citizen, the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. the Minister. It is apparent that on 5 February or Saturday, 4 February, the Sunday Times went to press with an article which they themselves subsequently considered to be regrettable. It is also apparent that they printed half a million copies, or very nearly that, and then decided that the article ought not to appear. They then went through the rather clumsy process of trying to tear the pages off. They certainly managed it in a great many cases, but evidently there were some copies—I do not know how many—that got through. The following morning—that was the Monday morning— The Citizen attributed an enormous amount of space to this story and blew it up into one of tremendous importance, far more than its news value justified. [Interjections.] Following that the hon. member for Simonstown put a question on the Order Paper, thus giving it more prominence and the hon. the Minister had to reply, which he did in very suitable terms. Again in the Second Reading debate on this Bill the hon. member for Simonstown, at great length, discussed the matter. Somebody once said that a fanatic is a man who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject. When the hon. member for Simonstown begins to talk about the Press in this country, that comparison comes to mind. The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned, by way of illustration, one of the companies that had been said in the Sunday Times report to be shaky. The hon. the Minister, absent-mindedly I can only think, in his reply mentioned 18 of these companies as being in a more or less risky situation. It seems to me that the Sunday Times undoubtedly made an error and that the Sunday Times was uncomfortable about its error, but the Sunday Times did, to its credit, try and do something about it by pulling back as many of these issues as possible. Between The Citizen, the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. the Minister, however, it has now been made absolutely certain that a great portion of the unfortunate facts which would have appeared in the original report, are now made available to the widest possible audience and I cannot believe that it is doing anyone any good.

To conclude, we in these benches have been attacked again in this debate because we have pointed out that it is the general political policy of the Government which is undermining our economic position. We do not propose to be bullied or browbeaten by suggestions from the Government side of the House that in pointing out these facts, in repeating the figures, as they are, about our economy and in pointing out what causes the lack of confidence, we are doing something unpatriotic.

The very reverse is true. If we have a duty in this Opposition, the highest duty we have is to point out to the Government where the danger points are and how it may be possible to overcome these danger points and to get the economy back on the sort of road the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to when he spoke of a growth rate of 5% or 6%. We shall do our fair duty. We shall issue these warnings and we shall continue to say that we in our country are coming very close to the point where we must choose between prosperity and apartheid, because we cannot have both at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose anything can be more indicative or more eloquent of the position taken by the hon. Official Opposition in matters which seem to go to the heart of South Africa’s best interests than the position that has been taken tonight—to my mind most surprisingly—by the hon. member for Parktown. He referred to the report of the Sunday Times, which that newspaper first said had been tom out because of a technical problem and which they then said had been mutilated in the printing press. They also said that they would be printing it the following week, but they have not done so. The hon. member for Parktown went out of his way to stand in the breach for the Sunday Times for what I thought, and still think, is a very serious matter indeed. It might interest the hon. member to know that on the Monday after this had happened, I happened to have a visit from a very distinguished banker from Europe. He had been given a copy of the report which had been tom out of the paper and he said to me that he would have thought that it was a very serious matter for South Africa. He wanted to know what the motive would be of a paper with the circulation and size of the Sunday Times to publish a report like that under any circumstances.

That is why it was tom out.

That is the position. I do think the hon. member for Simonstown was not only completely within his rights to mention this matter to the House, but did a service to the public to draw attention to the matter as he did. This is obviously not the last that is going to be heard of the matter. I certainly am pursuing certain inquiries myself because I have had numerous serious criticisms from the public and from certain companies, all of whom express their grave concern about the way this was done. If one reads the report it is perfectly clear that the impression is, and I think the impression was intended to be, that the South African economy is in fact in a very serious shape. I want to say that although we have our problems, the economy is not in serious shape. I am prepared to argue that at very great length. However, we are possibly going to hear more about that particular issue.

*Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of this financial debate, the Part Appropriation debate. We have heard quite a number of interesting speeches. A characteristic of the debate has been that the Opposition, especially the Official Opposition, wants everything at the same time. The Opposition wants low taxes, a low inflation rate, higher foreign exchange reserves, faster repayments of loans, high economic growth and higher employment to be achieved all at the same time. In what country in the world will this ever be possible, especially under the present international circumstances?

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to various alleged discriminatory aspects of our tax system. He singled out the Bantu tax system and said that it was a discriminatory system. He pointed out cases where a Bantu would pay higher taxes than a White with the same income. This is so, but there are a large number of cases, of course, where exactly the opposite is true. I can assure the hon. member that the Economic Committee of the Bantu Affairs Commission has been engaged for quite some time in a thorough investigation of this very Bantu taxation system. My information is that it is an in-depth investigation and I am sure we shall receive a very useful report on the matter. So perhaps we could just be patient for a while and discuss the matter again at a later stage.

†As I have said, the hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of discrimination in our tax system and gave certain examples. The hon. member also said that we ought to reduce or abolish certain taxes in order to encourage capital from abroad. However, it seems to me that the hon. member completely overlooked the fact that if we did what he said, we would, in fact, be discriminating in favour of the overseas residents against South Africans. The hon. member mentioned the issue of the non-resident shareholders’ tax. Let us take a look at this. He said that there must be a reduction in or abolition of this tax.

That is not correct.

I think the hon. member said that there must be a reduction. That is what I have written down.

Mr. Speaker, may I just correct the hon. the Minister? I said in respect of new issues and in order to attract new capital we should give a guarantee for a period of time in which there would be no non-resident shareholder’s tax.

Yes. On that the hon. member said there should be no non-resident shareholder’s tax in order to draw capital from abroad. I do not think I have misconstrued what the hon. member said in the first place. The reduction in or the abolition of the non-resident shareholder’s tax by the Republic in such a case would, as regards our major trading partners, simply result in an increased accrual of tax to the Treasuries of those countries because of the giving of credit by those countries. One can refer to the United Kingdom as an example. The hon. member shakes his head. We must deal with the facts. The United Kingdom levies a tax on dividends coming from South African companies and gives credit for South African tax payable. That is a statement of fact. All that would then happen in this case would be that credit would be given for a smaller amount without any reduction in the United Kingdom tax or any benefit overall to the shareholder. That is one of the important implications that would follow from that particular move.

The hon. member also referred to medical abatements, which he said should be increased. I want to remind the House that the so-called run-off only starts when income reaches R5 000 and so people in the lower category, such as pensioners, to whom the hon. member has also referred and who I suppose feel the increases in medical expenses most, would be taken care of. The hon. member will remember that in any case the abatement was only last year increased from R700 to R1 000. Surely we cannot consider increases year after year.

The hon. member also spoke about receipts, but I leave that matter there. I imagine that in any case taxpayers wish to retain their receipts. I do not think that poses any problem whatsoever.

*As regards the taxation of married women, a matter which is so often raised by the Opposition, I think it is correct to say that the hon. member for Smithfield completely demolished all the arguments advanced by the Opposition. I think he gave a very concise and convincing analysis of the matter. Considering those arguments together with the reports of the Department of Inland Revenue and the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy, to which I referred in my Budget Speech last year, and the conclusions drawn in those reports. I think that as a Government we have a very strong case when we say that the present system should continue. It should certainly continue unless we hear better arguments in the future, which I certainly do not expect readily.

†The hon. members for Yeoville and Constantia, and possibly one or two others, talked about the need to take a longer view in our planning and budgeting and not simply to look at this as an annual process or exercise. In terms of our law the budgeting process must of course be done on an annual basis. However, I think everybody will agree that in drawing up a budget annually, one obviously does not simply look at the position for a few months. One must of course look at the position ahead for as far as one can reliably see it. Under some circumstances one can look ahead confidently on a longer-term basis than under others. For instance, we say that under present conditions it is important to bear in mind the balance of payments, inflation, the growth rate and employment opportunities. So one can go on listing the priorities, for example the need to have adequate security and proper defence preparedness, etc. These things are not looked at simply on a short-term monthly or yearly basis. Of course we look ahead. Surely when one considers the balance of payments one does not simply ask what the balance of payments is going to be for a few months ahead. And that brings me to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Parktown where he asked what my view was of the current account ahead. I am very reluctant to try to forecast these things, because it is very difficult to do so. But I am certainly not at all disconcerted by the fact that the surplus in the current account for January appears to be low. It was also low in November, but in December there was a very large surplus. These things are not a continuous process. There is, for example suddenly a big transaction in one month, but not in the next. So immediately one sees the result. Overall, however, if one looks at the surplus in January this year, one has to compare it with a fairly substantial deficit in January last year. January on January there was a not insignificant improvement. I would be soberly confident. I believe that the measures which we have taken—the monetary and fiscal measures, export promotions, the provision of more infrastructure, better transport communications, harbours, etc.—must have a better long-term effect on our trading pattern. Therefore I would think that the improvement in the current account, although I cannot forecast the precise magnitude of it, ought to continue for some time.

That brings me to the Capital Account. The hon. member for Parktown asked me: What about the reserves? Surely one has to value the reserves at a realistic, current value. If one has gold in one’s reserves and that gold was valued and is valued at the so-called official price—because that is still the old official price; we are waiting for the IMF to bring about these amendments they have been talking about so much, and we have made provision already, as the hon. member knows, that the moment the IMF comes with those amendments we are in a position legally to give effect to that in revaluing our own gold reserves. If one does that at the present price, then I would say that the gold and foreign exchange reserves would stand at something like R2 000 million and not R620 million. Surely that is a very good position to be in today when one considers the world in which we live, because the world in which we live is, I believe, being extremely unfair to us. I believe that if one takes the capital markets of the world, they know as well as we do what the inherent strength of our economy is.

These markets of the world say to me—and I think the hon. member knows it, because he probably talks to some of the same people I talk to regularly, and some of them are among the leading bankers and financial experts of the world—and without exception, I have not met an exception, they say to me even today that if we look at South Africa’s credit rating on the facts—the economic, the financial, the trade and the investment facts— and South Africa’s reputation in this field, we are an absolutely first-class risk. But they say there are all sorts of political factors and the political factors depend on who is speaking. Some of them make an assessment of political factors which I personally cannot consider important in any sense at all. But the fact is some of them do that, particularly the people who are less knowledgeable about South Africa. So, obviously, one gets a sentiment emerging in some of the capital markets of the world where they are inclined to say that if we want to borrow such and such an amount we have to pay, for example, such and such an interest rate. That interest rate might be above the interest rate we think is reasonable, and I am not prepared at the moment on behalf of the Republic of South Africa, i.e. the Government, to borrow at interest rates which I regard as exorbitant or unreasonable. I say this because our balance of payments is sound. We have a current surplus, and as far as our capital requirements are concerned we are financing them from domestic sources at this moment. We can always, as any country which is worth its salt can, do with more capital, because in a country like South Africa with its vast potential one can always think of new ways of using capital productively.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The hon. member must just give me a chance. That does not mean to say that the policy we are adopting at the moment is in any way prejudicing the sound economic development of this country. That is so; if one looks at all our big projects, it is perfectly correct: We have certain financial and investment problems with big public corporations just as other countries have with capital intensive projects under conditions of serious inflation. It is again a manifestation of the evils of the inflation which is world-wide. However, we can handle the situation. It is not easy, but I believe that we can certainly handle it in a satisfactory manner until such time as some of these big suppliers of capital take what, I believe, ought to be a more objective view of what the true position is in South Africa. I do not have the slightest doubt that that will happen. These things happen. What was our credit rating in the early 1960s in the minds of these people? What did they not say about South Africa? However, within a year or two the capital started to move into South Africa again. Fortunately we do not have to go to these people begging them for capital, and I am certainly not prepared to accept loans where we regard the interest rate to be unfair or unrealistic in relation to the true assessment of the risk, which we are also able to do and, I think, perhaps better than most other countries.

I am not prepared to be pessimistic.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of what the hon. the Minister said, viz. that he is not prepared to allow borrowings at these high rates, will he please explain to the House why he allows borrowing by Escom at 7% in Swiss francs for three years when the Reykjavik Power Corporation of Iceland was in fact borrowing for 50 years at 4% in Swiss francs?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the Reykjavik economy or the corporation to which the hon. member for Yeoville is referring. I went out of my way to say I was referring to the Republic of South Africa, that is, to Government borrowing. Obviously our big corporations which have to continue with their big scale operations are requiring capital and it suits us to allow them to continue to borrow certain amounts abroad. If they can borrow at 7%, then as the hon. the Minister of Transport was saying only today … I was in the House when the hon. the Minister of Transport said the Railways had been able to borrow abroad at rates lower than the current rate at home. Seen comparatively, it is good business. I was referring to the Government of South Africa, and not to Iscor, Escom, the Railways and to any other corporations.

However, the hon. member for Yeoville’s comparison might be a really good illustration of precisely the point I was trying to make, viz. that those assessments are unfortunately not being done realistically and objectively in some of the capital markets. Does the hon. member not agree with me? Does the hon. member really want to tell the House that he considers Iceland a better credit risk than South Africa? Is that what he is trying to say?

I said exactly the opposite!

Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of thing we come up against. Hon. members opposite raise these questions, and I get the uncomfortable feeling that if this country were really to be in difficulties as a result of not drawing in capital at the moment—something we do not want to do at unduly high rates of interest, and can in fact afford not to do—the Opposition will be crowing day and night. [Interjections.] That is my worry, Sir. [Interjections.]

Then you are sick.

You see it the whole time, Sir. What is the hon. member raising the issue for?

*Why has he raised the matter? I find it alarming that the Opposition should advance these arguments about this kind of matter, but I believe that if we continue in a responsible way to apply our policy of financial discipline, together with a policy of moderate stimulation where we can afford it, our economy will become more and more sound. Of that I am convinced.

Sir, not long ago I expressed my confidence in gold in this House. That was a year or two ago. You will find it in Hansard. At that time the gold price was nowhere near its present level. I elaborated on the question of gold and gave my reasons for my view that there would be an improvement and a consolidation in the gold market in the long run. The then hon. member for Johannesburg North, Mr. Gordon Waddell, then rose and warned that I should not be too optimistic about gold. I took him to task in my reply that day, and then he told me that I was being too optimistic about gold. What is the position now?

Where is he now?

I am now discussing gold only and not the former member for Johannesburg North.

Sir, I am sorry that time does not allow me to refer to certain other speeches that were made here. The hon. member for Gezina made some very gratifying references to the budget. I heard them with appreciation. He emphasized the importance of initiating a “Buy South African” campaign. I want to agree with him whole-heartedly. It is important, and I believe that our people can do a great deal more about it.

It was said by the Opposition that we did not have an economic and financial plan for the future. In other words, they wanted to know what our policy in this connection was. I believe that I can say in all fairness once again that if our policy in this respect is not yet clear to everyone in this House and outside, it will never be clear. Surely, Sir, we have produced a conservative fiscal and monetary policy. We have introduced a policy aimed at encouraging our exports and creating an infrastructure to promote the whole export industry. This also entails new harbours, more railway facilities, etc., which have required a great deal of capital. We are creating the conditions which will enable us to benefit by the revival which will come. That revival will come, although the situation in the outside world is not as promising as one would have liked to see. In spite of this, our economy has an inherent strength which will ensure a good future for us. However, we must act responsibly and not try at this stage to stimulate too rapidly or to undertake all the major projects in a way we cannot afford. I think responsibility should be our watchword.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this Bill the hon. Minister has accepted one amendment from this side of the House and also one from the NRP. We obviously appreciate the fact that he has accepted these amendments because we think they will make the implementation of this legislation less cumbersome and eliminate a considerable amount of administration. As far as the principle of this legislation is concerned, this Bill still implies a violation of the autonomy of local authorities. I hasten to add that we on this side of the House do not regard the principle as something absolutely sacred and that we could support a certain measure of interference with it if we could be convinced that such interference is absolutely inevitable in order to rectify the defects of a particular situation, provided the inevitability is proved beyond any doubt. We are, however, not at all convinced of this, and therefore our objection to the legislation remains. We cannot therefore support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, during the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister accepted one of our amendments, an amendment introducing the principle of consultation into the Bill. Obviously we welcome this. It may make the Bill, to a certain extent, far more attractive, but in spite of this we still feel that we must oppose the Third Reading of this particular Bill. The acceptance of that amendment will not be sufficient, in the application of this Bill—and we are at present considering the application—to prevent the Central Government from forcing local authorities to make provision, for instance, for residential sites or erven for race groups which at present do not, or in the past did not, form part of the inhabitants of its area of jurisdiction. It could also lead to a change in the character of a particular neighbourhood. Even after consultation there could be coercion, from the top, to have erven made available in sizes which, in the past, were regarded as unacceptable by the community in question. In the process it would change the whole character of particular local authorities.

In the Committee Stage, if I may say so, the hon. the Minister made great play of the fact that from now until the turn of the century we in South Africa will have to build as many housing units as have been built since the landing of Jan van Riebeeck. I accept this fact and assure him that we on this side of the House have no wish to obstruct the hon. the Minister in his particular task. He will realize, however, that in spite of this particular legislation, one of the problems in the way of the provision of sufficient sites or erven for the purposes of housing is, of course, the high cost of land. Quite clearly, therefore, with this legislation the hon. the Minister hopes that he will be able to force local authorities to make available—by cutting down on the sizes of the erven— sufficient sites at cheaper prices. It does not always work that way, however. If one cuts down the sizes of erven or building sites by 20% or 50%, it does not necessarily follow that the purchase price of the land will be cut by the same margin. Quite clearly, then, there is a practical difficulty the hon. the Minister will face in his endeavour—and it is a noble endeavour to try to build as many houses between now and the end of the century as were built over a period of 330 years.

However, let me say what our main opposition to the Bill is. I want to make this point quite clear. One of the fundamental philosophies of the NRP is the right of local communities to exercise what we call the principle of local option. The application of this Bill will make it very, very difficult if not impossible for local authorities to put that principle into practice. In this country we should aim at a system through which the source of Government is brought closer to the people. The watchword should be: less government from the top. Nothing creates more friction than to receive instructions with the stamp of Pretoria on them.

Shame!

The hon. member says “shame”. I think it is indeed cruel to have one’s life regulated by instructions which always have the stamp of Pretoria on them. That is totally unacceptable to us and, unfortunately, no matter how one reads this Bill, one will find that in its application it will mean in effect that, when Pretoria really decides upon something, the local authority, even after consultation, will have to toe the line.

*In implementing this legislation the hon. Minister will have to take another aspect into account. It is generally known—I am not attacking his department for it when I say this—that the Department of Community Development has at its disposal large areas of land in a number of local authority areas throughout South Africa. I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister, and I think it is a reasonable request. It may in certain instances be necessary in practice for him to use these extended powers granted him by this legislation—whether it goes against our political philosophy or not—but before doing so, I believe he should see to it that the land he already has available is utilized to South Africa’s best advantage, especially with a view to that great task of his to see to it that everybody in the country is properly housed.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we discussed this Bill very thoroughly during the Second Reading. Then in the Committee Stage we exchanged ideas and agreed on certain amendments. I really think this is a Bill which the majority of the House will now accept as a fair and necessary Bill. The hon. speaker for the PFP said that they would persist in their opposition. I take note of that.

The hon. member for Durban Central again argued the principles of the Bill, but he did not shed any new light on the matter. For example, he argued that we will be able to change the nature of certain neighbourhoods. This can happen, but as I have said so often, our conduct in this regard will not be harsh or callous. The question of consultation is inherent in the relationship existing between my department and local authorities and consequently there will always be intimate consultation and negotiation. Therefore it need only happen very seldom that the State will insist on something or will have to act in a harsh manner to rectify matters. The hon. member also said that we would be able to make smaller erven available, for example. We shall probably do that, but not as a result of this measure. We shall probably have to enact legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission on Low Cost Housing. The factual statement made by the hon. member, is wrong however, when he says that the measure to create smaller erven does not entail considerable saving. Not only do smaller erven involve saving with regard to the cost of land; they involves considerable saving with regard to the cost of services. It is this item in particular which worries me most today, because it contributes more than most things to the basic cost of housing. We have now reached the position where it costs up to R4 000 to provide an erf with services. These costs are too high, and are a luxury we can no longer afford.

The hon. member also spoke about local option. I fully agree with him. It is a good principle and we should like to encourage it as far as possible. What does one do, however, when, as the representative of the central Government, one bears the responsibility because one provides the finances for all construction carried out by a local authority for its people? Then, of course, one has a responsibility towards one’s taxpayers to see to it that those moneys are not only applied in the best manner, but also in the interests of the community in general. Surely I cannot evade that responsibility, and my hon. friend would not like Parliament to evade it either. It is the responsibility of Parliament. The Minister takes action and is then responsible to Parliament for the manner in which he sees to it that those moneys are spent in the public interest. This is what I want the hon. member to understand: Not only do we have a responsibility to provide housing on an unprecedented scale; we also have a responsibility towards the tax-payer regarding the way his money is spent. That is the difference between us. Parliament appropriates the money and my hon. friend is involved in that. The money must be utilized in collaboration with local authorities to provide housing for the less privileged people in South Africa.

Then, however, we are responsible to Parliament for the manner in which those moneys are spent. We cannot delegate that power to the local authorities altogether, for then we would be irresponsible to Parliament and the tax-payer. Therefore, the hon. member and I will have to differ and he is welcome to vote against this measure. I know that we on this side of the House are propagating the right principle.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, we take note of the fact that the hon. the Minister has also proposed an amendment to the definition of “tour guides”. As there is no substantial difference between the amendment which we on this side proposed and the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister, we shall not continue with the amendment I proposed. With the permission of the House we are therefore prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member cannot withdraw his amendment conditionally.

No, I impose no condition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the matter is not as simple as that. As a result of the stand taken by the Opposition during the Second Reading, I proposed an amendment as I declared myself prepared to do. However, they have now come forward with an amendment which is a lesser concession in respect of the principle than my amendment. Because I am not willing to give more than what they want, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and to propose their amendment. I therefore withdraw my amendment and I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to record the fact that the hon. the Minister is playing games with this Committee. The hon. the Minister lost control of himself during the Second Reading debate and made the most extraordinary allegations against this side of the House. He actually drew our patriotism in doubt, and he obviously felt very strongly about the matter. He went to the trouble of consulting his advisers, then putting on the Order Paper a formal amendment which goes to the very crux of the Bill. Does the hon. the Minister concede that? The gravamen of our charge was that the Bill as it stood in fact included every single person who had any comment to make to any visitor in the country, foreign or domestic. After all that the hon. the Minister has the nerve, when he sees another amendment on the Order Paper, to play games and to say: “Oh well, I am not going to move my amendment. Because yours is less than mine, I am now going to propose yours.” What is he doing to this Committee? The hon. the Minister is playing games. Either he felt sincerely in favour of the amendment which he put on the Order Paper or he did not. Why did he do it? I have never heard anything so extraordinary in all my life as an hon. Minister playing games to the extent that he now swops his amendment for one which has less scope. If the hon. the Minister is going to play games like that in this Committee, we can continue playing games until time runs out. We can continue tomorrow and the day after. I am warning the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] I am giving him an opportunity to reconsider his attitude. We are prepared to co-operate to some extent, because we believe this amendment is an improvement. A great deal of the string is being taken out of the Bill by this amendment. I am not making promises, but if the hon. the Minister is going to play like this, I do not guarantee the co-operation of this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to object very strongly to the statement that I am playing games with the Committee. My career proves that I have respect for the House, for its functions and for its dignity. What has happened here now? We have the phenomenon here that the Whip of the Official Opposition rises to attack me because I accepted an amendment which they placed on the Order Paper. I have never in my entire parliamentary career heard of such a thing. I said in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of my reply in the Second Reading debate to the arguments of the NRP, that I would consider the amendments as if we were in a Select Committee. Then the Official Opposition proposed an amendment which in my opinion was better than the one which I proposed, and they now say that I cannot accept it. They are angry with me, but they are arguing against their own amendment. It makes one wonder who is actually playing games. In all fairness, I cannot do more for any Opposition party than to accept their amendment. I do it in this case and I hope that instead of adopting such an attitude, they will show a little gratitude for my reasonable attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are becoming hysterical over this issue. The hon. Whip of the PFP is taking the matter completely out of context. The differences between the two amendments are so slight that I do not think it really matters at all. I suggested on Thursday that the hon. the Minister should propose the insertion of the words “for reward”, and I therefore agree with that amendment. Whether it is the PFP’s amendment or the hon. the Minister’s amendment which is accepted frankly does not matter because there is no difference at all and I cannot understand the cause for the hysterics.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister please to define for me the meaning of “person” in the definition of a tour guide. My interpretation of this is that it would be a person who, in fact, would be employed by for instance a city council, a provincial council or the State. That is the advice I have received. Am I on the same wavelength as the hon. the Minister? This is an important issue and has to be clarified. Is my interpretation correct?

It is a natural person.

I thank the hon. the Minister. That would mean that the S.A. Railways are included.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join issue with the hon. the Minister. I think he spoilt his own case, as well as the mood in which this whole matter was approached. It was quite clear when the hon. the Minister stood up in the first instance that his attitude was a frivolous one. He adopted the point of view that, because the amendment moved by this side of the House was more restrictive than his own, he was prepared to accept it.

It was more in accord with my point of view.

In that case it makes nonsense of the hon. the Minister’s own amendment. I do not think the hon. the Minister is justified in joining issue with the hon. member for Groote Schuur on the attitude which he adopted. He comes to the House as the responsible Minister, proposes an amendment, puts the amendment on the Order Paper and then stands up at the commencement of the debate on the clause and says that, because the amendment moved by the Official Opposition is more restrictive, he is now prepared to withdraw his own amendment and accept the amendment of the Opposition.

May I ask the hon. member whether I am not entitled to consider very seriously an amendment formally put on the Order Paper by the Opposition?

Yes, but equally, the hon. the Minister should also motivate the reason why he put his own amendment on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] It was the manner in which he made the comments which gave rise to this attitude. [Interjections.] Surely, the hon. the Minister must have considered his own amendment. Why did he put his own amendment on the Order Paper? If he seriously thought that the Opposition’s amendment was better than his own in his opinion, he should have expressed himself in those terms and not in the terms in which he did when he raised the issue.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s attitude, I should like to propose, as an amendment to clause 1, the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. the Minister, as follows—

Now I do not understand the matter at all!

Who is playing games now!

Amendment moved by the Minister of Tourism agreed to and amendment moved by Mr. B. R. Bamford dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

This amendment is just to make quite sure that there will definitely be an obligation on the Minister to act in accordance with the provisions of the clause and that it will not be permissive.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

The hon. member for Groote Schuur has already given me an indication of the problem he has with the amendment. I wish to tell him at once that the reason why we used the word “moet”, is that it is the acknowledged and stereotyped word used by the law advisors when they wish to force an obligation or a mandate on the Minister. According to the advice which we received, this is altogether the correct legal term and I hope the hon. member will accept it as such. The amendment is simply to ensure that the obligation on the Minister is clear in both languages and to eliminate any uncertainty between the two languages. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not accept that explanation. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 2(1). The English version is worded as follows—

The words “shall designate” mean that it is mandatory. The Afrikaans version does not read “die Minister moet ’n beampte in die Departement van Toerisme aanwys”, but it reads “die Minister wys ’n beampte in die Departement van Toerisme aan”. Surely, that makes it mandatory in the Afrikaans language? If one looks at any statute, one will in fact find that the English present tense is in Afrikaans the imperative tense. I am sure I am right.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to have a long semantic argument with my hon. friend. I shall refer the matter back to the law advisers and if necessary I shall have it corrected in the Other Place. However, my advice at the moment is that the way we have put it is correct.

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

1. (2) The Minister may likewise determine duties or classes of duties tour guides may perform without being registered under section 6.

This Bill is apparently aimed at making provision for professional tour guides. The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister and which has already been agreed to, is in fact an indication that this is the case. The Bill is further aimed at ensuring higher standards in the tour guiding profession. I think that we should try to achieve this aim without incurring the side-effect which this may have of stifling growth in the tourist industry. For this reason I am moving my amendment.

I can best illustrate my argument by referring to an example. I wish to refer to a case which really occurs. It sometimes happens that an hotel owner in a country town makes arrangements with a travel agency or other people in urban areas to arrange a trip to this rural area for a busload of tourists or a smaller group of tourists in a kombi or something similar. Arrangements are then made for one of the local inhabitants, he or his wife to accompany these tourists to show them the local sights. For that purpose those who display similar initiative—I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate this kind of initiative—are not going to engage a professional tour guide. In the first place it is not an economical proposition to do so. He is not going to find anyone who will do that work on a permanent basis. However well he may be trained and however good his general knowledge may be, it cannot of course be expected of a tour guide operating in central Cape Town or in central Johannesburg to have a really thorough knowledge of the tourist attractions of a small rural town.

I wish to refer to another case. A bus or kombi tour to a country town or to any other place far from the city can perhaps be arranged on a monthly or a weekly basis, but it is not possible to introduce a regular daily or two-day service in this regard. In some cases it is only worth arranging tours for one month of the year to areas where the holiday industry is subject to seasonal fluctuation. Once again I wish to suggest that it will be difficult to obtain a professional tour guide, a person who makes his living from this, for that purpose. It will be difficult to find a person to accept the position in a certain place. For this purpose there could be two possible solutions. One solution is envisaged in clause 11(2) of the Bill as it reads at present, where application may be made by a person who perhaps does not satisfy the standards for tour guides, to be exempted from registration and to be able to carry out his duties without actually registering as a tour guide. In these cases which I mention, we are often dealing with people who do not necessarily do this regularly, who do not do it every week or month, or even for a month or two months every year; i.e, it is not at all practical or profitable for such a person to apply for that exemption under clause 11(3). For this reason I tried to create this alternative avenue by moving the amendment according to which the Minister will have the right to determine certain classes of duties and, as far as that is concerned, suspend the obligation to use a qualified and registered tour guide for that purpose. Otherwise it will be difficult to obtain staff for that purpose. In this situation, which is indeed a practical situation, this class of duties is probably being carried out by another person every day and every week. In his maiden speech, the hon. member for Vasco referred to interesting cases which one finds in a Karoo town, for example the area where I come from, where the corbel houses are to be found, and there are indeed people in that vicinity who display this kind of initiative, which I think should be appreciated by the Minister, by the department and by the House. I feel that one must not create any measure which will undermine that kind of initiative. For that purpose this amendment may be of some use. I wish to indicate further that this amendment does not detract in any way from the compulsory effect of the legislation as a whole. It is still within the power of the Minister to determine the class of duty which may be performed under this amendment. This can be done by way of an application or on the initiative of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the proposal of the hon. member for Green Point. He did make out a case for it. There are cases where exemption must be granted to such people. But I think the problem which emerges from this, has already been covered, party by the amendment which we accepted in the first clause to the definition of a tour guide, for a person doing a job, even if he does it only temporarily, is nevertheless doing it for pay. He does not have to be fully dependent upon this job. Therefore that argument of the hon. member falls away. Then he suggested examples where it might perhaps be in the interest of the industry and generally that exemption should be granted. In this regard I ask the hon. member to look at clause 11(3) where he can see that the Minister already has the right, in certain cases and on the conditions which he prescribes, to exempt people from the obligation to register. Therefore I think my hon. friend must accept that his amendment is in fact superfluous and does not contribute to the provisions of the Bill nor introduce anything new into the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Green Point has a point, but the same effect could certainly be achieved in the regulations. I have discussed this matter with members of the hon. the Minister’s department pointing out that a trainee student would have a problem in getting himself classified as a tour guide. This young man could in terms of these regulations be exempted with the thought that he could be brought in possibly as a trainee tour guide or a student tour guide, and he could have a badge which designated him accordingly. The same would apply to a translator. We find that a large number of translators are accompanying tours from South America. These translators could be included in terms of the same regulations. I do not believe that the amendment is absolutely necessary. I am sure the same could be achieved through the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I think we in the Official Opposition would feel a bit better about this clause if we were enlightened a little further as to exactly what the hon. the Minister has in mind. We know that he is going to classify tour guides. Normally, in a professional Bill of this nature, a professional organization—in this case the Tour Guide Association—would lay down a code of conduct and then legislation of this nature would give legal backing to that code of conduct for registration. In this case we have a different situation. We have the hon. the Minister laying down by regulation standards for various classes of tour guides, and I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what, in fact, he has in mind, because we are really totally at a loss as to what exactly he does have in mind. Is he going to classify game guards, for example, who show people game, in a different category from guides accompanying people on motor coach tours? There are so many classifications which are within the power of the hon. the Minister to determine that, with nothing being said at all from a professional association, perhaps the hon. the Minister would give us an assurance that once the new Tour Guide Association has been established, he would, in consultation with that association, come to some agreement as to what sort of classification there should be.

Mr. Chairman, I have already accepted that obligation. I will have to act in consultation with the Tour Guide Association. However, what I want to do here is to give them teeth and some real status and importance. I also want to answer the other question the hon. member has put to me in connection with the classes or categories of tour guides that we have in mind. We have to appreciate that tour guides have to perform a great variety of functions at various levels of the tourist industry. We want local guides, people with a specialized knowledge of, say, the Cape Peninsula, or even of a subsection of the Cape Peninsula, e.g. the Malay Quarter. Such people would need different qualifications from that of a guide who accompanies a group of tourists from, say, Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. The latter should have a specialized knowledge of the Garden Route and will have to be a regional tour guide. Then we also have national tour guides and, furthermore, specialist tour guides.

One of our major sources of tourism today is special interest groups from all over the world, people who are interested in our flora, in our wild life or in our semi-precious stones, for example. We want specially qualified people to accompany them. Here we already have a few examples of classes of tour guides and of specialities of tourism for which I have to make provision. These people must be specially qualified, differently qualified from the generality of tour guides. I hope this will help the hon. member and that we will now be able to get on with the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again I wish to refer briefly to the amendment which I moved. Clause 11(3) is useful for resolving this situation, a situation in which we are dealing with a case where a tour guide or some other person performs this duty over a period of time. In other words, it makes provision for someone who is employed temporarily, even if it is only for a month, to perform this kind of duty. It should at least be for a reasonable period. Then he can plan far ahead and apply to the department. The application may then be granted or amended by the department. However, the problem that I see here, is that clause 11(3) still does not offer a solution for a tourist undertaking—if one may call it that—which is still at such a stage of development that it cannot appoint a person for a period of time. I am now referring to an undertaking which simply makes arrangements for a busload of tourists who might make a weekend trip once a week, shall we say approximately 200 km from the city, to visit a specific rural area. Such an undertaking could possibly have a different tour guide every other week. There are perhaps three or four different people performing those duties for this is not a professional matter. The person in question is perhaps paid R5 or R10 for a day’s work. Perhaps the firms concerned have not reached that stage of development where they can do business for long uninterrupted periods and therefore cannot employ professional people. I wish to suggest that for that purpose, clause 11(3) is not of much consequence to us, for such a situation often comes upon one unawares. The man who usually does the work in a town, is perhaps the chief elder who knows the town best and accompanies the tourists. Perhaps it is the hotel owner who has other matters to attend to and perhaps asks someone else to perform such a duty just that once. Perhaps such temporary services are only required for one afternoon a week and the person concerned who does the work, is paid R5 or R10. In such a case clause 11(3) will be of no use, for the normal tour guide cannot apply long before the time for the authorization of a replacement. However, if the ordinary entrepreneur should like to do this kind of thing fairly regularly, he could apply to the hon. the Minister, in terms of the amendment which I have moved, so that, for instance, a registered tour guide would not be necessary for touring groups visiting Vanrhynsdorp or Calvinia once a week. Therefore I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider accepting the amendment for that limited purpose. I wish to say once again that this would not create any situation where the effectiveness of the legislation will be impaired. I think it can only help to solve such borderline situations in a proper manner.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has just convinced me very strongly not to accept his amendment. The whole aim and scope of this Bill is to ensure professionalism in the ranks of our tour guides so that the public may be served properly and correctly by tour guides. That hon. member, however, suggests that we should pick up a lot of people on the streets when it is necessary and place them in a bus with tourists. The tourists must then be satisfied with that and South Africa must be satisfied with that. However, this is in conflict with the whole idea behind the Bill. I wish to teach my hon. friend something about tourism. One does not go to bed tonight without a preconceived plan to take a busload of tourists out the next day. One does not get up the next morning with a busload of tourists at the door whom one has to look after. Tours are planned weeks and months ahead. When people have problems, there will be more than enough time to ask, in terms of clause 11(3), that special cases, provided they can be justified, should be exempted. However, my hon. friend must realize that we accepted the principle during the Second Reading debate that we are going to place our tour guides on a professional basis. I think he must accept that Parliament has already decided on this.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to clarify one point. I do not think the hon. member for Green Point has put his case clearly.

Hear, hear!

What worries me, for instance, is the position of a group of people such as Parks Board rangers who very often, not in the course of their normal duties, nor as part of their regular work, take tour parties around. Would the hon. the Minister be in a position to exempt them as a category, or would he have to exempt every Parks Board official by name, as an individual, in order to prevent the total Parks Board staff, any one of whom may, at any time, take someone round? I visit the Natal Parks Boards very frequently. Often a ranger says he will show me round. It is not his job.

To see the crocodiles.

Yes, there are game guards who take one to see the crocodile pool. There are also people who take visitors out on the boat at St. Lucia. This is not, however, their job. They are not doing this as guides for the reward, although they do receive a reward.

You have made your point, Vause.

Thank you. Then I leave the matter there.

Mr. Chairman, we have just had a very good example of what experience means in the House. The hon. member for Durban Point has put a case which I think is an excellent one, namely that where people are already qualified and are known to be qualified, where they are experts, it is perhaps necessary to give exemption to certain groups as a whole. The hon. member gave the example of game park rangers. There are other people one can think of too. The Chamber of Mines, for instance, has a public relations department in which there are people who are employed to take visitors down the mines and tell them more of the mining industry. To such people I think we can give a blanket exemption. I agree with my hon. friend that at present the Bill does not provide for that, and therefore when we come to clause 11 I shall move an amendment to counter the mischief he has pointed out.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Tourism agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. S. S. van der Merwe put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. B. R. Bamford, D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer; J. F. Marais, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, three amendments appear on the Order Paper in my name. The first amendment seeks the omission of the words “public interests” and their substitution by the words “interest of the tourist industry in the Republic”. The sole reason for this amendment is that the concept “public interests” is a very vague one in these circumstances. I think it is the function of the Registrar of Tour Guides, as proposed by this legislation, to serve the tourist industry in the first place. We are of the opinion that he should determine his standards in the interest of the tourist industry.

The second amendment deals with the right—as envisaged in the legislation—to suspend the registration of a tour guide. We can readily understand that it might be necessary to cancel a tour guide’s registration in order to enforce this legislation and to make it effective. However, whatever the situation may be that is being experienced with tour guides, we do not think the situation can ever be so urgent as to justify the suspension of the registration of a tour guide at a moment’s notice. Consequently we are of the opinion that this power is not necessary as anything of such urgency will not arise. From the point of view of the individual tour guide, we think that the power being granted to the Registrar will create a situation of extreme uncertainty. We believe that it can only be detrimental to the morale of the tour guides, as it will not encourage people to become members of the tour guide profession if there is someone sitting in a Government office who has the right to suspend their registration overnight, in fact, who has the right to deprive them of the opportunity to render services and earn their money. We believe that such a situation of uncertainty ought not to be created under these circumstances. It is unnecessary.

The third amendment is consequently upon amendment (2). In other words, if the hon. the Minister deems it fit to accept the second amendment, i.e. the omission of subsection (2), the omission of subsection (5) will follow as a matter of course. Therefore I move the following three amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 7, in pine 17, to omit “public interest” and to substitute:

   interest of the tourist industry in the Republic.

2. (2) on page 7, in lines 23 and 24, to omit subsection (2);
3. (3) on page 7, in lines 33 to 36, to omit subsection (5).

Mr. Chairman, I am not as concerned as my friend on the opposite side about the use of the term “public interest.” This is a standing phrase in our legislation and in our administration of justice. Therefore the courts understand full well what is meant by the phrase and consequently I am of the opinion that it is the correct term to use in this Bill. If we limit the provision in that regard and leave the matter in the hands of the tourist industry, we shall merely be creating a source of argument and dispute, and that is undesirable. In the interest of good legislation it is in the public interest that the accepted and standing phrase be used.

The second amendment puzzles me somewhat. The suspension of a tour guide is permissive. The registrar is under no obligation to suspend a tour guide. He may do so. The English text reads: “He may do it.” It is therefore not compulsory for him to do it. Where there is any reason for such a person to remain, any fair person would allow him to remain. However, one may get cases where someone may be guilty of extreme misconduct. In that case it would be totally undesirable for him to stay on as a tour guide. Who would not like to see that such a person’s registration be cancelled, or that he be suspended? In any event, he must first receive 30 days’ notice from the registrar. After that the registrar still has to consult with the advisory committee and go through other formalities, and even then an appeal may be made to the Minister. Therefore it may be months before such a case is decided for the very reason that we want to be fair by giving such a person every opportunity to put his case. However, we cannot allow a person who is guilty of misconduct, someone who has acted in a way not befitting a tour guide, to stay on all these months as a tour guide and still exercise his rights as a tour guide.

His employer will fire him.

There are many precedents in this regard and it is general practice in a case like this for such a man to be suspended. That is also the case in the Civil Service and in the mining industry. I have worked there myself and I know those circumstances. This practice is also applicable in the Railways. In the interest of the tourist industry and in the interest of the orderliness of the legislation I am unable to consider the amendment. Since the third amendment is a consequential amendment, I shall ignore it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has very clearly discussed amendments No. 2 and 3, and we in this party agree with him entirely in that respect. We feel that the Registrar would have to have the right to suspend a person if he made himself guilty of “wangedrag”.

In regard to the first amendment, however, I think the hon. member for Green Point has a point. There is a definite difference between “public interest” and the “interest of the tourist industry” of the Republic. I believe the wording of his amendment is better than the wording “public interest”. Something that is good for the tourist industry may not necessarily be good for the public interest, and I believe we are dealing here with a Bill which involves the tourist industry. I do not know how the hon. the Minister feels about what I have said and I should like to know.

I appreciate your attitude in regard to your first argument, but I cannot agree with your last argument.

Mr. Chairman, in supporting the first amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, I should like to say that the words “in the public interest” are far too wide. What the hon. the Minister might consider to be in the public interest, and what I consider to be in the public interest, might be two completely different things …

This applies to the interests of the tourist industry; that is quite obvious.

Well, then one should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. It does not mean the same thing at all. It could mean virtually anything. The registrar has no special expertise in determining what the public interest is and I really do believe the hon. the Minister is leaving this far too wide, that he should restrict the matter and think seriously about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. There are varying standards. South Africa is made up of various peoples with different attitudes, and I think it would be a very satisfactory position to have tour guides putting forward different points of view. It is not a matter of being an expert on the subject of birds or flowers, but if one has a tour guide who expresses a political point of view, for instance, he should have every right to do so. There might be different tour guides who express different viewpoints on different matters, and they should have every right to do so because they will reflect the richness of the South African society. We do not want to produce tour guides who come out in a pattern and who all say the same things.

Have you ever heard Cockneys in London?

Quite right. The hon. member says that if one goes to London, one will hear all sorts of different attitudes expressed by different people in that city. We should like to see this happening in South Africa because it would reflect the richness of our society. If one uses the term “in the public interest” the danger exists that it will be defined in a most narrow way, and this is what we are frightened of. We are not, for one moment, suggesting that the department, the hon. Minister or the Registrar might interpret it in a narrow way, but the possibility always exists. We think the phraseology is loose and we do urge the hon. Minister to change it.

Mr. Chairman, the registrar will not act arbitrarily and will not take decisions without consultation. The Bill provides that he will consult on these matters with an advisory committee representative of the various interests concerned in the tourist industry. I have made it compulsory that that committee should be consulted, especially in the drafting of regulations under which the registrar will act. I am afraid that the hon. member has not convinced me.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister then consider an amendment which would make it compulsory for the registrar to consult with the committee before issuing any such suspension? The hon. the Minister shakes his head. One can only infer now that his explanation was quite meaningless, because when we propose an amendment making it compulsory for the registrar to consult with the committee, the hon. the Minister says that he will not accept it. Unfortunately, we cannot agree with the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the issue for a moment. It is provided that the committee must be consulted before a guide is deregistered. [Interjections.] That is the sanction which applies to the registrar. It is not that he has to consult before the time, but he knows that before he can take a final decision he must consult with that body. We are dealing with intelligent people and therefore I am satisfied with this as it stands.

On amendment (1),

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—94: Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reynecke, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, J. A. Van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (2) negatived and amendment (3) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper is consequent upon the amendment I moved to clause 5, one which was not accepted. For that reason I shall not move the amendment to clause 11.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with my undertaking to the hon. member for Durban Point I move the following amendment—

1. (4) Subsection (1) shall not apply to tour guides falling within such category or categories of tour guides as the Minister may from time to time, after consultation with the committee, determine by notice in the Gazette.

†This will to a large extent also meet the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The object of this amendment is to make it very clear that if a tourist, for example, comes to South Africa and engages a tour guide to show him the country and the tour guide is not registered, the tourist will not get into trouble. The penal provisions will not be applicable to him, but will be applicable only to people, natural or otherwise, whose business it is to operate in the field of tourism in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting every one of the suggestions which I put to him on Thursday. I was told previously that Ministers do not often change their minds and I was accused by him of not doing my homework, but it would seem that at least four of the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister did indicate a change of mind. I think the hon. the Minister, too, should consider doing his homework before introducing a Bill in this House. That was said in jest, Mr. Chairman, but we in these benches do appreciate the method by which the Minister and the department dealt with this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.