Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Appropriation Act for the current financial year—Act No. 110 of 1977—a total amount of R7 897,6 million was appropriated for the requirements of the State as a charge to the State Revenue Account. The Additional Appropriation Bill which is now before the House provides that this authority to spend shall be augmented by R88,9 million—an increase of only approximately 1,1%. In absolute terms this is the smallest additional appropriation since 1970-’71, and percentagewise the best since 1964-’65.

I am particularly grateful to be able to state that despite considerable cost increases, the salary increases which were granted and a special amount of almost R10 million pertaining to the stimulation of the building industry, it was nevertheless possible to keep the additional amount requested to this low level. Indeed, the amount would have been even lower, were it not for the fact that the supplementary amount of R11,3 million on the “Bantu Administration and Development” Vote, was in connection with column II items and that other savings effected by that department could therefore not be applied to meet the additional expenditure. In addition an amount of approximately R3 million is being requested for the “Community Development” Vote with a view to the need for official quarters for the Department of Defence. However, the latter department will surrender and refund an equivalent amount in its Vote.

The financial discipline which has been maintained by departments under difficult circumstances is truly commendable. But it is essential that they persevere in their efforts. Consequently I want to make an appeal to all who are dependent on the Exchequer to continue to display the utmost vigilance and circumspection in regard to their spending and to give the highest priority to the effective, economical application of public moneys.

†Mr. Speaker, you may recall that I indicated in my budget speech that steps would be taken to reduce the estimated expenditure as printed by R200 million. As is customary, I will deal with the outcome of the current financial year in my forthcoming budget speech: At this stage, however, it is appropriate that I assure the House that departments have succeeded in realizing substantial savings on their Votes from which increased expenditure elsewhere could be met.

The measure now before the House is mainly a Committee Stage Bill. The specific increases requested, as contained in the schedule to the Bill and the printed document before the House, are normally motivated and explained by the responsible Ministers during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that when there is a creditable performance by an hon. Minister one should give him due credit for it. I believe this is an appropriate occasion to do so because there is little doubt that the achievement that the hon. the Minister has been able to put before the House in having additional estimates of so small an amount, is one for which we in these benches would like to commend him. It is appropriate to say that if one could have brought all the savings into account, the additional estimates would have been still substantially lower. I want to say here now that I congratulate the hon. the Minister on this achievement. I hope this achievement is one that will act as a precedent for years to come, one which will be followed by him while he holds this office.

May I add that one must, of course, withhold final judgment until the actual figures of expenditure for the year become available. There must be no question that because of the financial discipline that has been exercised during the past year—on the fact of it, I believe, very well exercised—this must now be relaxed and that we must now go into a period of undisciplined Government spending. That is far from what we need in South Africa. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that the degree of discipline that has been displayed during the past year should be continued during the ensuing year. When we talk about a stimulation of our economy, such stimulation should be carried out by the Government to make sure that the private sector is stimulated and that the real things which we need in South Africa to get on the move, are in fact the ones which the hon. the Minister will stimulate in the years that lie ahead.

There are a couple of things which can appropriately be mentioned at Second Reading. One matter which the hon. the Minister has already dealt with is that the additional cutting of some R200 million is not really shown yet in these additional estimates and will only be apparent when the budget is finally presented a little later this year. However, some indication of a more specific nature in regard to the ability of the departments actually to have met the figure of R200 million, I believe, would be appreciated. If the hon. the Minister could give us that indication now, he would not give away any budget secrets and will show us the degree to which the departments have in fact responded and also whether some departments have been more anxious than others to fulfil their obligation in this regard.

Another matter which is a little obscure from the estimates is whether the recently announced salary increases are being covered by these estimates. There are indications in respect of at least one Vote where it is clear that it is included, but there should be an indication to us now whether, once we take these additional estimates into account, it will also cover whatever salary increases has been announced until this moment in time. If that were not so, it would, of course, create quite a different picture in regard to these additional estimates from what, on the face of it, is indicated here.

The other matter I would like to raise at Second Reading is this. The principle of matters which are already on the estimates cannot be debated, while new items can be debated in principle both at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. There are a number of new items here in respect of which the principle can be debated now or in the Committee Stage. I would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would give some indication of what is involved in respect of these matters before we get to the Committee Stage, so that a more fruitful debate could then take place.

Let me indicate to the hon. the Minister one of these matters. It is a matter which concerns me, as one speaking on financial matters. I refer to Vote 24—Treasury. Here we have an innocuous little item of R50, being a payment to the South West Africa Territorial Revenue Fund. That R50 is, however, the tip of the iceberg of an amount of R4 445 000 to be paid to the South West Africa Territorial Revenue Fund to compensate for the net loss of revenue as a result of the transfer of the administration of Walvis Bay to the Republic. This item is an important one, and one would have imagined that the hon. the Minister would say something about it, bearing in mind the effective date from which the South West Africa Administration lost this revenue. I take it that we are dealing only with the current financial year here, since we are now dealing with estimates for this financial year. A further question is: How does one actually arrive at such a figure? In other words, where does this figure of R4 445 000 come from? What is it based on? Does it include company tax? Does it include personal tax? Does it include all the revenue of any kind whatsoever which emanates from Walvis Bay? What is the concept which is behind it? This is something the hon. the Minister might deal with in his reply, because that would make the Committee Stage of the debate substantially easier from the House’s point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to anticipate any debate on this question, but I notice that an amount of R50 is to be voted under Vote 30—Industries, in respect of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation Limited. This again is a matter of principle which will be debated in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister knows what our views are, and that we believe that this matter affecting the Indian community as a whole should not be dealt with by means of another apartheid measure. Much as we want the Indian community to participate in industrial development and much as we believe that they should be encouraged and given assistance, we believe that the IDC could well have done this job.

In Vote 37—Public Works, there is another new and remarkable item. An amount of R50 is to be voted under “Miscellaneous Expenses” for the removal of squatters in Bellville South. This is a new item included in the estimates. The hon. the Minister, knowing the views of certain members of this House in regard to this issue, would, I thought, have taken some trouble to indicate to us what was behind this particular item. What is this magical R50 for? I should imagine it is not even enough to pay for the spare parts for one of the bulldozers or frontend loaders used in this regard. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us, before we come to the Committee Stage, exactly what is involved here.

In Vote 39—Water Affairs, there is also a new item of R50 in respect of an extra statutory subsidy for the Pusela Irrigation Board. Unless one knows what this is about, one is in the dark when it comes to a debate on the matter.

There are other matters with the exception of one I shall leave over to the Committee Stage. I refer to Vote 29—Commerce, where an additional amount of R77 000 is to be voted in respect of contributions to the Jaycee world congress in Johannesburg in 1977. I have some difficulty in understanding why this amount should have been included in the Commerce Vote. This was a public relations concept for South Africa. The conference was held in South Africa, and as is well known, some of us had some part in bringing this congress to South Africa. We welcome the fact that was held in South Africa, but we want to know what it has to do with the Department of Commerce. Surely it is something which the Department of Information should be subsidizing. I may point out that the Jaycee organization is not a junior organization to the Chamber of Commerce.

They have spent all their money already!

That is the point. I have grave difficulty in understanding why this amount should be included in the Commerce Vote. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us why this amount has been included on Vote 29. For the rest, I want to say, as I indicated right at the beginning, that we shall discuss this in some considerable detail in the Committee Stage, but we find ourselves experiencing a definite degree of pleasure at being able to congratulate the hon. the Minister on these additional estimates which represent, as a whole, so small an amount. In absolute terms R88 million is a large amount of money, but in relative terms it is a small amount of money for a country such as South Africa, and therefore we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Yeoville, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Finance for having achieved an Additional Appropriation that is, in fact, only 1,12% up on the total budget for the year. However, I believe that these figures should be looked at in the light of what is happening economically in the country today. Unfortunately, however, on these points we do not have the kind of information to be able to comment on how we view this amount of virtually R89 million. The sort of questions one could ask are: What has, in fact, happened to our income this year? Is our income reaching the budgeted levels or is it falling well short of the budgeted levels? If one is being asked to vote an Additional Appropriation of R89 million, surely one should know, to an extent, how much one has collected, in terms of taxes, and what the State Revenue Fund looks like. The latest figures do, in fact, tend to suggest that our income is not keeping pace with what we budgeted for during the course of the year.

Obviously it is essential to make savings where we can, and where savings are made, should they then be expended on different subheads? The hon. the Minister of Finance has the right, of course, to transfer savings in one Vote from one subhead to another subhead of the same Vote or perhaps even to a new subhead of the same Vote. In the light of the current situation, however, is it right for this to be done? If savings can be made by the State—by some department or under some subhead—more strength to them! One must congratulate them, but certainly one must try to ensure that those savings are not then spent on another subhead unless it is absolutely essential. After all, it is surely essential for everyone in this country to save for South Africa in the present economic climate. Whether the person concerned is a private individual or a Government Department, I believe that that saving should still be made.

Let us look at the figures before us. We are being asked to vote an Additional Appropriation of R88,9 million, but we are also, in fact, condoning a further R11,5 million, to be spent on these same Votes, being savings that have been transferred from other subheads or from different areas. These additional amounts to be spent do, in fact, take the overall Additional Appropriation to an amount in excess of R100 million.

A glaring example of this is the matter referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville, the matter of Walvis Bay. I believe that the hon. the Minister should perhaps tell us something more about this. After all, it is apparent that R4 445 000—I think that is the figure—is being given to the South West African Territorial Authority to remunerate that authority for revenue which it will lose because of Walvis Bay becoming part of the Cape Province of South Africa. If it is necessary for us, however, to spend this amount of money, it must surely follow that the income which they have lost cannot be offset by savings that they will make in terms of running that particular portion of what was previously their responsibility. In fact, just as a side line, it might cause one to think that perhaps Walvis Bay was supporting South West Africa to quite a large extent in that they were being taxed R4 million more than was actually being expended on them. I believe the hon. the Minister should comment on this. The other question one must ask is whether this is likely to be a recurrent expenditure or whether this is something that will happen in respect of this particular financial or fiscal year only. Again, I believe this does raise an important matter of principle: are we likely to have to continue in the future to compensate South West Africa for the fact that the revenue of Walvis Bay now comes to South Africa?

I want to repeat that the figures given to us in my opinion do not really give us a sufficient picture of what is happening in the country. I do appreciate that the hon. the Minister will be giving us more information in his budget speech, but at the same time R100 million is a lot of money. We are asked to vote an additional R88,9 million and I believe we should be given more information before we are asked to vote these moneys. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to supply some kind of a White Paper to Parliament before we have to consider these sums of money. I believe that if such a White Paper were available, one would in the House be able to comment in a clearer light on the expenditure of this amount, which on the face of it is a great credit to the hon. the Minister. I believe that, if we were to have more background information available, it would assist us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North posed certain questions in relation to expenditure. In that regard I merely want to point out to him that he can probe all those matters in the Committee Stage and get all the details he wants then.

The details of revenue, too?

That he can get in the Main Budget. The additional amount asked for last year was R260,3 million and this year we are being asked to vote approximately R88,9 million, which is about one third of last year’s increase. Last year the additional amount of the increase came to 3,68% and this year, as we have heard, it comes to slightly more than 1%. In a budget of this size—in view of the fact that everyone has been clamouring to the Government to stimulate the economy and considering the inflation rate—the increase is in our view a very modest one, which is most commendable under the circumstances.

It is a good Government.

I never said it was a good Government. The additional amount seems to indicate an improvement in our exports, in the quality of life in South Africa and in the quality of security, because seven departments covering these facets are responsible for approximately R84 million of the R89 million. Bearing in mind our particular situation, we must continue to improve the quality of our defence, the quality of our security, and the quality of life of all South Africans. Our economy must be strong enough to meet these requirements of our times and this requires a total commitment by the entire population of South Africa. In the circumstances we shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset thank the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for East London North and also the hon. member for Walmer for the kind remarks they made concerning this additional budget. One appreciates it. This sort of result is of course not achieved automatically. It does require a considerable and fairly sustained attempt to economize and save, and it certainly requires the very active and sympathetic co-operation of all the Government departments and of my colleagues. Therefore I too should like to express my appreciation for this team-work which has brought about this rather satisfactory result, as I also see it.

Mr. Speaker, we shall of course, depending on what the Opposition parties require, be discussing individual items in somewhat more detail. However, I shall just remark on a few matters that were raised in this debate. First of all the hon. member for Yeoville wanted some information as to how we fared in our attempt to cut the total expenditure, as printed, by R200 million. I cannot give him the full particulars. That will be done very soon, but the fact is that we have achieved our object substantially with the co-operation of my colleagues and the other departments.

Salary increases as from 1 January are included for the first quarter. They are included in these figures which cover the period to 31 March 1978.

If the hon. member for Yeoville would not mind, I think I ought to leave the question of the IDC and the Indian institution to my hon. colleague, the hon. Minister involved. There is also the question of the removal of squatters from Bellville South. The idea is simply to make provision for a service in the future under Vote 39 and 29.

As far as Walvis Bay is concerned, I think that is an important matter. Perhaps I may therefore give an explanation in just a few words. First of all the R50 is included because we do not have a final and accurate figure and we want to include a figure in the estimates for a service there. I can say that the balance will in all probability be met from savings. I want to explain this aspect a little further. I have here a detailed calculation of the amount and also an explanation from the Treasury which I ought to read because this is the one opportunity we have to put this item to the House. The explanation reads as follows—

*Only a nominal amount of R50 is being included in the additional estimates for approval by Parliament of the service concerned. I trust that that affords a certain measure of clarity in this respect.

The hon. member for East London North referred to the income side of the Exchequer and asked how things were going there. It is a bit difficult to try to furnish the House with figures at this stage. I should prefer that we wait a few weeks so that I can provide reliable figures in the budget speech. One can indeed arrive at certain conclusions from information with regard to our Government finances, which is published from time to time. It is true that the estimate for income tax is a little less, but the final figure is not yet available. With regard to customs and excise the income is also a little less, but the final figure is not yet available either. On the whole, I can say that despite the fact that the financial situation is rather tight, our Government finances are still sound and we will be able to deal with problems which arise. This will also be apparent in the budget.

†The hon. member also asked about the possibility of issuing a White Paper giving more details about the additional budget. I have nothing against such a step, because there is nothing to hide, but we do feel that the House has an opportunity to discuss the several Votes involved in some detail during the Committee Stage. The feeling from our side is that there is not a very strong case for a White Paper, but if the hon. member would like to discuss it further with me, I shall be very happy to meet him.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Walmer for the indication he gave as to how this additional expenditure—for which we are now seeking authority—in fact arises. As he, quite correctly, said, it arose out of the need to be militarily prepared; to improve the quality of life, as he called it, of all the people in this fair country of ours; and to improve the trading position and, thereby, the underlying strength of the economy. I think these are very constructive measures. The reasons for this increased expenditure are very sound and I am obliged to him for having pointed that out.

*That is my reply to the various questions put to me. If any further information is required, I am sure that it can be furnished during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote 6.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us all the details of this particular Vote. We would like very much to know what the R9 831 000 increase is for, why there has been a decrease of R10 116 000, what the additional R509 000 for the self-governing homelands is for and, lastly, we would like him to explain the R1 million additionally appropriated as a grant-in-aid to S.A. Bantu Trust Fund. Could the hon. the Minister please give us some details?

Mr. Chairman, the items responsible for the R9 831 000 increase are the following: Housing, R8,5 million; increased salaries, R330 000; services by the S.A. Bantu Trust in the Swazi territory, R2,865 million and health services, R1,5 million. That is a total increase of R13,195 million. However, there was a decrease of R3,36 million, which gives as a final result a net increase of R9,831 million.

The decrease of R10 116 000 is the result of a decrease in expenditure on the following items: Purchase of land 7,6 million; development items in the Caprivi Circle, R2 million; and roads in homeland territories, R205 000.

*The increase of R509 000 in assistance to self-governing homelands is also a net amount. The actual increase was R7,073 million, but there was a saving of R6,5 million. That gives a net result of R509 000. The increase is attributable to the following items: Allotments to self-governing territories for combating foot-and-mouth disease, R644 000; salary increases, R2,29 million; an additional amount requested by the Bophuthatswana Government for expenditure in connection with independence, R1,5 million; additional funds required for kwaZulu, R1,9 million; and staff expenditure not estimated in time, R734 000. That gives a total of R7,073 million. The saving was effected because the grants were not paid out as a result of the establishment of a legislative assembly for Nkanwane; reductions effected amounted to R3,1 million and provision transferred to the South West Africa Vote, amounted to R1,8 million. This led to a total saving of R6,5 million, in other words the net increase was R509 000.

The increase of R1 million is an additional amount voted for the Transkeian Adjustment Committee. This amount has already been spent and the hon. member need not therefore ask whether it is still going to be spent.

Mr. Chairman, one of the items the hon. the Deputy Minister referred in respect of the decrease, is an amount of R6,7 million for the purchase of land.

The amount is R7,6 million.

R7,6 million? That is even worse. This is a very large amount and I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate in what manner this amount has been decreased. Does this mean a change in Government policy? At this stage, when there is a need for consolidation, why is there a decrease of this proportion?

Order! The hon. member may not criticize the decreases.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am only asking why there has been a decrease.

Mr. Chairman, there is no change in Government policy. Last year when the hon. the Minister of Finance presented his budget, he indicated that an amount of R200 million still had to be saved and he requested the various departments to cut down their budgets by 10%. In this department we have the unfortunate situation that the purchase of land is one of the few areas in which we can cut down expenses. One cannot easily cut down on the other services. Although we greatly regret it and should have liked to have done otherwise, we had to reduce the appropriated amount of R50 million by R7 million so that the country’s income and expenditure could be balanced.

Mr. Chairman, in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to the first question, he indicated that there was an increase of R1,5 million for health services. I want to ask him what proportion of that is for preventive health services and what proportion for curative health services.

Which item is the hon. member referring to?

I am referring to your reply to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton.

Which item is it?

Item No. 5.

Mr. Chairman, R1,5 million has been appropriated for health services. The 1966-’67 financial year ended with a debit balance of R2,3 million in respect of health services as a result of the fact that, firstly an additional amount was required for the Madadeni Hospital because the provincial hospital at Newcastle had been closed down. In other words, there had to be an additional appropriation for the Madadeni Hospital. An amount of R800 000 was also required for the Edendale Hospital because of the admission of Transkeian tuberculosis patients. In addition there was other sundry excess expenditure to the amount of R311 000. A saving was also effected, however, with regard to the clinic in the Swazi territory, as well as on staff seconded from kwaZulu to Ulundi. Thus the total sum appropriated amounts to R1,5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with this Vote and the estimations given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. When we adopted the new system of budgeting, we were given an assurance that we would get just as much information as we received before. But here is the classic example of where we are not getting as much information. I find it utterly amazing that when these additional estimates are put before us, we are given a lump sum of R9,8 million in respect of a grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund. There is no break-up of this amount in the additional estimates. It makes the task of trying to deal with this in this debate absolutely impossible. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a simple question: In respect of which territories is this money being expended? Let us take housing as an example. He has told us that he is going to spend R8,5 million in respect of housing, but where is he going to spend it?

In all the self-governing homelands.

But how much is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to spend in each particular one? We should like to know. We should like to know how much he is spending in kwaZulu and how much in other areas. If one is going to have estimates reflecting merely globular sums of money of this nature, it goes back on the deal which was done when we agreed to these types of estimates and the promise that we would get adequate information. I specifically want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will tell us for which individual territory amounts are being spent on housing and how much in respect of each territory.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member that the manner in which the estimates are being presented here is no different from that used in the past. It is exactly the same. If the hon. member should like a complete report on every house built anywhere in South Africa this session would be too short to explain all those things to him.

That is an impertinent answer.

This is the way it was done in the past. We do furnish the information hon. members ask for. The amount of R8,5 million which is being spent in the various self-governing territories is being spent within those territories only. The amount spent in the White areas, is determined by the Department of Community Development. The spending of these funds is determined by the housing needs existing in each self-governing territory. In the end that is the decisive factor. Only at the end of the financial year shall we be able to state how much had been spent in each territory and on what it had been spent.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not in fact welcome the suggestion which has been made, namely that a White Paper should be tabled in this House together with the estimates for the information of hon. members who are participating in this debate, which is the process by means of which the hon. the Deputy Minister gets the money he is asking for? We would then be able to take a broader view and actually see the information which he is trying to give the Committee.

I want to raise the matter of the purchase of property in the independent, former self-governing territories. Under what conditions is this money made available? The hon. the Deputy Minister is faced with a particular situation, for instance, in the Transkei. I presume that the properties which are to be purchased in the former self-governing territories would cover trading stations, etc. Under what conditions are these bought and what valuations are accepted in this kind of transaction? I think the Committee is entitled to this information and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister could well accept the suggestion which has been made.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to what the hon. member for Mooi River has just said, I wish to mention that a White Paper was issued in 1964, but the trouble was that hon. members did not study that White Paper. They do not study the White Papers, yet they ask for even more White Papers. If the hon. member had studied that White Paper, he would have known exactly what the conditions were and exactly on what this money had been spent. Moreover, with regard to the issue of a White Paper on the estimates, that is a matter for the Minister of Finance and his department; in other words, the hon. member need not talk to me about it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking to escape his responsibilities by being rude to the hon. member for Mooi River, because he obviously either does not know the answers or he does not want to give them.

I gave the answer.

The hon. the Deputy Minister was asked a question and it is absolute nonsense to say that hon. members must go and look in a White Paper that was tabled to see what was decided would eventually be given. We want to know what is being given this year. It is his job to come here and answer us. He must not give impertinent answers here. [Interjections.] His job is to tell us what this money is for this year. I do not want cheek from the hon. the Deputy Minister. We want to know exactly how much money is being voted for each particular homeland. That is what he must tell us.

Here comes the bogyman.

No, that is sheer bravado on the part of the hon. Minister. He is lucky because he is not involved in these estimates. But he had better keep quiet. He has a lot to say for himself today, but the hon. Deputy Minister must reply now. What are the amounts being voted for each territory? That is what we have asked, and we are entitled to a reply.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I totally overrated the hon. member. I told him it was for the Transkei adjustment committee.

I was talking about housing.

Yes, but the hon. member for Mooi River talked about the R1 million and the hon. member maintains that I am not replying to him. The R1 million is for the Transkei adjustment committee and is spent only in Transkei. The R8,5 million for housing is being spent in all the other self-governing territories.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make this point very clear to the hon. Deputy Minister. It is very clear; either he does not understand me, or he does not want to understand. I wish to know what amount of this lump sum is being spent on each of the territories which according to the estimates are developing towards self-determination. In other words, what is the amount voted for kwaZulu in this budget? That is what I want to know.

R500 000 goes to kwaZulu. The rest goes to the other self-governing territories.

Then I take the next example. How much is going to Gazankulu, how much to Lebowa? I want the figures for each of those territories. I am entitled to that information.

The amounts in connection with all the other self-governing territories have at this stage not been specified yet. It depends on the requirements and at the end of the financial year, when the housing has been made available, we shall be able to tell hon. members what in fact had been decided. R500 000 was allocated to kwaZulu and the rest goes to all the other homelands.

Tell us what each other territory gets! [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if no decision has yet been reached on the requirements, how can the hon. the Deputy Minister be entitled to ask the House for money? How can he do that if no decision has yet been taken? The House cannot vote simply money on the assumption that the hon. the Deputy Minister might perhaps use it, that the need to use it might perhaps arise. It is very clear that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not do his work. Of course it is also possible that he is standing in for the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development and that he is now … One might say “he is carrying the can”. This is what is happening here. It is quite clear that the House cannot vote money to a Minister who does not know whether he needs it or not. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister of Finance has to say about this. Here we have an hon. Deputy Minister who wants money and who surely could not have convinced the hon. the Minister by merely asserting that a need might arise, but that his department did not yet know whether that would in fact happen and—if the need did in fact arise—in which homeland the money would be spent. I think it is disgraceful for the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask for money, especially in view of the present circumstances prevailing in our country and while the hon. the Minister of Finance is trying his best to economize. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking for money which is totally unnecessary. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent that the figures we are asking for are not available to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He does not have the figures. Now, I can understand this. The hon. the Deputy Minister is the one who is charged now with the purchase of ground in terms of consolidation. That may not be the particular section of the department that he handles. However, I believe it would be perfectly competent of this House to move the adjournment of this debate until the hon. the Deputy Minister has been able to establish the figures involved. I do not intend to move the adjournment of the debate, but I believe one could do that. This is the sort of thing that we are now putting to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the hon. the Minister.

Why do you not do it then?

Because I know what that hon. member will do. He will vote it down. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am making the point to the hon. the Minister of Finance. This is the sort of information which would save a great deal of the time that we are spending now on this kind of debate. If this information had been tabled for us we would know why we were sitting here. I believe this is something which really supports the request we have made.

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members need not worry. If they were to look at the figures in this budget, they would see that we did respond to the appeal by the hon. the Minister of Finance that we should economize. This department co-operated very well and contributed its share, albeit under very difficult circumstances. The additional amount which is now being voted for housing, is the same as that which the hon. the Minister made available in order to stimulate the economy. The department has certain preferences however. As hon. members know, it was announced on 10 November 1977 that R250 million was being made available immediately for low-cost housing for non-Whites. Of the R250 million, R100 million is being allocated to this department for the stated number of years. After we had made our estimates and had reviewed the situation, we decided to spend that amount during the remaining part of the current financial year. As is apparent from the information made available to this House, R500 000 of the amounts available will go to kwaZulu. The rest goes to all the other homelands. That was determined according to merits and needs, and I do not have the figures at hand now to be able to tell the hon. member the precise amount which will go to each homeland. In this regard protracted investigations are being undertaken by the various homeland governments and the determination of their needs are being submitted to us. Moreover the necessary co-ordination is being done by the Development Work Branch of this department. On these grounds we came to the conclusion that we would spend this amount of R8½ million. R500 000 of this will be spent in kwaZulu, and the rest in the other homelands. I cannot furnish the exact figures, but that is not necessary. It is being done exactly as in the past.

Mr. Chairman, the mystery becomes even deeper now. What is obvious is that when the Minister in November last year made the announcement that this money was going to be spent on housing, the preparatory work had not yet been done. What is even more remarkable is that the preparatory work has obviously still not yet been done.

It has been done.

All that the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us is that a specific amount is to be spent in kwaZulu. There must be some reason why he remembers kwaZulu and this one amount.

There is a reason; it is because they are the contractors themselves.

The point is that the only one the hon. the Deputy Minister knows about is kwaZulu. He does not know what he is going to spend between now and 31 March, and yet he seriously expects the House to vote him R8½ million. He expects the House to vote him this amount and he does not really know what he is going to spend it on.

I know exactly what I am going to spend it on.

I think the whole thing is a bluff which is being perpetrated on the public of South Africa. R8½ million has to be spent between now and 31 March, which is a matter of just over a month away, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know what he is going to spend the money on, it is obvious that he is not going to be able to spend it. There is something drastically wrong, and the public are being bluffed. We have to call the hon. the Deputy Minister’s bluff. He has all his officials sitting there. Surely they must know, if he does not know, and if they do not know, then it is obvious that this money cannot be spent in a month.

It can.

Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister must then tell us what he is going to spend this amount of R8½ million on within a month. He must tell us where he is going to spend it and what he is going to spend it on, otherwise he stands exposed in the public’s eye as a person who is bluffing the public.

We should have Gatsha here himself!

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with regard to the increase of R9 831 000 in respect of the grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund, and also with regard to the reply which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave to the hon. member for Musgrave in connection with the decrease of R10 116 000 in respect of other sub-programmes in the development of Bantu areas towards self-determination. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the reduction was in conformity with the hon. the Minister of Finance’s request for a 4% reduction. He said that because it was easier to reduce in this area than in other areas, this reduction was perhaps in excess of 4%. Mr. Chairman, the reduction is actually 18%, or nearly 20%. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know where he is going to apply the money, he must at least know where he is not going to apply the money. He has told us that there is a reduction of R7,6 million in respect of land. Mr. Chairman, we would like to know in respect of what land there has been a reduction. What land has not been purchased? In what area has it been decided either to abandon or to postpone the purchase of land? [Interjections.] This represents a reduction of something like 18%. If there is an 18% reduction from this Vote, how long is it going to take to purchase the additional land? Whereas the Deputy Minister may not know how he is going to apply moneys for which there is a new budget, he must certainly know which area of land it has been decided not to purchase. I think that to say to the hon. member for Musgrave, “It is something like 4%”, when in fact it turns out to be 18%, requires a much better explanation than the one he has given to date.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not listening. I said the appeal the Minister of Finance made was that each department should effect a saving of 4%. It is not necessary for each department to show a saving of 4% on each item. That is impossible to do, and the hon. member knows it. For instance, one can not save 4% in the case of salaries. Are we supposed to retrench 4% of the people in our service? In other words, there are other items in respect of which we can save more than 4%. That was why I told the House a moment ago that one of the aspects of the work of this department on which savings can be effected, is the purchase of land. It is true that more than 4% of the amount voted for the purchase of land, has been saved. However, I did not suggest that savings of only 4% have been effected in respect of land purchases. Let me explain this to the hon. member. We have a purchasing programme. We purchase in various areas throughout the country. We have a list of priorities, and what happens is that the land of those at the bottom of the list, is not purchased. If we have R50 million, we purchase up to that amount and if we have R42 million, we purchase up to R42 million. However, if we have only R1 million, we purchase only the items to the value of R1 million at the top of the list. Here it is a question of the difference of R7 million between the R42 million and the R50 million on the list of priorities which was not purchased during this financial year. Those items will of course come into play next year, and therefore I told the hon. member that we should naturally like to expedite the purchases, but it is question of the economy of the country which has to be taken into consideration and also a question of balancing the budget.

Therefore I am telling that hon. member, the hon. member for Yeoville who had the gall to say that I was bluffing the House, that we know precisely that we are able to spend R8,5 million. I do not have the particulars with me to be able to tell the hon. member in precisely which individual self-governing areas the money will be spent. However, that hon. member need not be worried. I have the fullest confidence in the people of this department. [Interjections.] We have reasoned and worked these things out together. However, I did not bring the specific particulars with me today to be able to tell the hon. member precisely which particular amounts will be spent in which specific self-governing areas. However, because kwaZulu itself is the contractor, and because we know that they are able to spend R500 000 towards the end of this financial year, we have allotted R500 000 to them for the remaining period of this financial year. The rest of the money has been allotted to the rest of the self-governing areas for work which will be done by contractors. I should like to tell that hon. member that he is taking a chance, but he is not achieving anything by doing so.

Mr. Chairman, we are not taking any chances at all, because what we now have to do is to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to put the Auditor-General onto the hon. the Minister. I say this because one thing is very clear. Firstly, the country needs the stimulation. That is the first aspect. Secondly, we need to give jobs to people. The third aspect is that there is a crying need for housing. These are all things the hon. the Minister of Finance told us as long ago as November. He delivered a paper and made a statement at an investment conference in Johannesburg where he announced this. If the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department can therefore not satisfy those three requirements …

Yes we can.

Well, if he can then he should be able to tell us how he is going to do it and where he is going to do it. He has not, however, been able to give us one single fact this afternoon.

That is nonsense.

It is true! Let him tell us what the facts are that he has given us. Let him give us one fact apart from the information that kwaZulu can build its own houses.

The fact is we are going to spend R8,5 million.

But he cannot tell us where he is going to spend it, how he is going to spend it, who he is going to employ and what he is going to do.

In the homelands.

The truth is that if anyone is taking a chance, it is the hon. the Deputy Minister. We shall watch this matter, and when the accounts come up … [Interjections] … we shall see what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing. We shall watch the matter and have the Auditor-General on his trail.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these figures are, in fact, available? Is the difficulty that he simply does not have them here? Is that the situation?

Yes.

They can, however, be supplied to hon. members on another occasion, by letter or whatever other means he chooses to make them available? They are consequently available and can be made available to hon. members? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister take steps to see that the House is informed as to what the amounts are?

The hon. member may put the question on the Order Paper.

We are now in the middle of a debate. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to do that, however, that is fine. We shall put the question on the Order Paper. We do, however, expect an answer immediately because he says these figures are available.

Would he now like to comment on the purchase of properties of independent former self-governing territories? The question is how all these figures are arrived at. What check does he have that real valuations are arrived at, valuations which are fair to the buying public here, in this case the Government of South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member were to study the White Paper, he would see that as far as the purchase of land is concerned, we take extraordinary steps. There is an Adjustment Committee specifically charged with the purchase of land in Transkei. Assessors are also appointed. People who know the property market, people who know the industrial and the commercial community and other people from the private sector serve as members of this committee. The directors of development corporations also serve on this committee. The valuations of the assessor are first sent to the adjustment committee which studies them. Then they are sent to the department and the secretary of the division in charge of this, goes through the valuations. Only then are they sent to the Deputy Minister for final perusal and verification. Therefore they are checked at least three times and this applies in respect of the purchase of all land, residential land as well as commercial sites.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. the Deputy Minister is making me more and more confused. He tells us that the R8,5 million is going to be spent on the homelands and that of that amount R500 000 is going to kwaZulu, but he cannot give us the details of the amounts going to the other homeland territories. He now says he has the information available in his office, but when he is asked to provide this information, he says we must put a question to that effect on the Order Paper. We are putting the question to him now. I believe he should let us have this information—perhaps he can table it—at the earliest possible moment, because it is relevant to this particular situation. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should perhaps even send someone across to his office now to collect this information. I do not think we should have to wait and put a question on the Order Paper before we get this information.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: My submission to you is that the hon. member for East London North as well as the hon. member for Yeoville is contravening Standing Order No. 110, for they are constantly repeating the same arguments. They have repeated one argument four times. Consequently I think they are out of order.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I had more or less finished, but let me repeat once again … [Interjections] … that the hon. the Deputy Minister should let us have this information in the House at this stage and that we should not have to wait and put a question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these figures have perhaps been made available to members on his side of the House.

No.

I ask this because there is such a lack of interest in this matter on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a last minute appeal to the Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Defence. He knows that it is not within the power of the Opposition to move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again. Only he can really do so in the House. I therefore appeal to him to move accordingly because he must know …

I am not in your circus.

No, the hon. the Minister does a clown act on his own. Let him just listen nicely to what I have to say. I am making a simple appeal to him. He knows we need this information. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the information is in his office.

No, it is not in my office.

Well, where is it then?

In Pretoria.

The hon. the Deputy Minister now says the information is in Pretoria.

You can go there over the weekend and find out.

With respect, Sir, I think the House should not be treated with such contempt. This is an important matter. It affects the economy; it affects people’s housing and people’s jobs. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Leader of the House, since he is the only one who has that power, to move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again so that the hon. the Deputy Minister can do his job and get the information for the House.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 8.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the two items in respect of which additional money is asked for. I would like an explanation by the hon. the Minister in regard to both of these. The first is the R1 567 000—item J: Contributions, grants-in-aid and subsidies. The second is the larger amount of R5 900 000—item L—which is the loss on operation of Railway non-White passenger services to and from non-White townships. This reflects an increase of nearly 16%. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether these services in respect of which there is an operating loss, are services on guaranteed lines so that the money may be recovered by the department. I would also be interested to know in respect of which lines these losses were incurred.

Mr. Chairman, I shall first deal with the amount of R1 567 000. This amount consists of three items. Two of them are our contributions to world organizations and the third item is the loss in regard to the subsidization of bus services.

I shall first refer to the world organizations. In this regard we provide an amount of R58 000 as our contribution to the organization known as ICAO, viz. the International Civil Aviation Organization. Certain rights were withheld from us by this organization years ago. At that time it was decided not to make our full contribution. During the course of this financial year we decided to return once again to the original position, and to make our full contribution towards this organization.

It is ICAO.

Yes, it is ICAO. The same circumstances apply more or less to the WMO, viz. the World Meteorological Organization. There, too, our contributions were withheld, in terms of a decision taken years ago, and during the course of this year we decided to make our full contribution to date once again. As a result of the decision taken years ago, these amounts were of course not budgeted for at the beginning of this financial year, and we are therefore requesting it now as an additional amount. In the case of ICAO it is R58 000 and in the case of the World Meteorological Organization it is R219 000.

Mr. Chairman, you can understand that it is a thorny subject and that is why I prefer not to go into great detail, but rather to inform the groups of the various parties if they want to know what happened in that regard.

Do we give money to people who kick us out?

Mr. Chairman, I have explained what it is all about and I thought that, judging on merit, we made sound decisions. The hon. member may perhaps disagree with me, but I do not think this is the right place for us to argue about it.

The third item involved in the expenditure of R1 567 000 is a loss experienced in respect of the subsidization of bus services. The loss was R3 221 000. Therefore, the total is R3 221 000 plus R58 000 plus R219 000 which was our loss and for which additional money had to be budgeted. However, we had a saving of R905 000 under item J and a saving of R1 027 000 under other Votes which appear in the White Book. This resulted in a total saving of almost R2 million. This leaves a balance of R1 567 000.

In brief: The amounts therefore represent contributions towards ICAO, WMO and a supplement regarding the subsidization of bus services. Hon. members will understand that as far as the latter item is concerned, we have been faced with price increases in the past year, and other factors, too, played a role in making a larger subsidy for bus services essential.

The loss on operation of Railway services is an item in respect of which the Department of Transport only really serves as a channel through which payment to the Railways takes place. The appropriation, as we received it at the beginning of the year, is as it was estimated by the Railways, i.e. the expected loss on the guaranteed services to the resettlement areas. I do not want to identify all the various resettlement areas and railway lines now; nor am I able to do so.

However, the losses arose in connection with the lines to the resettlement areas. The expected losses for the current year are estimated by the Railways. In this way we received a estimate of R37 400 000 from the Railways. In my capacity as Minister of Transport I decided to ask the Minister of Railways how this happened and what the difference was. I asked him and was informed that the amount needed now, is R43,3 million.

Can you believe him?

I am inclined to accept his word! The amount of R37,3 million increased to R43,4 million. R2 million of this increase is due to rising costs. An amount of R3,9 million is also included here, which represents an amount which was short in the 1976-’77 financial year. Hon. members will understand that we are dealing here with a matter between the Railways and the Government. There is an agreement that when the accounts of the previous year are closed and a difference still exists between the revised appropriation—this is the one which we estimate at R43,3 million here today—and the actual appropriation at the end of the financial year, the deficit—if there is one—will be rectified in the following year, as is being done here. The rectification for the 1976-’77 financial year is R3,9 million and the additional deficit which is now being envisaged, is an additional R2 million. This brings the amount to R43,3 million. I have already said that in fact the department is only the channel through which payment takes place. The amounts are negotiated and the deficit is then determined according to a specific formula. The Treasury is duly informed about this and agrees with the Railways on the amount, as it appears here in the appropriation of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Chairman, I must say it is a pleasure to listen to an hon. Minister who, unlike some hon. deputy Ministers that we have heard this afternoon, has done his homework. The bus subsidy is a good deal larger than we envisaged in the first place. The hon. the Minister referred to this and said that it was due to price rises and other factors. I have been putting my imagination to work, but I could not think what the other factors might be. So perhaps the hon. the Minister could let us know.

Mr. Chairman, in this regard we provided for an amount of R39 million for the subsidization of bus services. The other factor in this regard is that if bus fares are increased—there are many things I could refer to in this regard, but I am only referring to the most important—one is faced with a reaction from the public which may result in unpleasantness in many cases. As a result we decided rather to subsidize bus services than to increase fares, which are approved by the National Transport Commission, without the people who use bus services being affected. That is why I said that there are also other factors which played a role in this regard.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 12.—“Interior”:

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few votes in which I see an increase in salaries, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain that to us. Secondly, I also see there is an increase—it is not a large one—of R169 000 for advertising, printing and publications, and perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether there have been any special publications or plans that will require finance of that sort. I would also like to hear an explanation in regard to miscellaneous expenditure amounting R144 000.

Mr. Chairman, I note that an additional amount of R144 000 must be voted against the item “Miscellaneous expenses”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how much of this was required for election expenditure.

What was the full cost of the election?

Mr. Chairman, I think we should make it a clean sweep in this Vote, because when one looks at item C—“Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services”, one sees that this item has increased by 39,5%. This is either very poor budgeting in the first place, or the usage of the postal, telegraph and telephone services has escalated rather extraordinarily. In fact, one cannot quite understand this, because with the independence of Bophuthatswana and Transkei the interior is actually smaller than it used to be.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I could make out the hon. members questioned items A, C and E …

And item D.

In that case I shall deal with all the items. As far as item A is concerned, the total increase in salaries etc. is R451 000, but a considerable amount of that, an amount of R356 000, was spent on the general election, being remuneration for electoral, voting and presiding officers, as well as counters. Of course, these expenses could not have been foreseen. It is therefore an increase of R451 000 … [Interjections.] … of which R356 000 was used for the election. On the other hand we had a saving of R376 000 on salaries, which means an additional net expenditure of only R75 000. If hon. members want the details of this, I am prepared to give them.

As far as item C is concerned, I want to ask the hon. member, who was rather catty about it, whether he remembers that an election was held.

They will never forget that!

The additional expenditure of R40 000 for telegraph services can be ascribed exclusively to the election. On the other hand, we saved R8 000 on telephone services by the department transferring this duty to the Post Office which provides the service. Therefore, we have here a net additional amount of R32 000 to be voted.

Let us now take a look at additional expenditure under item D. The additional expenditure here is due to the election. As far as stationery is concerned, there was an increase of R8 000 due to the general election, economy measures resulted in a drop of R32 000. Therefore there was a net saving of R24 000. The cost of advertising increased by R400. The total additional amount which must be voted for this item, is therefore R169 000.

Please repeat the amount which was spent on the election.

The funeral expenses of the NRP.

The hon. member is placing me in a difficult position now. I shall have to repeat all the amounts.

No, I just want to hear the last few figures again. You spoke about saving … [Interjections.]

We saved R77 000. The item is described as follows—

This represents a decrease of R77 000. There was also a drop of R32 000 in respect of stationery. As a result of economy measures, and since there was an overestimate in connection with certain stationery items, a saving will be effected.

I now want to refer to item E. It is a long list, but I will read it all. [Interjections.] Do hon. members want me to refer to items in connection with the election only?

Yes.

I think that we have a great deal of time to waste today and therefore I am going to read everything. I quote from paragraph (a)—

Therefore it was an increase of R174 000. I quote from paragraph (b)—

I quote from paragraph (c)—

This resulted in an increase of R90 000. I quote from paragraph (d)—

This resulted in an increase of R17 000. There were also incidental expenses of R2 000 due to transfer of officials. Training expenses amounted to R200. The Parliamentary election expenses amounted to R20 000. As a result of the general election, an additional amount of R20 000 was required for replacing and repairing of ballot compartments and boxes, hiring of polling stations and the supply of electricity, etc.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 15.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, when we come to this particular Vote, no one will want to quarrel with the increases under the various sections, but I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether some of these increases were not allowed for in the last budget. What were the amounts in respect of, for example, item L—“Social Pensions”? I also notice that a very large amount has been allocated for the item “Care of the Aged and Infirm”. Whilst one welcomes that, one would like a little more information.

Mr. Chairman, whilst percentagewise item K is not large, we would like to know the reason for the fairly substantial increase of R9 245 000, and perhaps the hon. the Minister could indicate to us which funds are getting the money. In terms of item Q we have a query. We welcome the increase, but we would like to know whether the hon. the Minister can tell us how much of this amount is going to medical services and how much is going to housing.

Mr. Chairman, I start with main division K, which was raised by the hon. member for Berea. The adjustment of salaries and wages with effect from 1 January 1978 resulted in an increase in the State’s contributions to pension funds which could, of course, not have been foreseen at the time when the draft estimates for 1977-’78 were drawn up. In the second place there was a considerable increase in a number of temporary staff who obtained permanent appointments, something which could not have been known in advance to any person responsible for drafting the budget, but the greatest increase arises from the first circumstance which I mentioned here, viz. the adjustment of salaries and wages. That is accompanied, of course, by the Government’s contribution to the pension funds. The Government’s contribution to the Government Service Pension Fund, in relation to the Government Employees’ Provident Fund, is now calculated at R2,70 for each R1 contributed by the employee. Previously it was R1,49 as against R1. Included in this is an amount of R2 431 000 which was really a reduction. When the estimates for 1977-’78 were drawn up, the Minister of Finance requested each department to reduce its estimates and R2 431 000 is now being set off under this subhead against that reduction. That, plus shortfalls that arose, gives us the relevant figure.

The hon. member for Berea has also inquired about main division Q—“Care of the Aged and Infirm”. The major part of the shortfall expected here, is really the result of the rise in the cost of living which necessitated greater contributions to enable the homes for the aged to continue with their supportive task. He has asked what portion would be provided for medical services. The subsidy makes provision for the care of the aged in homes and I am not able to give him the figure he wants. An interesting circumstance in which his party will no doubt take an interest, is that as a result of the prevailing shortage of employment and also as a result of the recession in the building industry, some of these old-age homes have been completed sooner than was originally planned. In other words, they will now be ready for occupation sooner and we must make provision to enable those old-age homes to start functioning. Incidental to this is a provision which we have to make in respect of subsidies on the interest on loans granted by the Department of Community Development.

The hon. member for Pinelands has referred to main division L—“Social Pensions”. This amount is actually misleading, because a substantial amount, R2 million in fact, has been included in the amount on which, in this year’s budget, we had to cut down at the request of the Department of Finance. In other words, R2 million can in fact be deducted from the figure which is shown here. A further reason for the expected deficit is that nowadays more applications are being received from people who qualify for social pensions. That is probably owing to the fact that living conditions have become so much more difficult. Because these people qualify, their applications are granted and we therefore have additional expenditure.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 16.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to know from the hon. Minister what the S.A. Institute in Amsterdam referred to in item H is, and how the money granted to this institute was applied.

Mr. Chairman, the S.A. Institute in Amsterdam does important work in the Netherlands. As hon. members will note, the grant-in-aid which is being paid to this institute is a very small one. Last year the institute unfortunately found itself in an invidious position as a result of the fact that a lack of money had jeopardized its continued existence. My department was then approached with the request to grant additional money for administrative expenditure and to keep the institute going. We were therefore compelled to approach the Treasury. This is a column ii item. On the main item we saved approximately R253 000. Because this is a column II item, however, we must obtain the necessary authority from Parliament. I hope that this reply satisfies the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to query item K. Here an additional R7 000 has apparently been spent on capital grants-in-aid to the National Cultural Council. We have heard earlier that the department has been urged to save money, but whereas culture is obviously very important to us as South Africans, one would have thought that this could have perhaps been an item where a saving could have been effected, but instead of which there is now an excess.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite correct. There was indeed a substantial saving in this regard. However, this is also a column II item. In fact, I gave the officials of my department a good talking to because I did not want to ask for money in the Additional Appropriation. Both these items—H and K—are column II items. Here, too, a saving of approximately R35 000 has been effected. In item K, however, we are dealing with the Regional Performing Arts Boards, and more particularly, with the salary increases since 1 January this year. In this respect, 50% of the cost is borne by the provincial administrations, while my department pays the remainder. We have effected considerable savings. These amounts relate to salary increases since 1 January, and because it is a column II item, it has to be submitted to Parliament for approval.

Mr. Chairman, referring again to the S.A. Institute in Amsterdam, can the hon. the Minister tell us why the Institute encountered financial problems, what the important work is that caused the institute to encounter financial troubles and what the reasons were that gave rise to the financial problems?

Mr. Chairman, the institute utilized certain funds for special projects, funds which were initially intended for administrative purposes. As the institute does not have a reserve fund to keep it going in normal circumstances, it requested that, in view of the need to continue with its activities, extra money should be advanced to it. If we had not been able to advance the extra money, the institute would have had to stop functioning. As it was, in our view, not desirable that the institute should cease to function, we approached the Treasury and requested that the subsidy to the institute be increased.

The institute performs a great task and its activities are many and varied. There is for example a chair of Afrikaans which must be supported financially. The institute introduces the South African culture to Amsterdam. It undertakes a variety of projects which are all concerned with the promotion of the South African culture and the introduction thereof to the Netherlands. I do not wish to mention specific projects now, but the activities of the institute are incidental to these.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 19.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”:

Mr. Chairman, I note that under main division 6—“Associated Services—Nature Conservation” an additional amount of R247 000 is being requested to supplement the grant-in-aid of the National Parks Board. I also note that under the same main division there has been a saving of R2 211 million under the item “Other programmes”. Can the hon. Deputy Minister please furnish an explanation in this connection?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg wants a detailed reply. I can give him a brief reply but if he desires a detailed reply, I can give that too. The amount granted for the financial year 1977-’78 amounted to R50,26 million, but after the revised budget the amount was R48 268 million. A net saving of R1 992 million resulted from that. The saving amounts to approximately 4% and that corresponds more or less to the extent of saving requested by the Treasury. The cyclone Emily, which everybody knows about, caused great damage in the parks. The extent of the damage amounted to approximately R497 000.

In negotiations with the Treasury it was decided that a part of the amount would be voted during this financial year and the rest during the next financial year. For that reason R247 000 is being requested for the present financial year. The amount will be utilized mainly for repairs to dams and retaining embankments and for the replacement of certain equipment, as also for repairs to temporary dwelling houses, pump stations, etc. which were either washed away or severely damaged. That is briefly what it amounts to.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are all agreed that the amount should be spent, but I should like an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that none of this money will be spent on mining, prospecting or drilling -for coal by the National Parks Board.

Mr. Chairman, I really think the hon. member for Orange Grove is trying to be funny. I think he is doing the Parks Board and the activities in which they are engaged, an injustice. As a matter of fact, I think he is merely conjuring up spectres and in doing so he is not promoting the objectives and activities of the Parks Board. I am sorry that he should do so.

I know what the hon. member is referring to. He had a question on the Order Paper for 24 February and I replied to it.

You could not answer.

No, I replied to it very clearly. I shall repeat it. His question read—

1. (1) Whether the geological survey to be undertaken by the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines in the Kruger National Park will involve prospecting or mining of any nature; if not, what activities does the survey comprise; if so,
2. (2) whether the National Parks Board is contemplating any action under section 20 of the National Parks Act; if so, what action; if not, why not?

My reply to that is—

1. (1) No. The survey consisted of the drilling of a number of stratigraphic boreholes.

In other words, the surveys are being taken by the Geological Research Section. As far as I am concerned—I am also sure of it as far as the Opposition is concerned—it certainly forms part of the task of the Geological Research Section to examine the crust of the earth. The National Parks must surely be included in such surveys. Nowhere in the Act have I come across anything which prohibits that, whereas mining and prospecting are in fact prohibited. This is stated very emphatically in section 20. There is nothing wrong with that. In this instance, however, a geological survey was carried out by the Geological Survey Section. What is more, the work they are doing there in my view does not constitute mining, nor does it constitute prospecting. I took the trouble to go into the Mining Act No. 20 of 1967. In that Act, prospecting is defined as follows—

As far as I am concerned the Geological Survey Section is therefore not busy with prospecting, not according to this definition.

All right, drop it!

Are you satisfied?

Yes.

Then why all this show? I feel we cannot simply drop the thing just because that hon. member has shouted “drop it”. The Geological Survey Section does not do prospecting because it is not, in the first place a prospecting concern, and therefore it is not a holder of a prospecting permit either. Nor is it a holder of a prospecting licence, and it does not pay prospecting fees. In other words, there is a very clear difference between “mining” and “prospecting” as these words are generally understood and as the hon. member would like the public to understand them in connection with what is going on in the Kruger National Park.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has, I am afraid, compounded what I regard as a grave error of judgment in that he has, in fact, now admitted that they were boring for minerals there. If that is not prospecting, I would be very surprised to know what prospecting really is! [Interjections.] All I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister was to tell me that this money was in no way going to be spent on anything to do with what I regard as an illegal act which has taken place in the Kruger National Park. He has now given me the answer to a question I asked on Friday and I have heard his answer. He has gone even further by trying to justify himself. That was not, however, the question I asked. All I wanted to know was that none of this money was being spent on what I regard as an illegal act.

Order! The hon. member cannot give his own reasons for this. He may, however, ask for reasons.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the answer given by the hon. the Deputy Minister to my question which, as far as I am concerned, seemed to bear no relation to the question I asked. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, if you are stopping me from reacting to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statements, the right thing would surely have been to have stopped the hon. the Deputy Minister from having made them in the first instance.

The hon. member may proceed.

I just wanted that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has now given it to me. Perhaps I could again ask him the question he was unable to answer before, and that is what the difference is between drilling for coal and prospecting. His answer did not satisfy me.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Parks Board I just want to say thank you very much to the Government … [Interjections.]

What is the question?

It has nothing to do with you. On behalf of the Parks Board I want to thank the Government for making available that amount of money to repair the terrible damage caused by cyclone Emily. I think all of us are very conscious of the fact that the Kruger National Park is one of our major tourist attractions in South Africa. I happen to be a member of the Parks Board who saw what terrible damage had been caused to dams, roads, camps, etc., and the havoc that had been wreaked. It is in the interests of South Africa and of our tourist industry for repair work to be done as soon as possible. As I have said, the damage amounted to approximately R500 000. An amount of approximately R250 000 is still outstanding, but we are grateful to the Government for having intimated that this money will be made available later. I just want to say thank you for that.

Mr. Chairman, it was very clear from my explanation for what purposes this money is required. There can be no doubt about that. As I have been accused of not having replied to that aspect, I just want to repeat clearly that none of the money requested will be used for those purposes or for anything suggested by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Thank you. That is the answer I wanted.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 24.—“Treasury”:

Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. the Minister of Finance correctly, the amount of R4,5 million has been estimated in respect of a period of six months, which means that in future the annual amount will be approximately R9 million or R10 million. The hon. the Minister has said that this amount would be payable annually to South West Africa. Is that in terms of an agreement with the existing Administration, and is it the intention that this agreement will be continued with the future new Government? I further want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention that all tax revenue from Walvis Bay will in future be transferred to the new Government of South West. In conclusion, a question in connection with the Administrator. There is now no longer an Administrator in South West Africa and there should accordingly be a saving in this connection. I should also like to know what provision is made for the Administrator-General.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister of Finance gets up to reply, I should like to put a subsidiary question to him on the same subject. As I understood the hon. the Minister, the main source of this R4,5 million is the profits of the fishing companies that operate out of Walvis Bay. I understood him to say that this amount is in fact to a large extent made up of the company tax they pay. This being the case, the following question arises: When South West Africa—or Namibia, if you will—becomes independent, what will be the position of the fishing companies in Walvis Bay? Will they still be entitled to catch fish in what then will become South West African territorial waters?

Order! The hon. member cannot raise that point now.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. It was merely a fishing expedition on my part!

Mr. Chairman, let me explain to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the salary of the Administrator was paid from the Territorial Fund and not from the Treasury. When South West Africa becomes independent, the arrangement which will be made then, will depend upon any agreement which is concluded. This reimbursement for loss of income is, as I have tried to explain, a temporary arrangement. The figure involved is in respect of a period of six months, and really arises mainly from the loss of revenue from company profits in the fishing industry there. When independence comes, however, new agreements will have to be concluded. I trust that this explains the position.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 25.—“South African Mint”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason for this increase is. Once I am aware of the reasons, I would like to take the matter further. However, it does seem to be a very substantial increase in relation to the size of this particular Vote.

What Vote are you referring to?

Vote 25—“South African Mint”. I am dealing with the Vote as a whole. The increase amounted to R284 500. I am not dealing with individual items.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that expenditure under each subhead of this Vote has increased and the total increase, moreover, amounted to 18%, we would also like to have information regarding this increase. Could we ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a gearing up operation aimed at producing more Kruger rands?

Mr. Chairman, the Mint is, of course, a growing operation. It is increasing its scope all the time. The Mint is also a profitable operation. It is one which fulfils certain commercial functions. By all accounts and judging from what we see, it seems to be a very efficiently run and highly technical operation.

The following are the increases under the various subheads: Subhead A shows an increase of R39 000, subhead B R62 000, subhead C R2 500, subhead E R34 000 and subhead F R147 000. This makes a total of R284 500. The increase of R39 000 under subhead A reflects an increase in salaries, wages and allowances. Under the second revised budget an amount of R752 500 was estimated for this subhead. The amount which was actually voted for the 1977-’78 financial year amounted to R712 000, which meant an increase of R40 500. A small saving of R1 500 is expected, so that leaves an additional amount of R39 000. An increase of R10 500 resulted from the 5% adjustment in salaries which was effected on 1 January 1978. An amount of R30 000 is required to give effect to the recommendations submitted by the inspectorate of the Public Service Commission, which strongly recommended an increase in the number of certain posts because of the increase of certain activities.

The increase under subhead B amounts to R62 000. I do not know whether the hon. member wants the full story. I have a very detailed explanation of the additional expenditure under each subhead and I will be perfectly happy to let him have it. The S.A. Mint gives us an extremely detailed explanation, all of which bears directly on the increase in the scope of their activities. The hon. member will see that they saved wherever possible. However, where it concerns the minting of a new coin, such as the R1 coin which replaces the R1 note, one can imagine that that operation involves quite a big increase in expenditure as far as the Mint is concerned and all that is involved here.

I just want to refer to the last subhead, namely subhead F, which involves the biggest additional expenditure, namely R147 000. This subhead covers expenditure on stores and materials, as well as equipment they had to buy in order to make these new and increased activities possible. I am quite prepared to read the details out but I am also prepared to let the hon. member see it. I think he will find it completely in order.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to detain the House with a long list of details of minor expenditure and I will be very happy to look at the details outside the hours of the House.

The point that concerns me, which I want to take up with the hon. the Minister, relates to the increase in the volume of the Mint’s activities. I am concerned about two matters. The first is that the Mint does a certain amount of commercial work. The costing of that commercial work is something that I want to be satisfied on. I want to know whether such work is actually done at a profit, when all the costs are taken into account. There is inadequate information available on that issue and I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister says about that. That would seem to me to be a very important feature because once the Mint gets involved in the commercial field it is very important that no finger should ever be pointed to the fact that such activities are done at an indirect loss, taking all the expenses of running the Mint into account.

In the second place I would like to receive an assurance from the hon. the Minister that whereas we may be increasing the volume of coins that we produce, for example Kruger rands or coins of a similar nature, there is no intention to increase the number of proof coins that the Mint is going to produce. If there is such an intention, it will in fact affect thousands of collectors not only in South Africa, but also elsewhere. It is very important that that volume should be kept at a reasonable level so that although the Mint gets the maximum income from that source, the coins retain their collector’s value.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question about it; we do not intend to increase the proof Kruger rand quantities, because we are obviously trying to get the best benefit as far as foreign exchange is concerned, and to earn as much foreign exchange as possible from the sale of the ordinary Kruger rand. That assurance I can give the hon. member.

In regard to the second point which he raised, i.e. the efficiency of the Mint, I can assure him that the Treasury takes a close interest in this whole operation and I think it is only fair—we do not get the opportunity to do this every day—to refer to Mr. Groenewald, the Director of the Mint, who is one of those quiet and modest, but extremely competent people. Technically, I should think he is one of the best equipped directors of a Mint that one could find. This is what I am told whenever I discuss these matters. One can see it in the quality of the workmanship. Whatever is turned out by the Mint is regarded as of the highest possible quality. I take an interest in this myself and I find it a very fascinating operation. I am satisfied that a very high degree of technical efficiency and business efficiency is maintained. The hon. member for Yeoville may like, when he has the opportunity, perhaps to visit the Mint in its new building which is, to my mind, a very utilitarian and practical building, but a very beautiful one at the same time. I am sure the hon. member will find it a very worthwhile hour or two, and he will be able to see exactly what is done. I think his impression will be the same as mine, although I have more opportunity to go into all the details, that it is indeed a very praiseworthy effort. On both those scores I therefore have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 28.—“Audit”:

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain in very broad terms the increase in regard to this Vote. At the same time I want him to indicate how much of the additional amount of R36 000 is in respect of new members of staff. No indication of this is given here, and salaries are not included in this item. The result is that we do not actually know whether from savings on the one hand the department has managed to utilize more staff in the department. This department, to my mind, actually needs more staff. This might not be the appropriate occasion to mention this, but in relation to item B, the hon. the Minister might give us some indication as to what the present staff position is. I realize I am skating on thin ice in raising the question of staff under this subhead.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to try and explain how the additional amount of R36 000 under main division B—“Subsistence and Transport”, is made up. Subsistence accounts for R25 000, motor transport for R9 000 and general transport for R2 000. The amount of R25 000 results from the revision of subsistence and relative allowances with effect from 1 January. In connection with the increase of R9 000 for motor transport, I would like to say that provision was not previously made for the transport allowances payable from 1 July 1976 to officers stationed in the Bantu territories of Caprivi, Owambo and Kavango. There is a Public Service Commission circular on this aspect. A number of unavoidable transfers of officers accounted for an additional R3 000.

Under general transport there is a general increase of R2 000 because provision was not made for higher passenger fares with effect from 1 April 1977.

As to the general staffing position, I would like to say that we are certainly not overstaffed in any of the finance departments. The Auditor-General’s department is a busy department, but I think I can say that the general staff position is better now than it was, say up to a year or two ago. There has been something of an improvement in this respect and the position is a little easier now than it was a year or two ago.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reference to the Auditor-General’s department, I want to mention that we on this side of the House have read in the paper that the Auditor-General is retiring shortly.

Order! The hon. member can deal with that during the Third Reading debate.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 29.—“Commerce”:

Mr. Chairman, I believe I am correct in what I am about to say, but if I am not I hope the hon. the Minister will help me. I think the hon. the Minister has not yet given us a reply to the question which the hon. member for Yeoville put in the Second Reading debate about this item relating to the Jaycees. We have nothing against the Jaycees or against their congress. From what we know of the congress it was a very pleasant affair and, I think, a very constructive one. However, it really does not seem to us to be the case that an amount voted for the support of that organization should appear under this Vote. There is nothing directly commercial about the Jaycees and as we understand it the congress was not engaged in benefiting the trade of South Africa. It was a general exercise in international goodwill and as such if we are to support it it would seem to us that it should possibly be supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Information or possibly some other department. We certainly feel that it should not be under this Vote and, if we may, we would like to have an explanation on that point.

While I am on my feet, I would also like to ask for more information about the very substantial additional amount to be voted for export trade promotion services. Heaven knows again, nobody at this point in South Africa’s history is going to cavil at expenditure, provided it is constructive expenditure and is properly controlled, on seeking to promote our exports, but it is a very substantial additional amount, both in absolute and in relative terms. It is an additional amount of more than R20 million, an increase of the order of 50%, and we wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us a bit more information.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the hon. member’s first inquiry concerning the contribution to the Jaycee World Congress, I should like to explain how it happened that this expenditure came to fall under the Department of Commerce. The first guideline laid down in respect of the provision of aid or subsidies to international congresses is that the department most involved in the particular congress will be the one on whose Vote such aid will be voted and will be the one that will in fact supply the aid. If there is no direct connection between a department and a particular congress that is held, there is a committee of heads of departments—the Department of Foreign Affairs is represented on this committee as well—which allocates a congress to a department which will then be responsible for that specific congress. The Jaycee World Congress, as far as its subject matter is concerned, does not have a connection with any specific department, and consequently the heads of departments agreed to designate the Department of Commerce as the department responsible for the congress. That is the explanation. If the hon. member wants me to give him the details as to how the amount is made up, I shall do so with pleasure. However, the hon. member did not ask for that. Apparently he only wanted the technical part explained, and I have already answered that.

As regards the additional amount of R22,9 million to be voted for export trade promotion services, the hon. member is, of course, quite correct in saying that it represents a substantial increase on the initial expenditure budgeted for. In fact, it represents a major part of the total additional amount of R88 million that is to be voted and which is at present being considered by the Committee. The hon. member knows that exporters receive export aid in various forms. In actual fact the deficit on the original amount voted is not R22,9 million, but R24,4 million, but because there were savings on other items which could be set off against this the amount could be reduced to R22,9 million. This additional amount is divided into various subheads, in other words the various forms of aid. The first subhead covers contributions in respect of the financing costs of exporters. The original appropriation for this was R12 million, while we are asking for an additional amount of R6 million on this specific item. That explains the first part. If the hon. member wants all the details, I shall be pleaed to let him have them, but in my opinion this will detain the Committee needlessly.

The second is subhead G. 10 and that covers the contribution in respect of electric power used for the benefication of base metals. The original amount voted for this was R5 million. This is now being increased with an additional amount of R1 million.

Subhead G.13 relates to contributions in respect of compensation to the Railways Administration with regard to special export rail tariffs. The initial amount voted here was R13 million, and an additional amount of R17,4 million is being requested here. In the previous budget the original amount voted was R20 million, but because of the financial position of the country in general and because my department also had to make a contribution in respect of the savings, to which other hon. Ministers have already referred, this amount was reduced to R13 million. At that stage the hon. the Minister of Finance and I came to an agreement with each other to the effect that if it were to be impossible to reduce it to that amount, we could fall back on the additional appropriation. We have tangible proof of having tried to reduce this initially, but because we are working according to a specific formula, we were unable to get the amount within that framework. Consequently we now have to increase it with this amount. These three amounts make up the amount of R22,9 million, minus the saving on other votes which were set off against this.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 30.—“Industries”:

This Vote contains a single new item relating to the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. The hon. member for Yeoville has stated clearly that this side of the House rejects the principle of a separate corporation. I have heard that I cannot deal with it at this stage, but obviously the objection is maintained. It is an interesting item.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. Our attitude is one of opposition and we maintain that attitude. The Act provides for initial share capital of some R3 million: R1 million for A shares and R2 million for B shares. Special power was given to the hon. the Minister with regard to the A shares and Parliament would have to approve of their disposal or otherwise. In regard to B shares the hon. the Minister would be entitled to dispose of them only to people of Indian origin. In this case we are asked to approve of expenditure of R1 million in order to provide a portion of the initial capital. I am wondering what the intention is. Can the hon. the Minister give us any indication as to when the corporation is actually going to be set up and whether consideration has been given to the people to be appointed to the board, etc.

Mr. Chairman, of course I shall not react to the introductory remarks by the hon. member for Musgrave, except to say that we are acting here in terms of authority granted to us by an Act passed by Parliament. I shall therefore begin with the latter part of his question, viz. whether we have already made a start with the establishment of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. The reply to this is: Yes, we have. In fact, the directorate has already been appointed, and for the hon. member’s information, I can give him a list of the members of the directorate. The Chairman is Dr. McCrystal, and the members are Mr. Desai, Mr. Halliday, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Moodliar, and Mr. Paruk.

Is that perhaps Mr. Mike Mitchell?

No, it is not Mr. Mike Mitchell. If it was, I think the hon. member would not have objected, because he was one of the hon. member’s friends in the past, when they sat together in other places. As far as the Act itself is concerned, the position is that the Act was passed by Parliament last year and made effective from 1 September 1977. The hon. member is quite correct that according to the Act itself, the initial share capital of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation consists of one million A shares and two million ordinary B shares, each of the nominal value of R1, which were all taken up by the State and can be dealt with in terms of the Act. The Treasury agreed to R3 million being voted for these shares in three annual payments of R1 million each, which were to have begun in the 1977-’78 financial year and carried on until the 1979-’80 financial year. The Appropriation Act for 1977-’78 i.e. the present financial year, does not provide for shares in the corporation to be purchased during the present financial year. But since the activities of the corporation could not be postponed without seriously prejudicing the public interests, and the community in particular, appropriation is necessary now and the hon. the Minister of Finance, in terms of the authority which he holds in terms of section 7(1) of the Treasury and Audit Act, 1975, authorized the allocation of R1 million from the State Revenue Fund during this year towards the purchase of one million shares in the present year. However, since this R1 million can be made available from expected savings under this specific Vote this year, it is only necessary to vote a nominal amount of R50 so that the attention of the House can be drawn to the fact that the shares are in fact being purchased.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 32.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some details of all these increases. While I can understand that the medical services have increased by more than R1 million, I should nevertheless like to have some details about that. There has also been a very considerable increase in miscellaneous expenses from the original estimate of R1 862 000 to R4 262 000, an increase of R2 400 000. This is a very considerable increase indeed, an increase of well over 100%. I should also like more information about the increase in the amount set aside for equipment, arms and ammunition. The very considerable amount of over R10 million is set aside for the police for their arms and ammunition. We must have one of the most heavily armed Police Forces in the world, I should think.

Oh dear! You do not even know what the others have.

I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister can assure us that this will not be spent on shooting suspects who run away.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member began by speaking about medical services. She is speaking a little more softly than usual these days.

Yes, I did. I would like some details.

I shall first provide the information in connection with miscellaneous expenses. The miscellaneous expenses consist of a few items, viz.: statutory levies, registration fees, contributions and employment bureau fees for Bantu and native employees, R30 000; incidental expenses arising out of the transfer of members of the Force, R50 000; fuel, electricity, water and other requirements, including rations, R420 000, and standard stock adjustments, R1,9 million.

I did not hear the last item!

Standard stock adjustments. If the hon. member for Sandton has a dictionary at hand, he will find it there. I shall explain it in a moment. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member know what it means?

Sure. [Interjections.]

I am asking if the hon. member can tell me what standard stock adjustments means? [Interjections.] I now want to explain the increases. The statutory levies which I have already mentioned, the amounts payable in terms of the Bantu Labour Contributions Act, 1972, were increased as from 1 December 1977 from R1,80 to R2,15 and from R1 to R1,20. As a result, we need an additional amount of R30 000 for this service. The increased amounts were published in the Government Gazette. As far as the incidental expenses are concerned, I can give the following particulars. The amount payable for depreciation of furniture, the purchase of school uniforms, etc., which arises out of the transfer of members of the Force, has risen considerably since 1 April 1976. This is the most important reason for the increase. When the draft appropriation was being drawn up, this tendency could not yet be gauged fully, with the result that the estimate for this service was too low. The increased amount has already been agreed to by the Treasury.

The third item concerns fuel, electricity and water. The purchase of rations is subsidized from this subsection. More rations had to be purchased for members who were mobilized in the riot unit department, as well as for the newly established Operation Scorpion. This includes patrolling our borders and I hope the hon. member for Houghton does not object to that. It should also be mentioned that a claim for R114 000 was received for the provision of rations to members of the S.A. Police in Owambo for the period June 1976 to March 1977 by the S.A. Defence Force for payment in the present financial year. The additional amount of R440 000 is required to finance this service.

The subsection standard stock includes goods which are purchased and kept in stock. I hope the hon. member for Houghton is satisfied with this. The capital for standard stock originally came from the loan accounts—Loan Vote A—and was accounted for by the Attorney-General. At present the capital is supplemented from the State Revenue Account and accounted for by the accounting officer of my department.

During 1928-’29, the capital was R220 000. During the period 1 April 1929 to 28 February 1976, the capital gradually increased to more than R4 million. So much for that increase. As far as the rest is concerned, there are the medical services. Did the hon. member for Houghton inquire about subdivision F?

F and G.

Subdivision F deals with equipment, arms and ammunition. As far as personal equipment is concerned, there is an increase of R160 000. The amount for arms and ammunition has increased by R1,7 million. This is a total increase of R1 860 000. Purchases of personal equipment such as camouflage dress, holsters, blankets, sheets, overalls, etc., are financed from this subsection. Camouflage dress is being issued to more and more members of the Force for the combating of riots and terrorism. The price of these commodities has increased considerably in recent times, and is still increasing. The membership of the active reservists has also increased and they also had to be provided with free clothing. The above-mentioned factors, then, are chiefly responsible for the increase.

As far as arms and ammunition are concerned: As a result of uncertainty about the delivery of arms from abroad, it is impossible to budget for this in a particular financial year and the department has only budgeted for its normal requirements. The Armaments Corporation is purchasing 2 000 FN rifles for the department at the moment. It is expected that they will be delivered and paid for in this financial year. Therefore, an additional amount of R1 million is required. This expected expenditure has already been agreed to by the Treasury. Price increases, in the case of pyrotechnical ammunition in particular, resulted in the existing appropriation of R1 million for ammunition being totally inadequate. The present urban riots have also resulted in the consumption of ammunition being abnormally high and has caused a considerable drain on supplies. In order to rectify the matter, purchases must be adjusted accordingly and an additional amount of R700 000 will be required for this purpose.

Jimmy’s private army.

Do not worry. It may be Jimmy’s private army, but it is looking after the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

*I now come to the increase of R1,1 million under main division G—Medical Services. Medicines, drugs, hospital fees, supplies, etc., are all items which mean that an additional R1 million is required. Contributions to the medical fund and resignations before January 1964 are items of expenditure for which an additional R100 000 is required. The expenditure under this main division for the year 1976-’77 exceeded the appropriation for the present financial year by R153 895. Expenditure under this service is always increasing. For instance, the rates for provincial hospitals in the Transvaal have increased by more than 100% since 1 April 1977. According to estimates, an additional amount of R1 million will be required to finance this service for the current financial year. The increased rates were published in the official gazette of the Transvaal. Hospital rates and fees payable to medical practitioners have increased considerably, while the price of medicines is also increasing constantly. Furthermore, the membership of the fund has increased considerably, because many members who were still employed by the department in a temporary capacity, were discharged on 1 October 1977 and have only really become the responsibility of the fund since that date. With the approval of the Treasury the subsidy was increased from 1 April 1977 by 75% to 90%. These factors are chiefly responsible for the two increased amounts.

Mr. Chairman, while medical services do not always merit the same newspaper headlines as the other questions previously asked, we should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us some idea of the major aspects on which the R1,1 million was spent in order to improve medical services. I hasten to add that we approve of the expenditure, but could I further ask whether any of that money was spent on improved medical benefits for the S.A. Police?

But, Mr. Chairman, with all respect towards the hon. member; I have just explained that whole matter. [Interjections.] Hon. members agree with me.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 35.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister for details about items referred to by the numerals “2”, “4”, “5” and “7”? I first want to refer to item “2” which details an amount of R9 million for the provision of housing. Would the hon. the Minister please give us a breakdown of that amount to indicate what is being allocated for White housing, Coloured housing and Indian housing? Could he also, as an ancillary answer to the allocation for White housing, indicate what is being provided for the aged? Could he also break down this amount into the amounts apportioned to the three main centres, i.e. Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban?

Now let me come to the item designated “4”, i.e. that referring to official quarters. Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether this relates to different Government departments and whether it is for the completion of one or several buildings?

Thirdly, I want to refer to the item designated “5”, that of housing schemes for officials. Could the hon. the Minister please give us details about what departments the officials belong to and also details of the housing schemes in that connection?

I now want to refer to the reduction in spending of R2 million under item “7”, that of associated services. Could we please have details of that reduction? I should like to conclude with two further points. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that in the next 32 days, which is the period remaining in this financial year, this money can be spent? Lastly, going back to the first question in connection with the R9 million for the provision of housing, I want to say that in an earlier debate today there was mention of a figure of R250 million, about which several statements have been made by several senior Government members, an amount to be provided for housing with R100 million being allocated for Bantu housing. I should like to know whether the R150 million is at all included in the amounts referred to here.

Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with it.

*If the hon. member will allow me, I shall deal with the items from the last to the first. I should like to do this because it fits in better this way. Last year we passed legislation in terms of which we decided to discontinue payment of a subsidy of 2% on certain building loans at building societies. The saving resulting from the suspension of payment of the 2% subsidy actually amounts to R2 million.

The hon. member also referred to item “5”, housing schemes for officials. The increase in interest subsidies on housing loans to Government officials in recent years has been entirely unpredictable. One could simply not calculate how many officials would request housing in a particular year. It was so serious that in the 1976-’77 budget we were not even able to estimate to the nearest R1 million of the figure for the total expenditure. It was an extremely difficult case. The result was an estimate which was R4½ million too low for the present financial year. Now we must ask this amount of Parliament. However, we expect this amount to drop now, because we no longer give the money which we guarantee to the building societies in cash. We simply do it by means of a guarantee. That is why I think that the allocation of funds by the State will make it easier to have correct estimates in future.

Now I come to the official quarters. The position is that for the year 1977-’78, the Department of Defence cut back R3 100 000 in its estimates for the provision, by this department, of housing in various important fields. Defence was the only department involved here; and the official quarters are at Windhoek and Mafeking, for the Reconnaissance Commando at Langebaan, at Phalaborwa and at Pretoria. The need to provide quarters is partly due to the increase of the service period from one to two years. Then we had to pay a further R500 000 to skilled and technical people as a result of the increases and other factors. So much for the first three items.

Then there is the additional R9 million for the National Housing Fund. This can be ascribed to the fact that we do not want to impose burdens which they cannot afford, due to circumstances beyond their control, on people assisted by the Department of Community Development in obtaining a house. The problem is that we finance the municipalities. They always paid interest at the Treasury rate, but that rate increased by 2½% from September 1974 to 1 October 1976, from 9¾% to 11¼%. If we had to pass this on to the people who occupy municipal houses, it would mean that the rents would increase to such an extent that the lessees would either have to suffer hardships or move out of the houses, which would then be left unoccupied, to the embarrassment of all concerned. Therefore we negotiated with the Treasury and obtained their approval for subsidizing the rent with 2%. This explains the additional R9 million. It is not in respect of new houses which were built, but in respect of the subsidy of 2% on the interest on existing houses and existing schemes. I hope this is the information which the hon. member wants.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 37.—“Public Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in respect of item E: “Miscellaneous Expenses—Removal of Squatters—Bellville South”. The hon. the Minister of Finance was already asked about this in the Second Reading by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think I heard the hon. the Minister say—I am not quite sure—that the relevant amount is in respect of a service for the squatters. This is a new item and I think that the attitude of our party in principle has always been that we disagree with the removal of squatters. We are very reluctant indeed to see the removal of squatters being given any locus standi by allowing this item to appear in the estimates and I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to explain why this amount of R50 has now appeared.

Mr. Chairman, the question of the removal of squatters is a new item and I think it is incumbent upon us to remind the hon. the Minister, before he replies, what the attitude of this party has been to that question in the past. We have been in favour of clearing up areas like the area concerned in Bellville South, but I imagine that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us that this money is being spent for providing services for people who are living in undesirable conditions.

I think there was several categories of persons involved in this. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will know that last year, when there was a terrific amount of public discussion about the removal of squatters, also in the Press, the then member for Green Point, Mr. Lionel Murray, visited the areas concerned and that certain arrangements were made which we think led to a considerable alleviation of the situation. We understand that it led to the approval of certain areas on a site-and-service basis and that this tended to stabilize the situation. I want to point that out to the hon. the Minister and to ask him whether the money appearing in the additional estimates is intended to stabilize the situation pending the sort of development that is going to take place when the hon. the Minister’s colleagues are going to make more houses available with the R250 million of which we have heard. The position is that we are in favour of people who are legally in the area and who are employed being allowed to remain there and of conditions being created which will provide them with a community in which there will at least be some basic standards. It is terribly important that the standard of the facilities for these people should be upgraded and that, where they cannot all be moved immediately, some provision should be made on the basis of a site-and-service scheme in order to improve conditions so that these people can be moved into a preferable area. There are people who are employed, but are not legally in the area. We believe that something should be done about those people, because they are rendering a service to the community. Steps should be taken to regularize, in one way or another, the situation of those people who are employed. Preference should be given to them so that they may proceed through the proper channels to get themselves registered so that they may be legally in the area. That also applies to the dependants, viz. the legitimate wives of people of that nature.

There is a third category of people, viz. those who are there illegally and who are not employed. In their case we have no problem about them being repatriated or being sent back to where they came from. This is a social problem and occurs in every country of the world. When we were in Iran, as the hon. member for Sea Point will recollect, we were told that virtually every day people were being taken back to where they came from in lorries. We face precisely the same sort of situation here. We too have the situation that there are people who are illegally in the area. They are breaking the law by being there. They are, furthermore, not in employment. With a situation like that I do not think anybody can reasonably ask the hon. the Minister or anybody else to provide accommodation for them. There are channels whereby they can go back to where they came from and then use the proper channels to come back into areas of employment. We want to make the point that we hope that the money is being put forward—and I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm this—for the establishment of areas on a site-and-service basis. Mention was made by the hon. the Minister of Finance of the provision of services to these communities. We hope this is going to be that sort of development, a positive development. We realize that it is a temporary measure and not a solution to the problem. However, it is a step towards stabilizing the problem. We believe that in the situation that we have here—and it is a world-wide situation—if one can stabilize it so that one can eventually catch up, one is achieving a great deal.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Mooi River, I want to say that when I explained the position with regard to this item, he will realize that everything he said is irrelevant as far as this item is concerned. Naturally, he will have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the relevant department in future.

This expenditure actually appears under the heading “Public Works” as a result of a technical point. The camps Modderdam Road, Werkgenot and Unibell are all situated on State land and the Department of Public Works is in control of the land. Therefore, the Department of Public Works is technically considered the owner of the land for purposes of the law. However, the department has nothing to do with the removal of the squatters and the implementation of Government policy with regard to squatters. It was indeed decided interdepartmentally that the Department—of Community Development would remove the Coloured squatters—as they have in fact done—and that the Peninsula Administration Board would remove the Bantu squatters on behalf of the Department of Plural Relations and Development, as has also been done. However, because my department is, technically speaking, the owner of the land from which the squatters were removed, this amount had to be provided under the Vote of the Department of Public Works. In reality we do not need any money for that purpose. The estimated sum to be paid amounts to R35 345, but my department envisages that this amount can be provided by means of savings. In terms of section 7(1)(a) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No. 66 of 1975, we are, however, required to make nominal provision. Hence the amount of R50. In terms of the provisions of section 7(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No. 66 of 1975, the expenditure has to be specially appropriated during the following parliamentary session. That is why we are providing here for the nominal amount of R50. The cost applies to removal and has absolutely nothing to do with the cost to which the hon. member for Mooi River referred. If hon. members want further particulars with regard to individual squatter camps, I am prepared to supply them.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I just want to say that I quite understand, as the hon. the Minister has explained, that it is a technical problem which he and his department faced. In the second place I want to say that I am fully aware of the fact that other departments are more closely connected with the whole question of the removal of squatters. The problem we experience in this regard is that the item has a bearing on the principle of the removal of squatters and we therefore have to take our stand in this respect. I do not intend starting a debate on squatting, housing, etc. This goes much wider than that. The issue here is a principle, i.e. the removal of squatters as a method of overcoming a specific problem. In this regard I also want to state our point of view very clearly. We are not against demolition in principle. There are circumstances in which demolition has to take place.

We are dealing with a Committee Stage now and not a Second Reading.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may stay calm, while you decide about that, Sir. The first statement I want to make in this regard is that the issue here is demolition as a method of removal, a demolition on a grand scale.

No. That is not the issue.

Yes. That is precisely the issue. The hon. the Minister has just explained that in this regard we are dealing with the demolition of squatter camps on a grand scale. We are opposed to this in principle; we cannot support it. In this regard I briefly want to mention four aspects. In the first place, we do not agree with the method of removal, because it does nothing to solve the problem. In the second place it deprives people of their housing without alternative housing being made available to them. In the third place, it drastically interferes with the family life of a great number of people. In the fourth place, it creates an embarrassment for South Africa, especially in the light of the way this has been handled in the past. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment—

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; 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.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Noes—103: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J.J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Amendment negatived.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 39.—“Water Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the amount for the maintenance of Government waterworks has been increased by R1 million. Secondly, I want to ask a question about item J, where provision is made for an extra subsidy to the Pusela Irrigation Board. If my memory is correct, a petition from this board was considered by the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters a few years ago. I should like to know whether this is arising from the report of that particular Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I presume that the last question asked by the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the amount of R50. He also referred to the increase of R1 million. He did not specifically say that he wanted a reply to that. However, I want to inform him. The revised estimate resulted in an increase of R2 614 000 on the original estimate. This is mainly due to increased electricity costs. As the hon. member knows, the department has water schemes that pump water in order to supply it to various areas. The increased electricity costs with regard to the pumping of water on the OFS goldfields amount to R500 000; in the case of the Springbok State Water Supply Scheme the amount is R510 000, in the case of the Tugela-Vaal scheme it is R1 500 000 and in the case of the Usutu-Vaal River scheme it is R25 000. Increased electricity tariffs alone have caused those amounts, and of course we could not budget for that.

There is a balance of R79 000 with regard to supplies which are needed as a result of the takeover of the water supply scheme at Walvis Bay which is no longer on the South West Africa account and which has been transferred. Therefore, provision has once again to be made for that. The amount is for supplies connected with that.

I briefly want to say to the hon. member that of that total amount of R2 535 000 plus R79 000, R1 614 000 was financed by means of a virement. R1 million therefore has to be requested because we could not finance that by means of virement.

I now want to refer to main division J—“Subsidies on Water Works”. The hon. member asked whether this resulted from a report by the Select Committee. It is not a result of that. Some owners of land in the basin of the Fanie Botha Dam built in the Letaba River were paid out. These people still have pieces of land which have to be supplied with water. Various possibilities were examined and it was then decided that they should rather not get the water from the dam, because they would continually have to cart their pumps to and fro as the level of the dam varies. It was then decided that the Pusela Irrigation Board would make provision for them. A scheme was worked out which would cost R30 000, and the Pusela Irrigation Board is entitled to a subsidy on the R30 000. In the meanwhile, hon. members heard this afternoon of the cyclone Emily, which hit us before the works were completed. Before the works could be built, the dam was full and then an alternative scheme had to be built, because the people cannot go without water. That cost an additional R28 000. It is obviously not fair to expect those irrigators to pay for that and therefore the extra statutory subsidy has to be requested. I have explained the matter as briefly as possible and I trust that it is understandable.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 41.—“Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations”:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like a little more information from the hon. the Minister with regard to the amount of R5 670 000 for the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Mr. Chairman, this increase of just over R516 million mainly relates to the Directorate of Education and the Directorate of Community Welfare and Pensions. There has in fact been a saving of R194 000 by the Administration of Coloured Affairs, but with regard to education it has to be kept in mind that compulsory schooling now progressively advances to a higher age group every year, and as a result the calculations were very difficult. If greater numbers of pupils attend schools, more teachers have to be employed. Apart from that, the increased salaries from 1 January 1978 to 31 March are reflected in the case of the Education Directorate. The amount relating to education, which also includes services at schools, hostels, institutions, etc., represents R2 498 000. In the case of Community Welfare and Pensions, the other directorate, the increased amount is R3 276 000, which is caused by increased maintenance allowances. Hon. members will remember that increased allowances were first announced in the budget of 1977-’78. They came into effect as from 1 October. In the previous year, when the budget was drawn up by the administration, it was not yet possible to budget for that. Increased foster parent allowances amount to R311 000. Old-age pensions, which have grown in number, have also been increased and amount to R1 050 000. Disability allowances amount to R1 290 000.

Vote agreed to.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, there are merely two points I would like to make during the Third Reading. Firstly, I believe we want to express our very deep disappointment at the lack of information that was available from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development, as well as at his approach to the whole debate. We also want to express our regret that no opportunity was afforded us of enabling the information, if it is available, to be put before the House. I think that that demonstrated perhaps the need for a different approach to this debate, because if the House were aware of the details of the individual items of the Vote a tremendous amount of time could have been saved. We would not have to have the long reading of questions and of answers given to questions and this debate could be disposed of in probably a third of the time.

I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to consider tabling in future, when he tables the additional estimates, a schedule in terms of which the individual people who are concerned with the Vote can obtain the details in connection with how the items are made up in order to enable us to save the time of the House and to deal with this matter far more expeditiously.

It is in your hands to save the time of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Finance would not give us the information. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was made earlier by the hon. member for East London North that we consider tabling a White Paper giving more details, as it were, in advance of the debate. The hon. member for Yeoville has put the proposal in a somewhat different form. What we would always aim to do is to facilitate discussion and to save the time of the House by simply giving relevant information over and above what is provided. The information that is already provided is not insignificant. However, if this could be done I would be quite prepared to go into this matter in order to establish what is feasible and practicable. I cannot, however, commit myself at the moment. We will look into the matter and I will report back on that particular proposal at an appropriate moment.

I do not think there is anything else outstanding. I would like to thank hon. members for their participation in this somewhat protracted debate and leave the matter there.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. (1) On page 3, in line 9, to omit “enterprise” and to substitute “business enterprise”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 20, after “persons” to insert:

   in terms of contracts terminable by a period of notice shorter than thirty days or

3. (3) on page 3, in line 29, to omit “31 March” and to substitute “30 April”;
4. (4) on page 3, in line 30, to omit “March” and to substitute “April”;
5. (5) on page 5, in line 4, to omit “enterprise” and to substitute “business enterprise”;
6. (6) on page 5, in line 10, to omit “enterprise” and to substitute “business enterprise”;
7. (7) on page 5, in line 15, to omit “shoerepairer,”;
8. (8) on page 5, in line 15, to omit “shoemaker,”;
9. (9) on page 5, in line 21, to omit “dressmaker,”;
10. (10) on page 5, in line 21, to omit “tailor,”;
11. (11) on page 5, in line 21, to omit “milliner,”;
12. (12) on page 5, in line 22, to omit “barber,”;
13. (13) on page 5, in line 23, to omit “optometrist,”;
14. (14) on page 5, in line 23, to omit “optician,”;
15. (15) on page 5, in line 23, to omit “pharmacist,”;
16. (16) on page 5, in line 23, to omit “blacksmith,”;
17. (17) on page 5, in line 34, after “lectures” to insert:

If I may deal with them individually, I would like to state the following. Firstly, the first, fifth and sixth amendments seek to insert before the word “enterprise” the word “business”, in other words that we should refer to “business enterprises”. The reason for this is that there is no logic in registering every enterprise. What is required is registration of a business enterprise. That is an enterprise for gain. If we do not do this the effect will be that matters which are not for gain, for example hobbies, the growing of fruit for personal consumption, the weaving of cloth, knitting and all these sorts of activities aimed at personal consumption, will then be covered under the concept of “enterprise” and we will find ourselves in a situation in which people will have to register who are in no way desired to be included in this net. Therefore those amendments are intended to make that aspect quite clear and to save quite a lot of work in the registration of these people.

The next amendment is amendment No. (2). In line 20 we deal with the question of letting and hiring and what this amendment seeks to do is to make it clear that if you hire premises on, for example, a monthly basis—the hire is therefore terminable on a month’s notice—that sort of transaction is not covered by the Bill. If this amendment is not accepted, the effect is likely to be that ordinary contracts of letting and hiring for all the residential premises in South Africa will find themselves subject to this provision in the Bill. I believe that contracts where there is 30 days’ notice should certainly in these circumstances not be covered by the Bill.

The third amendment should be read together with the fourth one. We believe that in so far as the period is concerned, it is inadequate. The period is too short and we believe that an extra month for the registration of individuals in terms of the legislation should be given. The Bill will not become law for quite some little while and we are almost in March already. I therefore believe that we need more time to effect this legislation.

The next set of amendments includes amendments Nos. (7) to (16). Those amendments relate to what is covered under the term “services”. I deal with these individually so that the hon. the Minister can, if he does not want to accept all of them, be selective in respect of these matters. I may just briefly state why I propose that these services be left out. The shoe-repairer’s or a shoemaker’s occupation is perhaps one of the humblest of occupations. The ability to control it is extremely difficult. It is an occupation where the turnover in money terms is very, very small and to subject this occupation to the Bill is in my opinion undesirable.

In so far as the dressmaker is concerned, a dressmaker in the normal course is a woman who works from her home. She does work for individuals. I think to include her in this kind of situation is enlarging the scope of the Bill beyond all reason. The same argument applies to the tailor and the milliner. The dressmaker’s, the tailor’s, the milliner’s and the shoemaker’s occupations are all traditional occupations which are gradually going out of existence, but I should like to see them continue rather than have them put into a category where they now have to go through registration, where they have to pay turnover tax and where they have to deal with a whole variety of things.

The same applies to a barber. A barber’s occupation is perhaps the occupation which is going out more than anything else, because of what is happening in trends with hair and everything else today. I should like to make a plea for the barber to be excluded from this situation.

The optometrist and the optician are, as far as I am concerned, virtually professional people and the hon. the Minister has accepted the concept that the professions should be excluded. I therefore believe that the optometrists, the opticians and the pharmacists are in the same category and therefore they should be excluded.

When, lastly, I talk about the blacksmith, I want to say this is an occupation which has virtually gone out of existence.

It is one of the traditional things which, if they still exist, can be allowed to exist in their own small way. I certainly should like to make a plea for them to be excluded from this legislation.

Blacksmiths will all become “plural smiths”. [Interjections.]

Amendment No. (17) deals with the question of lectures. I can understand that the kind of lecture which is related to some of the other things which are being covered in terms of the definitions is the sort of lecture which one perhaps ought to bring within the scope. I do not believe, however, that matters which are of an educational nature, where you lecture in order to pass a recognized examination—which is in the normal course a service which is being rendered to the community—should be brought within the ambit of the legislation. This is why I move that this also should be excluded.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to include in the list of omissions, which the hon. member for Yeoville has just submitted, the word “hairdresser”. I therefore move—

If any man in this House thinks that going to a hairdresser is a luxury, I am afraid he has not spoken to his wife for a number of months. Having one’s hair done is a morale booster, not a luxury. I believe it is absolutely essential, just as “barbering”, “shoemaking”, “shoe-repairing” and “dressmaking” are considered by the hon. member for Yeoville to be necessities. The service of a hairdresser certainly falls into this category.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side support the thoughts of the hon. member for Yeoville as far as the services are concerned. We have a little difficulty, however, in understanding why, for instance, a blacksmith should be left out and a locksmith included. Rather than trying to justify every one of the words listing all the occupations or professions, I just want to say that in principle we have an objection to the taxation of services rendered to the public. I should therefore like to move an amendment which seeks to put this matter right. I move—

I do feel that this is imposing a considerable burden on the public and on the people rendering those services. We have a rooted objection to such taxation being so extended, since we are of the opinion that a tax of this nature should be levied on broad categories of durable goods, etc., rather than on the smaller services rendered by individual people to the public at large.

I think the whole of clause 2(1)(c) should go.

Well, I have moved an amendment for the deletion of clause 2(1)(b). If the hon. member for Houghton wants to move an amendment for the deletion of clause 2(1)(c), she should do so.

Yes, I think I shall do so.

That is up to the hon. member. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister was at great pains to bring it to the attention of the House that the reason for introducing the register was to enable a point of final sale sales tax to be introduced. I consequently move—

The words “sales tax” should be in small letters, not capitals so that the general category of “point of final sale sales tax” is incorporated in the Bill. The hon. the Minister told us at Second Reading that the rules of Parliament are such that he was unable to incorporate those words in the Bill at Second Reading. We feel that with the hon. the Minister having motivated his case—the whole of his case for the institution of the register having been based, at Second Reading, on the fact that a point of final sale sales tax was to be introduced—we can now limit the application—the principle having been accepted—of the register to the point of final sale sales tax. I therefore hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the amendment. I made the point at Second Reading that if one is simply giving a blanket authority for a register, without something being mentioned in the Bill itself, the people to whom the information is to be made available, the members of the Department of Inland Revenue, are being given far too wide a scope. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to accept my amendment which specifically restricts this, in terms of what the hon. the Minister said at Second Reading, to a register necessary for the effective collection of a point of final sale sales tax.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the hon. members of the Opposition, I really cannot understand why they are going to all this trouble. The only matter under discussion, is a number of names of occupations. The mechanics of how the tax will work, is not yet under discussion at all. If someone regards himself as a pharmacist, whereas professional pharmaceutical services form only a small part of his business and he does many other things, or if someone calls himself a milliner but also does many other things—in other words, additional activities which could impose a special responsibility on both the above-mentioned cases in respect of the proposed system of taxation—and their names do not appear on the list, they will not be compelled in terms of this legislation to apply for registration. Surely the essence of the matter is that this legislation will enable the department to procure the information it needs to decide whether someone will have to register in terms of the legislation which is still to come, or not. We are not debating the mechanics of the system of taxation which will be put into operation. Why do the hon. members wish to delete a number of professional groups from the list? It seems to me as though they wish to impose their stamp in advance on the way the system of taxation is going to operate.

Surely there is a difference between goods and services?

In this Bill there is no comprehensive definition of a milliner, a tailor or a dressmaker. How, then, can a person carrying on a certain enterprise, establish whether he should try to register? That is precisely why this list was made as wide as possible so that everyone has the responsibility to submit the necessary information to the department. Then the onus is on the department to decide whether a certain person will have to register in terms of the envisaged legislation or not. This Bill does not make any commitments whatsoever as to what will eventually appear on the register. The legislation which is still to be discussed, will establish which people will appear in the register. The question whether a certain person will have to register, will be determined under that legislation. However, it is to improve the administrative machinery that the list is as comprehensive as it is here. The aim is to gather as much information as possible. Therefore I really cannot see the sense of the amendments by the hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the reason for the inclusion of three particular professions in the list contained in clause 2(3)(c). I refer to the optometrist, the optician and the pharmacist. It seems almost unimaginable that these, and particularly the pharmacist, should be included in this category.

Why not the dentist too?

Exactly, if one is going to include the pharmacist, why not the dentist, the chiropodist or the physiotherapist? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for a very clear reason as to why he has seen †It to include those three but particularly the profession of pharmacy in that subsection.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I do not understand the hon. member for Florida’s point of view on this matter. The situation is that the hon. the Minister of Finance has told us that he intends to introduce a final sales’ sales tax and, because that is his intention, he has introduced a Bill in the House which will cause people to register. It is a fair assumption to make that, because he is calling for the registration of these people, the likelihood exists that they will be taxed in terms of the Bill.

Therefore I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River. He has suggested that we should take out the word “services” altogether. When one considers the vast scope of services provided to the community and the number of people who render those services, such as motor repairers, electricians and plumbers, it is clear that these are essential services within the very structure of our society. They enable us to keep things going. If we now tax this type of situation, I believe that we would be doing the public of South Africa a very great disservice.

When one looks at the Bill in front of us, one can only think that the Secretary for Inland Revenue is going to have tremendous difficulty, because of the wide category—particularly in clause 2—in sorting out these registrations when one considers that there are in excess of 80 000 farmers just to start with.

When one looks at clause 2(1)(g), where fishing operations are mentioned, one wonders whether this means that every ski-boat fisherman who goes out regularly on Sundays, who catches fish and sells them—as most of them do to try to keep their ski-boats running—will have to register in terms of this Bill with the Secretary for Inland Revenue. We are going to have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of applications coming in, assuming that the Bill goes through and assuming that it is sufficiently publicized. We suggest that it will make the job of the Secretary for Inland Revenue considerably easier if the House were to accept our amendment so that the service side can at least be cut out.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Opposition advanced arguments for excluding quite a few enterprises from this legislation. As the hon. member for Florida said, these arguments are indeed not relevant at the moment. This will be implemented later when turnover tax becomes a reality. I think it is really ridiculous to advance arguments now with regard to what is to be excluded from the legislation. I can suggest quite a few items, for example, which can be included in the legislation. I can think of enterprises which are not even mentioned here and which, in my opinion, should be included in the legislation. However, I do not believe that it is relevant now, and consequently I shall not argue the matter any further.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 2(3) of the Bill where “goods” are defined as “corporeal movable goods”. I am not very happy about the word “corporeal” and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider that word. As far as I am concerned, the word “physical” will be a more suitable one to use in the definition. I am merely mentioning this and do not want to move an amendment in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Gezina for having stated the matter so clearly. You know, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Opposition has learned very little since the discussion of this Bill during the Second Reading stage last Thursday. I was hoping that they would have done their homework somewhat better over the weekend, but it is evident that this has not happened. What is at issue here is not the merits of the tax itself. I have already given an undertaking that a comprehensive Bill will be made available. Hon. members of this House as well as interested bodies and persons outside, will be given time to make comments. Subsequent to that we shall consider those comments in detail, whereupon we shall be able to form a further judgment as to the merits of the Bill. That Bill will be a comprehensive one. The Bill now before this House is very limited in what it seeks to do. It merely seeks to create the machinery for establishing a register as set out here.

†As far as the register is concerned, the hon. member for Mooi River moved an amendment, and I want to say to him that the reason for the register is not only to identify points of final sale, but also to identify the persons who might well be exempted from the register. The hon. member knows that one has to cast these measures fairly wide, because if a particular person is not mentioned, it means that he is immediately excluded. The fact that he is mentioned or the fact that something is mentioned as a service, does not necessarily mean to say—as I tried to stress last week at the Second Reading stage—that it will be included for the purposes of the tax. There can be exemptions, but, as hon. members know, if one does not specifically provide for these people where one defines the scope of the measure, anybody not mentioned is of course excluded. That can cause very serious practical difficulties. Therefore I am in difficulty about that specific amendment.

I am just as much in difficulty about the hon. member for Mooi River’s other amendment, which is quite far-reaching. He wants to exclude services … [Interjections.] What is the difference between selling a service and selling goods as far as the scope of a tax such as this is concerned? I do not know of any tax of this kind that makes that distinction.

The hon. member for Berea wanted to know why an optometrist, optician and a pharmacist are included in this respect. If they were excluded the question should surely be: Why are they excluded? They all sell goods and sometimes they even sell goods that ordinary general dealers sell. Where goods and services are sold, it is a general rule for a tax of this kind that the sellers concerned should be registered. Therefore we cannot possibly give effect to that type of amendment, with great respect.

The hon. member for Houghton said that hairdressers should be excluded. We are, however, not really concerned with luxury trades as such in this regard, but with all trades of a particular kind. Why would one exclude a hairdresser, who is selling a service, from a Bill of this kind? In general the position is that the hon. Opposition, through these amendments, do seem to be making an attempt again to anticipate the main Bill, and that is not before us. They are ignoring the purpose of this Bill, which is a limited administrative measure introduced to enable the Department of Inland Revenue to set up the machinery which will be necessary when this general sales tax is introduced.

We now come to the question of the hon. member for Yeoville, who insists that it should be a business enterprise. The enumeration of various kinds of enterprise is surely necessary to enable, as far as possible, those members of the public who may be affected, to put in a declaration now, in good time, and thus be spared the trouble of having to do so later. The reasons for the introduction of the present Bill, as I have said, have already been dealt with at some length during the Second Reading debate. I think that those who are now proposing these amendments will no doubt say that they are justified in concluding that we have in mind the bringing within the tax net all the various kinds of services and goods. I want to say again that that does not necessarily follow, but if one does not include the various categories, one immediately excludes them when one words the Bill in this way. Therefore, with the best will in the world, I cannot accept these amendments. I can go into them in great detail. For example, look at the amendments which the hon. member for Yeoville moved which affect accommodation. He proposes an amendment in regard to the letting of rooms, houses, flats, caravan sites or camping sites. As the Bill reads, persons who carry on this kind of letting enterprise, will have to make a declaration if the lettings are for a period of 45 days or less. I am not dealing with the person who comes to live reasonably permanently in a hotel or boarding-house, but with the man who is, as it were, a bird of passage, who goes there for a short period, which we say should be a maximum of 45 days. This will exclude the normal letting of accommodation for a longer period. As I understand it, the proposed amendment wants a further condition to be imposed, namely that the letting contract must also be “terminable by a period of notice shorter than 30 days”. It is not clear to me why this amendment is proposed. The kind of enterprise we mainly have in mind is that of the owner of holiday flats or a caravan park used by holiday-makers for comparatively short periods. We have determined that period to be a maximum of 45 days. In most of these cases bookings are made for fixed periods, and there is no question of any period of notice to terminate the agreement. The amendment could, in fact, have the effect of absolving these enterprises from having to put in declarations, simply because the relevant agreements do not provide for periods of notice.

I think the important qualification in regard to the letting of accommodation is that the landlord or the lessor must habitually or regularly let the accommodation for periods not exceeding 45 days. When the owner of a block of flats habitually lets the flats for longer periods, and on an odd occasion a tenant of lessee terminates his lease within 45 days, this will not render the owner or lessor liable for registration. This means that if the letting of premises on a monthly period is for an indefinite period, which will usually exceed 45 days, it will not fall within the provisions of this Bill.

I do not want to go into all the details of the amendments word for word, but I am trying to be reasonable. The hon. member for Mooi River was not satisfied with the way we are attempting to define the register. However, it is very precisely set out what the register must contain. As I have said earlier, one cannot simply confine it to the point-of-sale tax or transactions, because one also wants to have this before one to see as one proceeds who would be exempted. If one has not got a comprehensive list, one is going to be in serious trouble. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat that it does not necessarily follow, by any means, that all the transactions and all the persons referred to here are going to come within the ambit of the tax, but it is still necessary to put it in this form to give it any practical meaning. That is all I can say.

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

I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that considerable time has been spent on the wording of this clause since the beginning of the debate. If anyone has done his homework, it is the hon. member for Yeoville. He has proposed 17 amendments. If that is not doing his homework, I do not know what is. The reply given by the hon. the Minister to the various amendments which have been moved, is indeed disappointing to this side of the House. We are disappointed that they were rejected out of hand in the manner that the hon. the Minister did.

The reason for the amendment I have moved is that the phrase “enterprise” has a very, very wide connotation. It can mean practically anything, and because it has such a wide connotation it will require that everyone will have to register. I can imagine that the hon. the Minister will have to employ hundreds of people to register all the persons which are mentioned in the clause we are discussing at the moment. I am sure that the hon. the Minister does not want an unnecessary burden of registering people who will not be taxed, people who the hon. the Minister is not intending to tax. For example, the first part of the amendment deals with “goods for personal consumption”. If I am a plot holder and grow my own vegetables and use it for my own personal consumption, I am conducting an enterprise and, therefore, I shall have to register as a vendor. Surely the hon. the Minister does not intend taxing me for my little enterprise. If the word “enterprise” is so wide, it could be applicable to me if I am a philatelist, a numismatist, a conchologist, a weaver, if I do pottery, make carpets, make instruments or have any kind of personal hobby.

Are you paying tax on it at the moment?

Of course I pay tax on it. Women do their painting and follow their artistic work as a personal hobby. Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to ask all the thousands of people who carry out this type of enterprise to register and is it his intention to tax them if they then fall under this measure? I want to implore the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment, which details and excludes the category of people we are now referring to.

Mr. Chairman, apparently the hon. member for Hillbrow does not have much confidence in his hon. colleague for Yeoville. For that reason he wants to have imposed, as an afterthought, this further restriction on clause 2. The hon. member for Yeoville is fairly inconsistent in excluding certain people who render services and carry on enterprises, and in including others, I think the hon. member for Houghton pointed out to him that he had left out hairdressers. I cannot understand that myself.

The hon. member for Hillbrow did not listen properly to the explanation of the hon. the Minister either. One should only take the ordinary meaning of the word “bedryf” (enterprise) as it is used in the Bill. One should not read all kinds of meanings into the word. For this reason I cannot agree with him when he says that, for example, the growing of vegetables by someone for his own use is an enterprise. It cannot be, because that is not the ordinary meaning that is attached to the word “enterprise”. Nor do I agree that if a woman bakes cakes and bread for her own household, she is carrying on an enterprise and would therefore have to register. Neither is someone who sews for the family carrying on an enterprise in the ordinary sense of the word and therefore it cannot be brought in under this clause.

A further argument advanced by him dealt with the question of hobbies. If a person collects stamps, does woodwork or manufactures articles for his own use as a hobby, he is not carrying on an enterprise. That hon. member and other hon. members will agree with me that if a person sells the articles, he is carrying on an enterprise and then it ought to be included in this Bill. For this reason I believe that we cannot support this amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow either.

The Afrikaans word is “bedryf” but the English word is “enterprise”.

Mr. Chairman, I am a little disappointed in the hon. the Minister and I think I should refer him to his own Second Reading Speech. In his Second Reading speech he indicated quite clearly that the registration is for one of two purposes. It is either intended to register for the purpose of making sure that each vendor pays this tax or, alternatively (Hansard, 23 February)—

It is quite clear that there are two purposes involved: the one is to register for the purpose of vending, of actual selling, and the other is to register for the purpose of granting exemption certificates where the person concerned does not sell directly to the public. The hon. member for Florida says it is going to be decided in another law who is going to be registered. No, Sir, this law decides who is going to be registered; it says so. That is the point.

Since we find included in this particular law the term of “enterprise”, the hon. member for Florida must know that the distinction between an enterprise and a business enterprise is that the one concerns an activity which is of a general nature and the other an activity which is for the purpose of gain. To illustrate this, let us take a classical example. I think it was the hon. member for East London North who referred to the skiboat fisherman who goes out to catch fish. He is then indulging in an enterprise, but he will only be indulging in a business enterprise when he proceeds to sell the fish. He is nevertheless indulging in an enterprise when he catches fish for the purpose of giving it to his family and consuming it himself. If one does not insert the word “business” before the word “enterprise”, one is including a multitude of activities. That is why we in these benches arranged that I would move the amendments to insert the words “business enterprise” and that, if these amendments were rejected, the alternative amendment, viz. the hon. member for Hillbrow’s amendment would stand, because he focuses attention on the production of goods as a hobby or for personal consumption.

I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister on this issue. Does he say that the meaning of the word “enterprise” as the courts will interpret it, is restricted to an enterprise for a business purpose or, in other words, an enterprise for gain? What he is doing is that he is embracing a multitude of enterprises in South Africa which were never intended to be included. That is why I think he will find himself in a difficult situation. A case in point is that, if one grows vegetables in one’s garden for the purpose of consuming these vegetables in one’s own home, one is obliged to register in terms of this Bill. I think it is absolutely idiotic. [Interjections.] That is considered an enterprise. Hon. members do not want to understand this. Hon. members do not understand the meaning of the word “enterprise”—that is the tragedy. The tragedy of what is happening is that the hon. members opposite do not understand it. This is only one major point.

The hon. the Minister has said that this project was very substantially researched. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what the result was of his research in overseas countries like Ireland where it has clearly been shown—and the same thing applies in Germany—that there are some activities which cannot actually be included. That is why I take the example of the milliner. If this matter is to be controlled adequately, one cannot possibly include a woman sitting in her home making a few hats for her friends—that is what the milliner is today in the normal course.

She works with her sewing machine on the dining-room table.

That is right. The woman who has her sewing machine on the dining room table and is making a few dresses for her neighbours, has to register, not only because she is engaged in an enterprise, but because she is specifically mentioned. Thus a vast number of people will be included. The illogicality of this comes from the fact that the hon. the Minister says that one only registers for two purposes: he has admitted that it is either for selling or for an exemption when one sells so that one will not have to pay. Neither of these stipulations should apply to the poor woman sitting in her home making a few dresses. I think it is a ludicrous situation.

Who said it would apply in that case?

The Bill says so. The Bill says that she must register, and the hon. the Minister has said that one registers for one of two purposes: either because one is going to pay tax when one is rendering a service or selling, or to get an exemption because one is going to resell. This woman deals directly with the public. That is the point. It is no use the hon. the Minister shrugging his shoulders; that is a fact of life. With great respect, I cannot see the point of the illogicality of this.

I do not want to go back again to what I think is a gap in the definition relating to the question of letting premises. The hon. the Minister will see that the interpretation of a contract for 45 days means that, if one hires premises one has to give a month’s notice, one will in fact be covered. As the Bill now stands it embraces all the flat owners and everyone else, even though the hon. the Minister says he does not intend to do so. Lastly, I have not heard the hon. the Minister say anything about why we include people who lecture. Why must we include people who lecture for a bona fide educational purpose? I must say that I really cannot understand it. The question of excluding all services or including all services is another matter. That is a question of principle. In the United Kingdom, for example, professional services are in fact included. A lawyer in the United Kingdom has to add VAT onto his bill. That is included because that is what the legislator intended. However, do we intend to go that far and where is the distinction of excluding one profession and including another? I say with regret that I have tried to select items which, to my mind, would normally be excluded from this kind of activity, but the hon. the Minister appears to be absolutely intent on casting his net as widely as possible to include as many activities as he possibly can, even if they are of the smallest, minutes kind, and even if they are not intended to be for gain.

Mr. Chairman, I also wish to record my disappointment with the hon. the Minister who has indicated that he will not accept the amendments moved relating to services rendered for a remuneration. The hon. the Minister says we can debate this matter at length when the Bill comes before the House at a later stage, and make actual taxation proposals. However, we are dealing here with a Bill which will make it possible for those people—in fact, it requires them—to be registered. It is for the purpose of a tax which may be instituted later than they are to be registered. We object to this in principle. We believe that if one deletes that portion from the Bill, the hon. the Minister will not be able to include those people in the register he proposes to set up. Therefore, in terms of this Bill, it will be perfectly in order to move the deletion of clause 2(1)(b). I do not think the hon. the Minister is entitled to say we can discuss this at a later stage when he has already taken the powers here to do something to which we will object later. We are perfectly entitled to object at this stage.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, the hon. the Minister has also indicated that he is not prepared to consider accepting that amendment. I think the hon. the Minister is not quite grasping the point we want to motivate. Therefore, I record my intense disappointment with the attitude the hon. the Minister is taking up.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the reply of the hon. the Minister regarding the three professions. The hon. the Minister has indicated why not these professions, and his answer was: “Why some and not others?” My point is that one has here the exclusion, in line 37 onwards, of certain professions. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, could I draw a parallel? What is the difference between the goods or services rendered by a pharmacist compared with the goods or services rendered by a dispensing doctor? I want to appeal to hon. members who are medical doctors to consider how they would like to be included there with the optometrist, the optician and the pharmacist. I maintain that they would be very unhappy to be included in that category. When the hon. the Minister refers to goods sold by a pharmacist, I would say, he is referring to the old situation which, as we know, is being phased out now. Pharmacists will soon be selling goods of a professional nature and of an allied nature only.

Quote an example.

The hon. member should know that things which were in past years sold by pharmacists but which were not strictly pharmaceutical and of an allied nature are being phased out. This is a well-known fact. The lists are there for anybody to see and the phasing out or the change-over will shortly be completed. I see no reason why we should have here a case of fish and fowl; why some professions should be included and the others, mentioned from line 37 onwards, should be specifically excluded. I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the removal of those three professions in line 23 and to make of them a category similar to that of the excluded people mentioned in line 37 onwards. I feel very strongly that it is iniquitous to draw this comparison and to single out certain professions for this kind of treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to appeal to the hon. the Minister concerning the question of an enterprise and to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Florida. I have just sent for Webster’s Dictionary and in it an enterprise is defined as “a plan or design for a venture or an undertaking”. It is also described as “a systemetic or purposeful activity” I also have Hiemstra’s Tweetalige Woordeboek here.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has read the Bill, because in the Bill it specifically says “any enterprise in the course of which …”? Then follow a number of specifications. Has the hon. member read that provision?

Yes, I have read it. As a matter of fact, it is exactly because of the words which the hon. member has just quoted that I am raising this matter. According to Hiemstra “an enterprise” is an “onderneming, waagstuk; toeleg; ondememingsgees, ondememingsin, durf”. Nowhere is it a “bedryf’. I submit, with great respect, that there is an error in the translation, because in the Afrikaans text the Bill refers to a “bedryf’ and a “bedryf”, as I understand it, is a “business”. The dictionaries do not define “business” as “enterprise” and this is where our difficulty arises. I think if we amended the provision accordingly and the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the other amendment, it will get us out of this difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. member has begun to get confused. The hon. member became so interested in the dictionaries that he forgot to go on reading the Bill. Surely it is very simple. However he may interpret the words “bedryf’ and “enterprise”, if he had read further he would have seen that it is provided “in the course of which (a) goods are sold or let by him to other persons”. This also serves to reply to the question relating to hobbies asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. Another hon. member referred to a person who produced vegetables for his own consumption. The qualifying point is the question whether those goods are sold or let. The Bill also states “for remuneration”, “sold by auction” and so on. If the goods are not sold, the hon. members’ argument holds no water.

It is therefore very clear that the legislation applies to a person who carries on any enterprise in the course of which he obtains a profit or income. If I produce vegetables for myself on a smallholding, then surely I am not selling the goods. I am not deriving an income from them. It seems to me that this is a point which the hon. member for Hillbrow is missing completely; he is obsessed by the interpretation of the word enterprise.

The hon. member for Berea asked why a pharmacist should be included, and about doctors who gave medicine to patients. He is indeed also a pharmacist and he also supplies medicine to people.

They sell the medicine to patients.

I am not arguing about the word “sell”, but if the hon. member were to keep his mouth shut and his ears open, he would hear what I am saying. I want to tell hon. members, and the hon. member for Berea in particular, that the fact that the legislation contains a list of people who have to register, by no means signifies that they are taxed. The legislation merely comprises a list. After all, one has to have a comprehensive list. Then, when that comprehensive list is available and the hon. the Minister comes to this House with tax proposals, they will have the opportunity to argue whether a pharmacist must pay or not. There is a principle involved here, and that principle is that persons and bodies are only being registered. However, those hon. members are arguing as if we have already taxed these people. It seems to me that those hon. members find it difficult to understand the situation. If the name of a person or body appears on the list, that does not mean that he is going to pay tax. No one ever said so. It only means that the person’s name has been recorded and when the hon. the Minister comes to the House with his proposals …

For what reason?

His name is recorded and he can then be taxed. [Interjections.] That is quite right. However hon. members must raise these arguments when the hon. the Minister comes to this House with his proposals. At the moment, however, they are speaking in vacuo. We do not know whether a pharmacist is going to pay sales tax or not because the question is not before the House. The question before the House only concerns the registration of the people concerned.

The hon. member for Berea objects to the possibility that a pharmacist may have to pay sales tax at some time in the future. However, I walked past a number of pharmacists in Adderley Street this afternoon. In the windows I saw cameras, cosmetics, silverware etc. However, that hon. member said that a pharmacist’s name should be deleted. That is in fact what that hon. member said. So what that hon. member wants is that a pharmacist, who sells cosmetics, films and cameras, should not pay sales tax. However, a photographic dealer must pay sales tax. That is the logic of that hon. member’s argument.

He qualified it.

I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he did not qualify it and say that it should be limited to purely medical services. I think that the question before the House is so clear and apparent and obvious that further argument is superfluous. [Interjections.] I therefore agree whole-heartedly with the hon. the Minister. We cannot even consider these amendments because they are not worthwhile considering, since the question before the House is not yet a tax proposal.

Mr. Chairman, one of the hon. members of the Opposition took offence when I said that they had not done their homework. However, they have not done it. They have not read this Bill. [Interjections.] I shall prove that. In my reply to the Second Reading debate I said that hon. members were mistaken. What does the Bill say? I quote clause 1—

Now I quote clause 2(1)—

And then quite a number of things are mentioned. I quote further—

The phrase which is used is “may be considered”. It is not said that it will appear there. That is the point. I quote again from clause 2(1)—

With what must he furnish the Secretary? He must furnish him with—

Then the Secretary will decide in the light of that information whether or not his name ought to appear in that register. Where then does the question of exemption come into the picture?

†It has been said repeatedly—the hon. member for Lydenburg said it again a moment ago—that the Bill does not say that the dressmaker, the candlestick maker or anybody else must register; it says that such person must submit a declaration. The Secretary for Inland Revenue will then in the light of that information decide whether that name will be on the register or not. That is a very different thing from what is being said here.

Why does he want it there?

Anyone who thinks about it for a moment, will see the difference. The position is simple. Obviously, if I grow a potato to eat it myself, how in heaven’s name can I be taxed under this measure? Hon. members must tell me.

That is an enterprise. One has to be an enterprising chap to grow potatoes!

Sir, the hon. member for Umhlanga should study these things before he starts talking complete nonsense in the House.

Members also spoke of enterprise. I want to come to the hon. member for Hillbrow and I want to repeat a few things because to get this to sink in seems to be a practically impossible task. However, I am going to try once more. An “enterprise” is not just any enterprise, but an enterprise as specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of clause 2(1). It is carefully defined there. I say again that the person who grows vegetables, makes hats or makes candles or anything else without selling those articles is clearly and obviously not included here. What could be clearer than what the Bill says? The hon. member for Hillbrow nevertheless proposed an amendment which is designed to exclude from the enterprises in respect of which a declaration is required, firstly, an enterprise to produce goods for personal consumption or use and, secondly, an enterprise to produce goods as a hobby. I think he made that clear. As regards an enterprise to produce goods for personal consumption or use, I say it is difficult to conceive of an enterprise in which goods are produced only for personal consumption or use. Normally an undertaking involves dealings with other persons. Thus, a plot owner might produce fruit and vegetables for private use. In order for him to come within the provisions of clause 2(1) he would also have to sell such goods to other persons.

Not according to paragraph (f).

It might be said that the housewife who bakes cakes or makes garments for her family manufactures those things and therefore comes within the ambit of clause 2(1)(e), but let me say at once that that interpretation would be ridiculous in the whole spirit of the Bill. In the ordinary sense one would not regard a housewife’s activities as an enterprise. That is clearly the intention here.

As regards the question of producing goods as a hobby, one can look at that in somewhat the same way. The hobbyist who simply makes things for his own pleasure would not be regarded by an ordinary person as carrying on an enterprise as intended in the Bill. However, once he sells any of those things for a price, the picture becomes quite different. I want to say again that one must remember that what is being asked here is that a whole number of persons who are defined should be required to submit a declaration to the Secretary for Inland Revenue, and not to put their names on a register. The Secretary will decide who goes on the register. The department would want to know the scale of the operations involved and their precise nature and the declaration form makes provision for just that relevant information. The Secretary for Inland Revenue will then look at the matter in a perfectly reasonable manner and will decide who, of all the people who have submitted declarations, will come on the register and who will not. That is the first point. He then prepares his register. The purpose of that register is to identify those who will be taxed in terms of these transactions at point of sale. For that purpose he has a list. He will also be able to use that register to issue certificates to people such as farmers, who, for instance, buy fertilizer. No tax will be payable in respect of such a transaction because fertilizer is a factor of production, an input into farming. If, however, products are sold after that, it is another matter. He has to have that information on the register to issue certificates of exemption. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, what could be clearer than that? Moreover, where does the Bill differ in any way from what I have just said?

I think we have had a rather interesting illustration of how, if the hon. Opposition wants to prolong a debate as they are entitled to in terms of the very democratic rules of this House and thanks to the exceptional fairness of the Chair, they can do so almost to the limits of…I had better not say what is in my mind as hon. members would then accuse me of exceeding my authority. However, such a state of affairs almost becomes ridiculous because this is a very narrowly defined Bill. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that what hon. members have been trying to do for hours on end during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage is not to understand precisely this narrow Bill; they have been trying to induce us to give them information about the facts themselves and that is yet to come.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.