Mr. Speaker, I move—

In my main estimates for the present financial year I provided for an amount of R11 219 million. The additional amount that is now being requested is R352,2 million, i.e. an increase of 3,1%. However, it must be borne in mind that savings and underexpenditure, which may amount to R100 million, will be available under other Votes, from which this additional expenditure can be partly financed. If this happens, the increase will be approximately 2,2%. Therefore the total anticipated real expenditure for the present financial year cannot be calculated merely by adding up the authorized expenditure of the main estimates and the additional estimates.

I wish to single out immediately three components of the additional estimates that are responsible for an exceptional increase in the amount that is being requested this year, namely the provision of R60 million for defence, the provision of R50 million on the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Vote for food subsidies and emergency aid, and the provision of R80 million as a contribution to the operating expenditure of the Railways and the Post Office. I do not want to go into the reasons for the inclusion of these three amounts now, since it is customary for the Ministers concerned to furnish the necessary explanations during the Committee Stage of the Bill. However, if these three amounts are excluded, the amounts requested under all the other Votes are only approximately R162 million, which is a small increase, especially if it is borne in mind that an extraordinary item such as the special pension bonus also had to be financed. Under the circumstances, therefore, I believe I can say that our objective of financial discipline will be achieved during the present financial year as well.

†Mr. Speaker, as usual I will review the Government’s accounts for the present financial year more fully in my budget speech. Therefore I will not pursue the matter further at this stage, apart from assuring the House that the financing of the additional expenditure will raise no problems. As the Additional Appropriation Bill is basically a measure which is discussed in Committee Stage, I now ask the House to accept it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary when these additional estimates are debated that we do not try to pre-debate the budget. I believe that it is a correct procedure, which we will continue to follow. It is, however, quite apparent that there is a trend now—over a period of let us say the last three years—showing an increase in the amount which has been voted as additional estimates. Let me give an example. In 1978 the amount of the additional estimates was 1,1% of the main budget. In 1979 it was 1,8%. These are both very commendable figures. We said at the time that they were to be commended. Now, however, we are reaching the realms of 3,1%. We are tending to enter into an era in which the question has again to be asked whether the degree of financial discipline which is required is indeed being exercised. Secondly, we have to answer the question whether the expenditure which is being asked to be permitted is in fact expenditure of a kind which was unforeseen. The hon. the Minister has to ask the question: To what extent can it be said in reality that this expenditure was unforeseen? That is the question that normally requires to be answered in this type of debate.

When the hon. the Minister says that there should be no difficulty in financing this additional expenditure I believe that might well come to be regarded as the understatement of the year, because there is little doubt that the revenues of the State have been very buoyant. There is also very little doubt that, owing to no act in particular on the part of the hon. the Minister himself, the revenues have come flowing is, and there is also no doubt that he is at the present moment sitting with money in his pockets. Therefore there is no doubt that these additional expenditures can be financed by the Exchequer without any real difficulties whatsoever.

That brings us to a question that should perhaps be asked. If we take the two figures, what the original increase in expenditure was and the present increase, we get quite an interesting result, and I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech last year. I quote—

That is really, with respect, where the hon. the Minister has a different picture to paint, because what has really happened is that the rate of inflation has escalated, for the ordinary man in the street, to about 14%. So if we take the hon. the Minister’s 12% and add on to that some 3,1%, we find ourselves with about 15% more than last year’s expenditure. Then we are in a more realistic ball game when it comes to inflation. That seems to me to be the problem in regard to many of the items contained in this additional estimate. It is not my intention to debate any one of them individually now, but if we go through the estimates, we see throughout that what has happened is that there have been cost increases, not so much in regard to salaries in the true sense of the word, even though there are some in that category, but cost increases in other respects which are indicative of the rate of inflation that exists in South Africa at the present moment.

Therefore I want to use this opportunity to draw attention once again, as I think it needs to be done, to the fact that inflation is one of the major problems with which the South African economy is faced today. [Interjections.] That needs the urgent attention of the Government. It is not something that can be brushed off with interjections or with noise. It is a real problem that needs very urgent attention.

You speak as if you have discovered something new.

The hon. the Minister has, I think, correctly drawn attention to a major aspect of the increased expenditure, which we shall debate in detail in a moment, and that is the question of defence. There is little doubt that in the present scene in South Africa, with the threats posed to this country at the moment, South Africa will have to get used to increased defence expenditure at an ever-accelerating rate. I think it is something that needs to have attention drawn to it, because perhaps that is the most important aspect of these additional estimates. So we do not oppose the Second Reading of this measure. We propose to take the individual Votes and to debate them in the Committee Stage in detail.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because I agree with my hon. friend that we can talk about these things in the Committee Stage. In fairness, however, I think one must after all take the savings into account. If one says that the increase in the budget was 12%, the net increase now, the savings, are just as relevant as are additional amounts that one spends, and the net amount that is added on is just over 2%. So that makes it an approximately 14% increase on the previous budget, which is just about equal to the rate of inflation, as my hon. friend has said. So again we are keeping just within the rate of inflation. In real terms there is virtually no increase in Government spending, even after adding these amounts in.

I would like to repeat that last year we could not foresee that there would be an extra amount of R60 million for defence. We made the very best estimate we could, but I do not think that we could, for example, have foreseen that the defence authorities would have to place a whole number of troops with their equipment at Beit Bridge at a later stage during the year, and that would account for virtually this whole extra amount, i.e. R60 million. I understood my hon. friend to say that he is not cavilling about defence. We really have no option. Then there is also the R50 million extra for agriculture. That is for food subsidies, and I think that the country as a whole, under present conditions, would probably support us in this. Although I do not believe that subsidies, in the long run, solve many problems, in the short term one can give relief to people who are hard hit by a high rate of inflation. It therefore seems to me to be the sensible thing to do. So that accounts for R50 million which we could not easily have foreseen a year ago. Added together that gives us a figure of R110 million. We also feel that we can find extra amounts at the moment for the Railways and the Post Office in order to place these two important organizations in such a position that if they have to raise tariffs they can do so at the last possible moment. In other words, we help them to postpone the evil day, again in the interests of the public. It seems to me that that is something that is well justified. That accounts for altogether R80 million. So there one has R190 million just on those three items. The rest add up to R160 million.

I believe we have done the right thing. If one adds them all together, one does get R350 million which represents 3,3%. However, if one takes off the estimated savings, as one must do, the amount is R250 million, which is just over 2%. I think that in the conditions of today that is a very reasonable position to be in and I think it does reflect the fact that we have been able to maintain the policy of financial discipline under somewhat difficult conditions of high costs.

I therefore leave the matter there and I shall be very happy to give more information on any of these items to our hon. friends in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether we could receive an explanation in respect of Item F, Professional and Special Services? What is the reason for the increase in expenditure of R125 260 there?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, there is an amount of R114 000 because we have decided to have quite a number of Decorations for Meritorious Service minted so that there would be an adequate supply. Then there is an amount of R10 000 for professional services in respect of the activities of the Commission of Inquiry into Irregularities in the Former Department of Information. Maintenance costs relating to equipment for the secretariat of the State Security Council amounted to R600.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that I believe that the decorations should not really be specified under Item F, which relates to Professional and Special Services. That really gives a wrong impression. As I read it—and I think other hon. members will read it the same way—that appears to relate to something quite different to decorations. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that there is another heading under which these could be more appropriately included.

“Stores and Livestock.”

Well, Sir, I assumed there was no livestock in the Prime Minister’s department, but I stand corrected.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 4.—“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, I was a little disturbed—and I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me—by his remark that almost the total amount of this expenditure related to the Beit Bridge exercise, because I think that that might create a wrong impression. I should immediately like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he would like to react to that and correct it, because my impression is that the R60 million cannot be related, in total, to the Beit Bridge Exercise. Therefore I think that it is important that we should correct that at the earliest opportunity. This is the first point I wanted to raise. The second question relates to the reasons for the increase in the expenditure, and I should like to put that on a bread basis at this stage. The third point is that some explanation should be given to us of the ex-gratia payments, of which there are four, and which are included under this heading. I should like to leave my questions at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I want to confirm that I understood the hon. the Minister of Finance to refer to operational circumstances in general, to Beit Bridge in particular. We are therefore concerned here with Beit Bridge and the situation which arose from that. In addition to this I just want to say that we can state in general that there are several reasons for the unforeseen expenditure. Firstly, there are the operational obligations which were unforeseen and which arose from the nature of the threat we had to deal with. The nature of the threat is unpredictable, and answers must be found as problems arise. Therefore one cannot provide for a lightning reaction or a general response to a threat with all its many possibilities. This is the first reason. The second reason is that we are faced with an arms boycott of which the hon. member is aware. In general we also have to contend with a rising inflation rate. The unexpected increases in the prices of certain items may mean that while contracts were negotiated at amount A, it may subsequently appear that for several reasons it is fair and reasonable to provide for an increase in the price of an item. I may come back to that presently when I discuss ex-gratia payments. The exchange rate loss also falls under this. This is something which it should normally be possible to absorb, but when one is faced with suppliers, especially in this climate of a negative attitude towards South Africa in respect of the supply and production of arms, one has to take good care of these suppliers, and therefore it is right and fair that one should accommodate them, in respect of exchange rates, for example, something which I shall discuss in detail at a later stage. However, it is also true our supply of arms in this country has been optimalised, and this means that there is better co-ordination and regulation of cash flow. Therefore the result has been that whereas we may in the past have allowed an amount to stand over in the Special Defence Account, which is quite in order in terms of the law, such cash flow can now be better controlled as a result of arms acquisition, production, etc. We referred to this point as far back as 1977 in a White Paper of that year. The hon. member will probably remember that we said we would rather control cash flow, thereby preventing ourselves from having too large an amount of cash on hand, something to which we would be entitled. However, I shall leave the matter at that for the moment.

I now wish to give detailed replies concerning the ex-gratia payments, and I refer the hon. member firstly to the amount of R28 051. In this respect it is true that a contract was negotiated for 6 500 sleeping bags. The condition was delivery during July 1976. It was to have been completed by that date. However, a large percentage of this material had to be specially imported, since there was no local equivalent for it. In the course of the contract the SABS expressed the opinion that the imported material did not conform to the specifications, and the contractor was then requested to discontinue their manufacture. Attempts were then made to obtain material from various countries, but for the usual reasons these attempts were unsuccessful. After the problem had been solved, shipment was resumed, and I can now inform the House that the final bags have been delivered. The fact remains, however, that this resulted in an increase of R28 051, which is mainly due to increased import tariffs. This has been authorized by the Treasury.

The other matter concerns the increase of R26 725. Here we are concerned with batteries which had to be built for some of our large operational equipment. The price as well as the delivery had been fixed, but we began to experience a problem as a result of the arms situation and we found that our people could only manufacture and deliver 15 batteries at R9 200 each. So we had to wait for the outstanding 25, and in the meantime the price of silver, which is the biggest single component of the batteries, increased considerably, by 70%. Consequently the price of the batteries rose by more than R3 000 each. Because of all this, the Treasury authorized an increase of R1 069 in the contract price for the manufacture of the 25 outstanding batteries, as against the actual increase of R3 214. This concession was possible because the manufacturer was obliging enough to meet the difference in overheads through the sale of stock. As far as the ex-gratia payment of R12 496 is concerned, this relates to a large number of electric bulbs required for specialized equipment The original price of R2,03 charged by the original supplier shot up to R19,00, and it was then found that this supplier could no longer deliver. Then we entered into a contract with another party and we obtained a much better price than R19,00, but in spite of that, an additional expenditure of R12 496 arose, which was then approved on behalf of Armscor, in such a way that it did not land us in the red.

With regard to the last item I wish to refer to the question of the exchange rate situation. We were concerned here with freight equipment. A very well-known supplier in our country found that as a result of delays in delivery, he was faced with an unfavourable exchange rate amounting to R14 138. In this case we were dealing with a friendly supplier whom we shall need again in the future, and consequently the Treasury approved this amount as well.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to seek a little more clarity on the reasons given by the hon. the Deputy Minister for the general increases. The hon. the Deputy Minister placed particular emphasis on increased prices, price escalation of purchases including importation of weaponry from overseas, etc., but if one examines the situation only R16 million is budgeted for stores and equipment and for the Special Defence Account. The big item here is personnel expenditure. This amounts to R33 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister placed all the emphasis on purchases, logistics and price escalation, etc., but placed no emphasis on the major item, which is personnel and administrative expenditure. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us the other side of the coin of R42 million for personnel and administrative expenditure out of the total additional figure of R60 million.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could also deal with the ratios of the expenditure of R42 million under the headings of personnel, administration and other expenditure. If one looks at it in terms of projects, R6 million is for command and control and R35 million for landward defence, which I fully understand. Let me say too that this party gives its full support for all the money which is required for this purpose. R2 million is awarded respectively to air and maritime defence. What I would like to get clear is the high ratio of command and control in relation to the actual operational expenditure, which is, understandably, R35 million on landward defence.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister deals with that I would like him to be more specific, because I do not think he has removed the possible misinterpretation which could be placed on Beit Bridge, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think it is important that it should be clearly specified how little of this R60 million was involved in the Beit Bridge operation, so that the impression does not get round and cannot be used against us by those who seek to harm South Africa or Rhodesia, that we have spent tens of millions of rand on this project. I think it is important that we should emphasize the limited relationship of that one operation to the overall expenditure, which I do not want to discuss in detail. The important thing is that we should not allow any misunderstanding to arise in regard to this.

Lastly, can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us more information on the R2 million increase on the claims against the State? That is on page 4-2, item H: “Miscellaneous expenditure—claims against the State”.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to one aspect to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has replied but which is of quite substantial concern to me. If we look at the increase in personnel expenditure of R33 million, we see that that represents an increase of more than 10%. If we look at the increase in administrative expenditure of R9 million, that represents an increase of more than 20%. What is of concern to me is that I have regarded—and the hon. the Deputy Minister must please correct me if he thinks I am wrong—the level of activity which existed during the year 1979 as not something to cause undue concern. In other words, although it was bad and something which we disapprove of, it is something which has not actually got to a level where it should be of real concern. If a slight increase in activity should create the impression that the expenditure under these headings goes up by 10% and 20% respectively, then there is something wrong. Therefore I think it needs to be explained what this increase in personnel and administrative expenditure really represents. It may well be that the hon. the Deputy Minister is able to tell us that there were administrative efficiencies brought about, that there were certain adjustments to pay, or that there were certain other factors. However, to relate it to increased activity gives one grounds for concern, because the kind of escalation one has to cater for in the future would then mean increases in defence expenditure of far greater proportions than one contemplates at the moment. That is why the answer to this question is a very important one, and we need to be quite sure that the answer we are giving is related to what has really happened during the 1979-’80 financial year.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Durban Point I wish to point out that when I replied to the hon. member for Yeoville I actually dealt with the situation in general and the conditions in general which had brought about the increase. The hon. member is now seeking a more detailed reply, and I shall give it to him. When one looks at the increase of R33 million with regard to “personnel expenditure”—this I think also deals in part with the question of the hon. member for Yeoville—one will see that this coincides with the increase in certain allowances that came into operation during the second half of last year. The hon. member will recall that he himself, and the hon. member for Yeoville—I think it was during the defence debate last year—pleaded very strongly for a better deal for both warrant officers and men. We have considerably increased the various allowances that apply under operational circumstances, Sundays, etc. I think the hon. member himself is actually partially responsible for this increase in expenditure relating to personnel because he asked for it.

I support it 100%.

That accounts for the increase to a considerable degree. The hon. member will perhaps also realize that our call-ups for 1979 were of such a nature that, in response to a threat, we had to maintain a certain personnel level in the operational area and otherwise. We also had to increase our training activities and we had to call up for ordinary training and otherwise Citizen Force units as well as members of commando units. All these personnel had to be paid at the increased rate of tariff. As I have said, both the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded very strongly last year for a better deal for these people. That, I think, deals with the question of increased personnel expenditure to the tune of R33 million. I do not think the hon. member will insist that I should go into detail as to the number of personnel at stake, of the units involved, the area concerned, etc. That I think is a reply also to the question of the hon. member for Yeoville, viz. that the increased activity may not be visible in reports in the Press and may not be visible otherwise, but it can be accounted for in the maintenance of certain personnel levels in certain areas and also when it comes to training.

The increase of R9 million under Item B—“Administrative Expenditure”—was brought about as a result of increased transport activities which placed heavy demands on our existing facilities. We also had to provide for additional possibilities, and in fact we did so. This brought about the increased expenditure of R9 million. I think the hon. member also wants a very specific reply on the question concerning Beit Bridge. I want to say that in relation to our total activity, to which I have just referred, Beit Bridge is not such an important part of it.

[Inaudible.]

That is what I am prepared to say about that. I trust the hon. member for Yeoville has also received a reply concerning the level of activity in 1979. The greater proportion of the administration expenditure coincided—I am referring to the transport component of this—with the call-up of men and greater training activity, etc., in preparation for unforeseen situations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his reply. However, it is possible that I did not phrase my question very clearly. In any event, he only replied to it in part. But the argument I want to advance is that this additional expenditure is due to the improvement in allowances, to additional obligations, etc., and not to increased operational activity, because I believe that the impression can be created that we spent more money because a much larger need arose and because there was much more activity, while my information is that it was not so much due to operations as such. To some extent these did involve additional expenditure, but at the same time there was an improvement in allowances and greater expenditure in respect of the ordinary daily requirements of the Defence Force. In other words, the additional expenditure cannot all be accounted for by an intensification in operational activities. I do not believe that we should create the impression that the war has now escalated to such an extent that we have to spend much more money on it. I think that we should put the matter very clearly and in perspective. That was the reason for my question. The ratio between command and control and the various personnel expenditures, which I specifically emphasized, instead of the acquisition of military requirements and armaments, etc., is the ratio concerning which I was seeking more information.

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member for Durban Point the assurance that this unforeseen expenditure in respect of operational circumstances also has to do with everything that has given rise to it, viz. preparation, better preparedness and better training. All of this concerns the nature of the threat, which can change. It can raise its head in one form or another in—different places. If the hon. member is satisfied with that, I, too, am happy and I can proceed by referring to item H, the increase of R2 million. In this regard the hon. member for Durban Point will recall that when we introduced a compulsory insurance scheme last year, he very strongly advocated that the State should make a contribution or should even carry the scheme as a whole. I can tell hon. members that we shall contribute at least a part, viz. 50% of the premium, something we are indeed doing. It could not be foreseen at that stage, because we dealt with it here after the budget had been introduced and dealt with. It amounts to R360 per month. It was introduced on 1 September and this explains the amount of R2 million being requested under this head.

Mr. Chairman, may I, as an ordinary, simple farmer, ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether any of the additional amount of R6 million under the main division “Stores and livestock” is really required for livestock? I realize that the Department of Defence will obviously need a considerable number of cats in the camps to protect us against a total onslaught by rats. There is also the question of guard dogs. Is the Army now purchasing guard dogs or is it going over to the breeding of guard dogs? I know that the Army will need mules and horses because anybody who has read Kipling knows that one needs mules to carry mountain guns. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can give the Committee some information.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would refer to the main budget, he would see that there is a general heading “Stores and livestock”. In this particular case it may be to the disappointment of the hon. member for Orange Grove that the additional amounts have nothing to do with slaughtered stock, livestock or any kind of stock. The amounts are purely required as a result of the increased fuel costs as well as an increase in the use of fuel.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the main division “Administrative expenditure” since I have great difficulty with the hon. the Deputy Minister on that. It is said that “Administrative expenditure” relates to transport in the main. If one looks at the various headings and programmes, one notices that it is quite clear that an analysis of those programmes is required to enable one to see what is really happening. There cannot be an increase of 20% in “Administrative expenditure” merely because there is some increase in transport. There must be some other explanation for it. One must have to have the programmes analysed in order to show where the increase has been and what is taking place. Some of the expenditure incurred with transport does not fall under “Administrative expenditure” at all; it falls under different headings. With great respect, I do not think the explanation we have had on the increase of R9 million that it is due to a 20% increase in transport ties up with what the facts are in the main budget. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give the Committee some detail as to what is the transport, to what particular programme he is referring and what is involved, because I do not believe it can be right.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member surprises me.

Yes, I do surprise you because you do not have the answers!

I say that the hon. member surprises me because the headings, according to the main divisions, would cover so many of the items noted below. If we refer to transport under “Administrative expenditure” it may very well form a large part of the logistic support. The transport may relate to either landward defence or training for which there is no item. The additional expenditure may very well fit into either or both those services.

The hon. member will remember that when I replied in detail, I said that due to pressure on our transport facilities and because our transport programmes could not, for reasons known to the hon. member, be completed at the figures budgeted for previously, we had to arrange for alternative solutions.

If I have to tell the hon. member now what these arrangements were, I do not believe I will be doing a service to the country in any way. I therefore ask the hon. member to abide by this reply. The arrangement we made with a view to finding a solution was in the best interests of defence, particularly in view of the pressure on our transport facilities, the reason for which I cannot disclose.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister specifically whether any of the amounts totalling about R6,5 million, as reflected under item 1—“Command and control”—has been expended on the Paymaster-General’s office in an effort to improve the situation as far as back pay is concerned, particularly in the case of national servicemen. If this is indeed the case, I should like to know whether it is anticipated that the back pay will be brought up to date and that all national servicemen will be paid what is due to them.

Mr. Chairman, we did pay attention to this. For instance, we employed extra staff to adjust the situation when it was brought to our attention. I believe the hon. member for Umhlanga can expect a fuller reply to this question when the Defence Vote is discussed later. Nevertheless, the hon. member may rest assured that the reply to his question is a positive one.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 5.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is asking for an additional amount of R22 676 000. The bulk of it applies to item 3—“Overland transport for commuters”—as a contribution towards the “Account for Black, Coloured and Indian Transport Services”. The amount given is R22 200 000. This involves an increase of something like 44%. We all know that the price of fuel has gone up considerably, and it is quite inevitable that transport operations are going to cost more. Just interestingly enough, one of the savings is on Government motor transport, which is in fact costing R1,3 million less. This is perhaps the right time to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us something about the principles which govern the question of which services will be subsidized and by how much.

While I am on my feet I could perhaps ask the hon. the Minister about two other items. Firstly, there is a new item as a result of the R50 authority from the Minister of Finance, i.e. R150 000 as a contribution to the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund. What are the hon. the Minister’s intentions about this Fund? Is he going to build it up annually? What sort of level does he anticipate it will finally be kept at?

Apart from that, going back to item 3—“Overland transport”—I note that the contribution towards the “Account for Black, Coloured and Indian Transport Services”, reflects a saving of R541 000. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain that.

You forgot to ask a question about the City Deep abattoir. [Interjections.]

You have not asked a question about the Howick railway station.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the hon. member that it may be more opportune to discuss details of policy when we discuss the Transport Vote.

There are various factors that contributed to this additional amount for which we now have to make provision. The hon. member is aware of the fact that the financing of transport subsidies is derived from separate sources. Firstly, there is the legislation in regard to Black labour, but there is also the legislation in regard to Coloured and Indian labour. In one case the law provides that R1 may be collected per labourer per month, and in the other cases the law provides that 20c per week may be collected, which is actually the equivalent of the R1 that is collected for the Blacks. The estimated income which accrued to the department in terms of the legislation to which I referred, the money collected in respect of Black, Coloured and Indian workers, was as follows: The Account for Coloured Transport Services amounted to R2,8 million, and the Account for Black Transport Services to R11,5 million. If one makes a few quick calculations, one sees that this amounts to approximately R16 million in aggregate.

Apart from the increase in the price of liquid fuel, various other factors contributed to the higher operating expenses for this specific item. Unfortunately, this differs from one company to another, and that is why I cannot give hon. members figures for the individual companies. I think I must content myself with giving the Committee information on certain general reasons that would apply in most of these cases. Firstly there is the price of tyres that was increased by 10% with effect from 7 May 1979, and again by a further 10% in January this year. In other words, there has been a cumulative increase of more than 10% on the previous financial year within the duration of the current financial year. The second general reason is that wages have increased by an average of 10% in most companies during this year. Thirdly, the price of spares has increased by an average of 12% during the present financial year. Fourthly, the price of new buses has also increased by 10% during the same year. Consequently, there is an average increase of 10% for most companies, in respect of the most important inputs.

In the nature of things, the percentage increase in the payment of subsidies due to the increase in the price of fuel, in comparison with the period prior to the increase, cannot be pointed out since this differs from one company to another. Before a bus company can effect an increase in bus fares, the need for the subsidy which is being requested is first established by investigating the entire infrastructure of the bus service or the bus company concerned. Adjustments are then made where necessary in order to keep the payment of subsidies as low as possible. On the other hand I can say at once that we also try to keep the contribution of the passengers themselves within their financial means, taking into consideration their wage and salary structures.

My department has already received 66 requests for amended subsidies, 18 requests for new subsidies—i.e. from people who have not received subsidies before—and 12 further applications to absorb the increase in the fuel price because bus fares cannot be adapted in good time in order to cover these expenses. There is something that I should like to explain in this regard. In terms of the provisions of the legislation, a request for an increase in tariffs must first be published so that people may have the opportunity to register objections to the proposed increase. After the stipulated period has expired, the applicants and the objectors must in turn be informed individually of the date of the hearing. This is a procedure that takes quite a long time. Since it is not possible to anticipate price increases either, there is a time lapse between the date on which the higher prices are put into effect and the date on which an applicant is able to receive a decisive answer to his application. Very often, months may elapse between the application date pertaining to the increased costs and the eventual date when a hearing takes place and a decision is made. I say this because it is not always easy or possible to determine exactly what the subsidy will be during a particular year. I am also saying this because—the hon. member will be aware of this—over the past year the cost of important inputs such as liquid fuel has been one of the unascertainable factors, for the bus company as well as for us.

Three bus boycotts took place as a result of the increase in busfares, viz. at Ezakheni Transport in Ladysmith, in Hammarsdale and in Port Shepstone. Let me say at once that these boycotts often arise as a result of wage demands made when busfares are increased. We find that the wage demands are sometimes quite out of proportion to the actual tariff increase which must be paid by the passengers. This is a very sensitive matter. I can tell the hon. member that in certain areas, for example Newcastle and Ladysmith, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will be able to confirm, increased busfares have not yet been rectified due to the sensitivity of the problem of social unrest in the communities concerned.

Apart from the bus boycotts which caused us additional expenditure because we had to keep the services running for the employees, four court orders were obtained as a result of introducing increased busfares. I am referring to those against City Tramways in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth Tramways, the Uitenhage Ciskei Transport Corporation Ltd. in East London, and Putco Ltd. in Johannesburg and on the Rand. Five applications for the payment of subsidies have already been received in cases where court orders were obtained or where boycotts took place, one of which has already been approved, i.e. for Putco Ltd. It was payable as from 10 December 1979, the date on which the court forced Putco to return to the old fares. I hope I am making myself clear. In a particular case, the Road Transportation Board may find that the fares are justifiable on financial grounds. Then an appeal is made to the National Transport Commission against the decision. The National Transport Commission confirms the recommendation of the local Road Transportation Board on financial grounds and then the position is reviewed on the basis of technical reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. The hon. member will understand that.

The additional subsidies granted to Putco as a result of the circumstances that I have sketched and those which followed the court order, amounted to R1 million per month which we had to pay from Government funds. The other four requests have already been recommended by the NTC and are still awaiting a decision from me to be approved. The four applications involved here are the applications to which I referred, i.e. those for Ladysmith, City Tramways, Port Elizabeth Tramways and the Ciskei Transport Corporation Ltd.

Initially the Treasury made R50 million available in order to pay busfare subsidies. If one adds the money that was collected, which amounts to approximately R14 million—this is the money collected in terms of legislation, to which I referred—the available amount for the determination of transport subsidies was approximately R64 million in this specific case. This amount was subsequently increased by R12 million with the permission of the Minister of Finance. During December last year it was increased by a further R17,2 million. In aggregate, therefore, it was increased by approximately R30 million. Since the amount of R17,2 million was voted as recently as December, it was not possible to use the amount during the present financial year because the applications that were received had to be investigated each time for the purpose of determining what the level of the subsidy should be if we approve of a subsidy being paid in a certain case. Consequently it cannot be spent during the present financial year. The procedure to which I referred, cannot be complied with before 31 March 1980, the end of the financial year. Consequently, the Treasury was approached and asked to reduce the amounts of R12 million and R17,2 million. The actual expenditure in this specific case was R22,2 million although the Treasury agreed that we could pay the two amounts mentioned above.

The hon. member also put other questions to me.

About the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund.

I have here a contribution which is a little too long to read out now and which I shall personally hand to the hon. member for his information. The payment as regards the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund amounts to R150 000. The most important source of revenue for this fund is an allocation from the Strategic Oil Fund, also known as the SOF, by means of which an amount of 0,055c per litre is the levy on fuel paid to the SOF. The Fund also receives revenue from other sources, for example interest on investments, if there are funds to be invested of course, as well as by hiring out equipment and tugs. The hon. member will understand that these sources, apart from the payment from the levy on fuel, are very unstable. There was a decrease in the fuel consumption and therefore a decrease in the allocation of 0,055c per litre to the Fund from the Strategic Oil Fund. As I said, the other sources are in fact rather unstable, and as far as tugs are concerned, the position at the moment is that the revenue that is earned, is not even enough to cover the running costs of the boats. Up to 31 March 1979 the Fund has been able to balance its account, but early in the 1979-’80 financial year it was clear that the expected current annual revenue would not be sufficient to cover the financial obligations, unless additional financing could be obtained from some other source. Other possibilities were also investigated but once again it soon became clear to us that an amount from the Treasury would be the only other manner to keep the Fund solvent. Consequently the Treasury approved the specific amount.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us more precisely, in respect of the subsidy or grant which he is contemplating giving to City Tramways—he mentioned R1 million per month for Putco—what amount of money he is considering? Secondly, could he tell us over how many months it will stretch, what the amount will be on an annual basis and, thirdly, whether the amount he is considering to subsidize City Tramways with will be sufficient to offset the increased fuel prices and to retain fares at the level they were before?

Mr. Chairman, let me say immediately that I think it would be unwise at this stage to indicate what the subsidy is going to be which I foresee. The hon. member will understand that we are now dealing with a specific application. In these applications an analysis is naturally made in each case of the particular position of the company and, secondly, also of the capacity of the commuters on that service to pay a proportion of the increased tariffs. Therefore I do not think that it is fair that I should at this stage anticipate the position by giving an amount before a decision has actually been taken on it.

Mr. Chairman, this amount of just over R22 million applies to Coloured, Indian and Black transport services. I am quite prepared to discuss the question of policy under the Transport Vote. I think I should just for the record say that we in these benches are not opposed to this sort of subsidy. Owing to group areas legislation, a lot of Black, Coloured and Indian people do live a long way from their place of work, which makes it necessary for the Government to subsidize their transport We know how sensitive this matter is. We know how sensitive the bus boycott this year in Ladysmith, in particular, was, and we therefore do believe that this sort of service has to be subsidized. It is probably one of the less fortunate aspects of Government policy.

I want to refer to a matter raised by the hon. member for Mooi River relating to stores and livestock. I wondered whether the Department of Transport was perhaps going back to the age of the ox wagon.

No, the mule train.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain that this is a general description. We have no livestock available. We only talk about it sometimes.

Referring to the question of the acceptance in principle that transport subsidies should be paid, I wish to remind hon. members that the Treasury is also responsible for the payment of certain costs of transport in relation to the resettlement areas to the S.A. Railways. If my memory serves me correctly in this particular regard, that figure is in the region of R70 million for this particular year. Because of the fact that the socio-economic services, i.e. the transport of passengers, both by bus companies and the S.A. Railways, has, up to now, reached figures which are, in fact, astronomical, the Department of Finance in co-operation with my own department has appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Prof. Dr. Franzsen to go into the question of compensation to the S.A. Railways for the difference between avoidable cost and the actual recoveries in terms of tariffs. Equally, the question of the payment of subsidies on road transport, as well as transport costs to the resettlement areas, has been the subject-matter of this investigation. The recommendations have been considered by the hon. the Minister of Finance and myself, and certain of these recommendations have in fact been accepted. Others are still being investigated further, with a view to finding a permanent solution to the problem that we are dealing with here, and I should like to suggest that I give that hon. member and other hon. members more details when we discuss the Railway budget, which will be introduced on Wednesday, and the Vote of the Department of Transport Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, having heard the hon. the Minister say that he would report on this further in the Railway debate, I should like him to consider providing the House with information as to exactly what percentage of the total fare, on average, constitutes the subsidy. I think it is important that we know to what extent the public, the taxpayer, is subsidizing the commuters in terms of a percentage of the total fare. Secondly, we should like to know whether this is in line with the ability of the passenger to pay a reasonable fare. I say this because while we in these benches agree that where commuters are forced, through the policies of this Government, to commute over long distances, there is a reason for a certain degree of subsidization. I think that we should be very careful, and this hon. Minister must also be very careful, that the acceptance of subsidizing transport will not become, in the long term, such a great burden on Parliament that we may find in future that this will become a very major item. The hon. the Minister has already said that the figures are already becoming astronomical. I do believe that the Government should possibly look at other ways and means of overcoming this problem. For instance, if people were paid decent wages, they would be able to afford to pay the train fares.

That has nothing to do with it.

This is not a welfare State, and we have to be careful…

Order! The hon. member must come back to the item.

Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the principle of subsidies.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to discuss the principle here.

Then I appeal to the hon. the Minister to report in depth on this matter when he presents his budget.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister gets up, I should just like to ask one question. It is fairly obvious, from the hon. the Minister’s comment the other day on the additional estimates of the Railways that the Franzsen Committee which he mentioned has come up with recommendations and that these have been accepted. This means that there must be additional funds that have come to the Railways, funds which the hon. the Minister has squeezed out of the hon. the Minister of Finance. It will be interesting to hear in the Railway budget debate exactly how much this is.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask your indulgence for one moment to allow me the same latitude that you allowed the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, otherwise I shall not be able to reply to the question which he raised. Let me correct one statement which the hon. member made. The fact of the matter is that the loss on the passenger services of the S.A. Railways is estimated at some R407 million for the current financial year and, with due respect, only approximately R70 million is being paid by Treasury to the S.A. Railways in relation to resettlement areas. It is therefore a complete fallacy to argue that these amounts are paid because of the policy of the Government. One must say this in all fairness.

The second point which the hon. member made was whether I would be able to give him a breakdown as to how much of any increased tariffs is paid in the form of a subsidy and how much is being collected from the passengers themselves. The hon. member will understand that that depends on various factors. It also depends on the wage structures obtaining in the particular area where the buses are being used. Therefore I cannot give him a fixed percentage. It varies from bus company to bus company and it also varies according to the income levels of the people who are being transported by the bus companies.

Lastly, allow me to add that people who are being transported and whose wages it is argued are not enough to enable them to afford transport, are not Government employees. They are employees of the private sector. Therefore, in all fairness, I should like to suggest that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti address himself to employers and not to me when he talks about rates and levels of income.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 6.—“Labour”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us an explanation of the various increases which appear here with regard to his Vote? I should like him to comment on two items. There is a decrease of R72 000 under item 4—“Training”—and one would have expected there to be an increase. Then the hon. the Minister must give an explanation with regard to the increase of R20 000 under item 7—“Manpower 2000”. The total additional amount of R417 000 to be voted, is admittedly not a very large increase and constitutes approximately 4% of the total amount. Nevertheless I want the hon. the Minister to use the opportunity to give us an explanation.

Mr. Chairman, the increases are mainly due to the normal increase in transport costs, particularly if one bears in mind that this is a department which has to hold a number of inspection services. The hon. member asked me why there has been a large decrease under one item as one would have expected that there would have been an increase with regard to training. The hon. member is correct, one would have expected this. We are dealing here with the Westlake project and the training of adult Whites there. One can never say in advance what the costs with regard to such training are going to be, for the people who go there, are subsidized. Their transport there is subsidized. Hon. members should bear in mind that these are adults and if, for instance, it is a man with a family, provision is also made for the family anz also for further expenses. One important item of expenditure is transport The hon. member should remember that there are 198 of these people and they come mainly from the Transvaal. The hon. member will understand that the total expenditure per annum can be much higher than it would have been for, let us say, the influx from the Cape Peninsula The explanation for the increase is simply that—viz. that the additional influx which we have experienced recently came from areas in the immediate vicinity and that this entailed less expenditure as a result of the lower subsidies that we had to pay. What is important, is that the numbers have increased and that there is no drop in the quality of the training. I hope this explanation satisfies the hon. member.

The other matter pertains to manpower utilization. The second question he asked, relates to the utilization of manpower. The hon. member asked me the reason for the amount indicated, i.e. R20 100. This is as a result of the following: Tariffs for motor transport in the case of the department have showed an increase of 33% since 1 April 1979, and then again from 1 July 1979, when there was further increase of 23%. And then, as the hon. member will know, the proposed publicity project of “Manpower 2 000 was announced on 8 February 1980. Provision is being made here to launch the project. We shall probably vote a larger amount in the main budget. This expenditure is actually intended to start the promotion project. The amount is not a large one, as the hon. member can understand. If the hon. member put the question because he felt the amount was too small, I should like to give him the assurance that it will probably be supplemented. This amount is only an initial amount.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the additional expenditure requested by the hon. the Minister is in fact the third lowest of all the ministerial portfolios, and I think he is to be congratulated on the degree of accuracy with which he budgeted. The figure which is of considerable interest to me is the R300 000 under item 6—“Utilization of Manpower“. I would like to know specifically whether that additional amount of expenditure includes any expenditure on the establishment of the infrastructure for the implementation of the Wiehahn recommendations, or whether in fact the hon. the Minister has been able to finance the development of that infrastructure out of the unrevised estimates in the second column.

Mr. Chairman, the item “Utilization of Manpower” indicates something completely different. The hon. member will know that the department is also responsible for sheltered employment. We have 13 factories for sheltered employment. These factories are very important because the people employed there are people who, in the normal course, could not find a place or hold their own in free competition. In a time of rising costs—as now—it is necessary that one should revise from time to time. These are the ordinary type of cost increases which are reflected here. What actually happens is that the factories for sheltered employment employ people who, of course, manufacture goods. I can tell the hon. member that we manufacture goods for the Defence Force, for example. It is a simple type of article which one manufactures there. When there are high rates of inflation with regard to expenditure on items, the material which is used and so forth, as has been the case recently, these increases have to be supplemented, because the Government holds the view that it must pay a contribution. It is of the opinion that the articles manufactured, should try and compensate for the costs involved. However, one cannot always cover the costs, and it is therefore always necessary to contribute. All that is involved here, is simply a supplement to pay for costs of materials in the 13 factories which were higher than were foreseen. This is what the R300 000 is for.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, is this amount not recoverable through increased selling prices of the goods manufactured by the sheltered employment unit?

Mr. Chairman, normally one would recoup the amount through selling, but if one is bound to a contract, one would in the meantime have to contend with an increase in prices and that sort of thing, not only in respect of the price of materials, but also the cost of keeping those institutions going. This is a very normal thing. It could have been the other way around. I have no other explanation to offer the hon. member than to say that in respect of normal cost increases one would not always be in a position immediately to recoup the amount by way of a higher price that could be obtained when selling the product. It is a normal increase. If one considers the fact that this amount is in respect of 13 factories and thousands of people, one will realize that it is very low.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to one of my original questions to the hon. the Minister, namely whether he is in fact financing the development of the infrastructure of the Industrial Court and/or the Manpower Commission out of the additional expenditures in respect of any of these items. The hon. the Minister has not replied to this.

Mr. Chairman, the Industrial Court is only to be instituted now. As the hon. member will know, the appointment of the president of the Court was only undertaken at the beginning of December 1979. Naturally the cost will be debited to the department. In respect of the Manpower Commission, the cost has been very low. I do not have the figure regarding the expenditure of the Manpower Commission at my disposal, but I can tell hon. members that it is not yet very high. It will be much higher in future because, as hon. members will know, it will take some time for the commission to get going. This aspect pertains to nothing more than the salaries for two months of two of the officials and two or three other officials to assist them.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 7.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please give us the reason why there is an increase in the assistance to the gold mining industry? Under the present circumstances, and against the background of the tremendous increase in the price of gold, one would have expected the gold mining industry to be in a position to look after its own interests and problems and that there should rather have been an item along the lines of “Assistance to the Government on the part of the gold mining industry” in this additional appropriation.

With regard to item 0—“Strategic Minerals”—could the hon. the Minister tell us whether that increase was caused by price rises or the fact that we are purchasing a greater quantity of the various strategic minerals?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question put, I want to say that on the face of it, it seems strange that there should be an increase in assistance to gold mines while the gold price is rising to such an extent. In actual fact the increase amounted to much more than even the amount of R262 000. An amount of R11 million was originally allowed under main division K for “Assistance to needy mines”. R6 500 000 was allowed for the cost of pumping water, which brought the original budget to R17 500 000. Therefore, in real terms, the assistance to mines amounted to R15 million instead of R11 million, i.e. R4 million more. That R4 million was defrayed from savings, as is evident from the additional appropriation. Firstly there was a saving of R1 414 000 and, secondly, a saving on the cost of pumping water—which forms part of this main division—of R2 324 000. This leaves a deficit of R262 000. Why was there an increase of R4 million? When the department made its original estimates, there would have had to be an allowance of R28,5 million in the budget for assistance to gold mines, based on a gold price of $190 per fine ounce. At that stage, however, when the budget was in the process of being drafted, it was anticipated that there would be a rise in the price of gold. In the nature of the matter it is very difficult to anticipate such a rise precisely and therefore R11 million was allowed for. However, the rise clearly did not begin to make itself felt so rapidly, with the result that during the first six months of the financial year the expenditure did indeed amount to R13 million. In the second six months it dropped to R2 million. This indicates that the rise in the price of gold is beginning to have its full effect. This is why this is not really so strange, and we can have positive expectations for the future.

As far as the second aspect is concerned, virtually the whole item refers to activities of Soekor. To be able to understand this correctly, the Committee must be informed how the original amount of R37 800 000 was constituted. It comprised an allocation of R36 753 000 to Soekor for expenditure with regard to the search for oil. R1 047 000 was budgeted for the defrayment of expenditure by the Geological Survey Division in connection with the search for strategic minerals. However, a shortage arose and I should like to give the Committee a brief explanation.

Soekor had planned to have only one sea-drill, the Sedco 708 deep-sea drill, in operation after March 1980. At that stage it was decided to limit the level of supplies to a minimum. This decision was taken in view of the fact that the number of drills would be reduced to only one by the end of the financial year. Because of results achieved and subsequent urgent discussions, it was, however, decided to go ahead with the commissioning of Sedco K 1980 and also to obtain a third sea-drill, as announced in the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament this year. Initially it was planned for April 1980, but I am not quite sure yet when the third drill will come into operation. These decisions have meant that Soekor has had to supplement its supplies in order to ensure that from April 1980 it will be in a position to keep not only one drill in operation, as was initially intended, but three drills.

The summarized analysis of the increase is: Fuel and oil, R3 million; equipment, R960 000; seismic surveys, R590 000, stores, R5,2 million; staff and related matters, R673 000; and sample analysis, R35 000. This gives a total of R10 458 000, but against that we could credit an anticipated revenue of R750 000 from the salvaging of the Venpet in which Soekor was involved, and a surplus of R347 000 on the provision made for the Geological Survey Division, to which I have referred.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 8.—“Plural Relations and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, the estimates indicate that a fairly substantial amount is required by the department at this stage and I should like the hon. the Minister to give the Committee details in respect of the various items stipulated in the estimates which we have in front of us and which are not terribly enlightening when one looks at them. Reference is made to principally three items. There is one item dealing with additional land to be acquired for consolidation purposes in respect of which R1,8 million is required. I should like the hon. the Minister to give the Committee some indication as to whether this is required for land being acquired in terms of the 1975 consolidation proposals or for land being acquired perhaps in anticipation of the work of the Van der Walt Commission. I should also like to know specifically to which homeland area this refers. Where is the land generally being acquired and attached to which particular areas?

The estimates also reflect an amount of some R11 million. This is a fairly large amount and it concerns matters such as grants-in-aid to the S.A. Development Trust Fund in respect of other elements and subprogrammes. That is highly unenlightening and I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of what the other elements or subprogrammes are, and to tell us why it is necessary at this stage, in the Additional Estimate, to have access to a sum of money of this nature.

Then, in Item 6, “Assistance to Governments of self-governing Black States,” an additional amount of R5 991 200 is being asked. I should like to know to which of these self-governing Black States this amount is being given. Could the hon. the Minister give us a breakdown of how the money is to be distributed among the three self-governing Black States to which I imagine it refers? For what purposes is the money required at this stage?

Item No. 7 is an important one. It indicates perhaps a comparatively small amount of R3 200 000. This amount relates to grant-in-aid to the S.A. Development Trust Fund for purchase of properties in independent, former self-governing States. Well, one knows that this is a fairly sensitive area Again I presume the self-governing Black States referred to here are the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. One knows that there have been Whites in these areas—I think particularly of the Transkei—who have been waiting for a very long time indeed for compensation to be paid to them in respect of the properties which they owned. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of how this amount is broken down. Perhaps, at the same time, he could give us a hint on how far the Government has moved to catch up with the backlog in these sorts of commitments.

Very intelligent questions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the hon. member more details about the figures quoted under this Vote in the estimate of the additional expenditure.

*The amount of R1,8 million refers to the consolidation of the Black areas. It is the grant-in-aid to the S.A. Development Trust Fund for the purchase of land. Apart from the Treasury allotment of R47,440 million, an additional amount of R1,8 million was requested in order to finance the following compassionate cases, which cannot be accommodated in the purchase programme. These cases are the following. The first one is in Bophuthatswana, at Pepani, in the Vryburg district Also at Buffelsdrif, in the Odi district at Pakhane, in the Taung district, and at Lemona, in the Vryburg district. And in the Eastern Cape, at Glen Thomson, in the Madear district, as well as in the Northern Transvaal, in the Elim-Levubu area in the Soutpansberg district. The farms that had to be purchased for Bophuthatswana were also directly involved in the consolidation of Bophuthatswana, and farmers’ associations are exercising increasing pressure at the provincial level, and through the Department of Foreign Affairs for this consolidation programme to be speeded up. This concerns land that still has to be purchased in terms of the Parliamentary agreement of 1975. So much for the amount of R1,8 million.

Then the hon. member also put a question on the amount of R11 364 000. This deals with the following matters. Firstly, it is in connection with the S.A. Development Trust Fund and it represents an increase of R3,596 million. These funds were requested in order to make up a deficit of R1 million with which the S.A. Development Trust Fund closed on 31 March 1979, and an expected balance of R2,596 million which had not yet been realized at the time, in order to keep the “Development Trust” sub-account on a proper level. This is the explanation in connection with the R3,596 million which forms part of the R11 364 000.

Then there is the amount of R5 991 200 that applies to population settlement. This applies to township development at Sundumbili, and amounts to R1 million. Then there is also an amount of R1,5 million for the same purpose for the South Ndebele, and R3 million for the South Sothos. This amounts to R5,5 million in aggregate. May I point out that members of the Kwa-Ndebele Government are also present in the House today. It is quite a coincidence that a sum of money that concerns them, should now come up for discussion here.

I could furnish more particulars about Sundumbili, if hon. members wish. There was also an amount of R1 million for this, and for the South Ndebele-Groblersdal area, R1,5 million that was required for creating the infrastructure necessary for settling the South Ndebele from the Winterveld in Bophuthatswana on newly purchased farms in the Groblersdal-Marble Hall area, as well as South Sothos near Thaba Nchu in Bophuthatswana on newly purchased farms in the Orange Free State. The South Ndebele are establishing themselves there on a voluntary basis so that the Trust Fund has little expenditure in regard to transport and even compensation. May I just say that there is a tremendous national migration of the Ndebele people to Kwa-Ndebele. The rate at which the movement is taking place is so rapid that it is almost impossible for the establishment of the necessary infrastructure as regards schools, clinics, sanitation, the provision of water, to keep place with it etc. We did not foresee this state of affairs when the department’s estimates for 1979-’80 were introduced.

While I am on this subject, I just want to say that I have always tried, if possible, to have as little as possible on an additional appropriation in the various departments that I have been connected with. However, the circumstances here are such that it is absolutely impossible to do so, for example this unforeseen migration as well as various other factors.

I am still in the process of explaining the R11,364 million. Then there is an amount of R1,168 million for the provision of social services. This was made up as follows: Health services, an operating deficit of R970 000 due to price increases …

In what areas?

I shall indicate in which areas it occured in a moment.

Then there is an amount of R80 000 for the Nqutu clinic, as a result of a very urgent need in the Nqutu area. Then there were also subsidies to mission hospitals, before that function was transferred to Black States, amounting to R118 000. This gives us an amount of R1,168 million.

Now I shall give a more detailed explanation of the price increase in connection with health services. According to the second revised estimate of expenditure of the Department of Health, that deals with health services as an agent on behalf of the Trust, an operating deficit of R970 000 is expected. This is primarily due to price increases. There was a very urgent need in connection with the Nqutu clinic. I am familiar with that area myself, and I think it is money that is being very well spent. If hon. members were familiar with that area, they would agree with me.

Then there are subsidies to the mission hospitals amounting to R118 000. Before health functions were transferred to the self-governing Black States, subsidies were paid to mission hospitals for the construction and maintenance of capital works. At the time the procedure was to advance funds to mission hospitals, provided that documentary evidence of such expenditure was presented every year on or before 31 March so that it was possible to calculate the expenditure of the S.A. Development Trust. When the health functions were transferred to the Black States, most of these hospitals became State hospitals and were placed under new management. Every attempt was made to clear the advance account, inter alia by rendering personal assistance to the bodies concerned. The balances in the advance account could only be cleared during the 1979-’80 financial year and charged to the Trust against voted funds. In view of the position of the funds of the S.A. Development Trust, it was not possible to finance this expenditure from available funds.

Now we come to the last part of this R11,364 million. I should now like to explain it in detail because I realize it is a very large amount. There is an amount of R1,1 million for the creation of a physical infrastructure for the provision of water in the Swazi area The White River Town Council informed the department that due to the increasing demand for purified water, as a result of the drought, it was no longer able to supply Kabokwenidorp with water. Consequently the Trust was obliged to take alternative measures at once in order to cope with that problem. This explains the sum of R1,1 million. Therefore, I have now dealt with the second most important item on the budget, viz. the amount of R11,364 million.

Now I come to the third aspect, i.e. assistance to the governments of Black States, an amount of R5 991 200. This was employed as follows: An amount of R2 323 800 for the Ciskei; R1 339 900 for Gazankulu; R2 253 500 for Lebowa; and R74 000 for Venda This gives a total of R5 991 200.

Allow me to furnish a quick break-down of the aggregate amounts. In the case of the Ciskei, the amount for health services was R1 158 000; R568 000 in respect of emergency aid; and a bonus of R597 800 in respect of social pensions. This gives a total of R2 323 800 for the Ciskei. I am now explaining the amount of R5 991 200 for assistance to the various States. I have now been referring to the Ciskei only. As far as health services are concerned, we had to vote an amount of R400 000 for tuberculosis clinics. At the same time I should like to give the House an idea of the sort of problems that we are faced with. Approximately 500 tuberculosis patients from the White areas were resettled in the Hewu district in Whittlesea The hospitalization of patients for periods up to five months and longer at R4 per day and the additional home care by prescribing certain Rifamycin tablets at 83c per tablet, resulted in an additional expenditure of R400 000 which the Ciskei could not finance from their own funds. Since we were dealing here with tuberculosis, it was considered advisable to put this amount on the budget.

Then there was the take-over of further departments of the Frere hospital in East London, which involved an amount of R500 000. This then gives the total expenditure for the Ciskei, except for one amount that I still want to mention, i.e. emergency aid to the value of R568 000 for storm damage. If hon. members want further details, I shall furnish them with pleasure. Consequently, these were all completely unforeseen circumstances. We had to assist in dealing with the situation in various towns there, for instance Zwelitsha, Alice, Hewu, Mdantsane and Middeldrif. Furthermore, there was an amount of R25 000 for schools; R200 000 for roads; and R597 800 for social pensions. That deals with the Ciskei.

In the case of Gazankulu the additional amount was R1 339 900. I do not want to go into detail, but this was for health services, the Douglas Smith Hospital, ambulances and emergency aid necessitated by the drought.

In the case of Lebowa the amount concerned was R2 253 500. In Lebowa’s case there was R718 500 for health services and R1 535 000 for emergency aid also necessitated by the drought. This gives a total of R2 253 500. As far as health services are concerned, I should like to point out that we had to allocate an amount for the Philadelphia Hospital. If hon. members want details of how the amount was used in combating the drought, I shall be pleased to furnish them.

Finally, the aggregate amount of R5 991 200 includes an amount of R74 000 to Venda. That amount will be used chiefly for combating foot-and-mouth disease which has assumed large proportions in this area. This applies to Gazankulu too, but no additional amount has been included in that case.

Finally, a question was put to me in connection with the amount of R3 200 000. This is in connection with supporting and associated services, and specifically with the buying out of properties in the Transkei. I worked on this matter myself. Due to the pressure exerted on the Government by the Transkei White Citizens’ Association valuations to the value of approximately R9 million were made in 141 cases. This includes 13 estates, 51 businesses and 77 private persons of whom 45 are in Port St. Johns where there are no employment opportunities for them. It was not possible to make the desired progress in buying out compassionate cases within the framework of the R5 870 000 that had been provided. I have a great deal of sympathy with these compassionate cases. My Department does too. In one specific case we even received requests from the hon. the Minister of Finance—and this is quite exceptional—to help to buy out the people there as soon as was humanly possible.

What is the current backlog?

There is still a considerable backlog. We are in close touch with the Association there. We are trying to help them to buy these people out as quickly as possible. I cannot say off the cuff what the precise backlog is, but it will still take a while before we can eliminate it completely.

About 100 million.

It is not that much.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether his fairy godmother wand created any jobs for these people in the areas he was referring to?

Order! The hon. member can ask the hon. the Minister that question when the main budget is discussed.

I am asking about this actual amount. Was any of this amount devoted to infrastructure which would create on-going jobs for these people?

Order! The hon. member may only ask questions relating to the items appearing on the estimates of additional expenditure.

I am asking a question pertaining to the R11 million.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to the hon. member. I wish I was a fairy godmother … [Interjections] … and I wish I had a magic wand.

Let me say in a serious vein that the problem of the creation of jobs in these national States is very serious. I want to assure the hon. member that we can discuss this at length under my Vote. We are doing whatever we can to create jobs there and I think we will have something to tell the House on that occasion.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 9.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”:

Mr. Chairman, there are two amounts to which I should like to refer and in regard to which I hope the hon. the Minister will furnish a reply. Provision is made under item H for an amount of R9 000 for potential claims against the State. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain what the potential claims involve, in which areas the claims may be instituted, etc. Secondly, I should like to refer to main division No. 2—“Agricultural Financing”—where provision is being made for an amount of R6 550 000. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would give a further explanation of this amount too.

Mr. Chairman, the R9 000 to which the hon. member for Wynberg is referring, concerns an accident in which a Government vehicle was involved. It is a third party claim.

As far as the increase of R6 550 000 in expenditure is concerned, the hon. member will know that in its recommendations the Jacobs Committee proposed that the Government should consider increasing the crop production loans from R20 000 to R40 000. The hon. member will also know that only people who have had a proven crop failure during the previous production season may apply for loans in terms of this scheme. It so happened that practically the entire winter rainfall area, as well as a very large section of the summer rainfall area, was subjected to drought and consequently to crop failures. Consequently, practically all the farmers qualified for the increased aid. An amount of R1,5 million was set aside for this purpose, and this amount was included in the R6 550 000. As far as the other R5 million is concerned, the hon. member is aware of the fact that the stock feed loan scheme was approved on 28 November 1978 for scheduled drought-stricken areas, chiefly Namakwaland, Bushmanland and the North-Western Cape. The Cabinet approved this scheme in 1978 and an amount of approximately R300 000 had already been spent during that particular financial year. However, there was also a transfer of just over R700 000 which was spent during that period, but which was transferred to 1 April of the present financial year. But since the normal rainfall period for this area is from February to March, the Department did not think fit to budget for a further amount. However, as the hon. member knows, the rain did not fall and an additional amount was required for stock feed loans in that area.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 10.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”:

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister knows, this party is very much in favour of subsidizing certain types of foodstuffs. We note that an additional amount of R47 000 000 has been set aside under item 4 for a bread subsidy. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to the House exactly how this will be applied, viz. on what quantity of bread, and I should also like the hon. the Minister’s opinion as to why the amount has increased so much from the original amount of R70 million.

Secondly, would the hon. the Minister please explain why an additional amount of R11 145 000 is being budgeted for relief of distress—which I assume will be used in the drought-stricken areas—whilst a few days ago we were speaking of an amount of R17½ million, an amount which in my opinion would fall under that category?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will remember that we had R70 million as a bread subsidy last year. In September we increased the wheat price by 36%. The bakers and millers had their cost increases due to diesel and electricity, and all those cost increases were made good with a subsidy of R45 million to keep the price of bread at 16 cents for a brown loaf and 25 cents for a white loaf. This is an additional R45 million, plus R2 million to subsidize bread flour. Small packages of 1 kg, 2½ kg and 5 kg are subsidized by R125 per ton, for people who want to bake bread at home. So much for the bread subsidy.

As far as the amount of R11 145 000 is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced last week that he is going to make an additional R17½ million available for those areas that are now crippled by drought. No one can foresee how long the drought is going to last and so we have allowed a subsidy of R1 per sheep to a maximum of 1 000 sheep, plus a loan of R1 at 5%. These are the two items that constitute the total of R11 145 000 which has had to be budgeted in addition so far, apart from the R17½ million that we received recently and which does not appear in this additional expenditure, but which will be explained next year.

Mr. Chairman, when I see small print I get suspicious. Would the hon. the Minister kindly explain the significance of the note “Minister of Finance’s authority No. 9 obtained: R20 million”, because he will see that against the same item where the R47 million is reflected, the original amount voted was R70 million, whereas if he looks at 10.13 of the original budget he will see that the original amount there was R50 million. Could the hon. the Minister please explain the arithmetic? I am sure that as a farmer he will be able to do that very well.

Mr. Chairman, in September the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that another R20 million would be appropriated for food subsidies. That was an additional amount, and approximately R750 000 was used to subsidize powdered milk to counteract kwashiorkor, and some of it was used for the subsidy on bread. We cannot predict what the subsidy would actually be if we increased the wheat price. In order to keep the price at the present 16 cents for brown bread and 25 cents for white bread, we had to have an additional amount of R20 million. That is the reason why it is printed there. I do not know what the reason is for it to be in small print. This is perhaps a typographical error. However, it is all still part of the bread subsidy.

Mr. Chairman, what worries me is that this item is shown under bread subsidies, and now we are told that some of it has actually been used for subsidizing powdered milk. I do not understand that, because the amount of R47 million surely relates solely to bread subsidies, and if the hon. the Minister would look at pages 10-13 of his original estimates for this year, he would see that an amount of R50 million is specified. Is that amount of R20 million included in the amount of R47 million, or is it additional to the amount of R50 million to increase it to R70 million?

It is additional.

That means that since the original estimates, the amount that now has to be voted should actually be R47 million plus R20 million, which would bring it to R67 million for additional expenditure, and not R47 million.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is perfectly right. The amount comes to R67 million when one adds the additional amount of R20 million to the R47 million. However, he now asks how it was applied. I replied to the question of the hon. member for Wynberg by saying that some of it was used for various subsidies, but the only subsidies we can apply on food are those on powdered milk and bread, apart from the subsidy on maize, which is additional. The hon. member is perfectly right in his assumption.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 12.—“Health”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please list the reasons why there are a number of considerable increases in the amounts voted? I should just like to bring to his attention that there is an increase of 10% in respect of administration, an increase of approximately 5% in respect of medical care and an increase of approximately 20% in respect of bursaries. The increase is R20 270 and this is an amount obtained under authorization No. 4 of the hon. the Minister of Finance. Could the hon. the Minister please give us an explanation in this regard? There is an increase of more than 200% in respect of Laboratory and Medico-legal Services to State departments, Administrations and Organizations. The amount voted initially was R1 258 000. The revised amount is R4 971 000. This means an increase of R3 713 000. The following item is publicity services, in respect of which there is an increase of more than 150%. There was an increase of approximately 25% in respect of the Health Year. I do not want to detract from the excellent programme of the Health Year, but I do feel that the hon. the Minister should give an explanation for this considerable increase.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has omitted little. He wants all the figures to be explained and I shall do my best to do so. Under the main division—“Administration”—there is an increase of R486 000. An amount of R308 000 was spent, inter alia, on advertising for the Health Year. People have really become very health conscious and consequently a tremendous demand for informative literature has arisen, to such an extent that it has led to overtime being worked and additional posts being created. Under the main division—“Administration”—provision has also been made for an amount of R150 000 because it has become essential to establish a regional office in Kimberley. Provision is being made for the activating of certain administrative posts in the current financial year, as well as for administrative expenditure to be able to open that office. Provision has also been made for an amount of R28 000, which brings the total to R486 000. The implementation of salary increases as from 1 April 1979, as well as the take-over of dental and oral hospitals at the Universities of the Witwatersrand and the Western Cape and dental laboratory services of the provinces has meant that additional posts have had to be created in order to handle an increased workload. These three amounts together bring the total to R486 000 under the main division—“Administration”.

The following main division to which the hon. member referred was main division No. 4.—“Medical Care”. I want to explain how the sum of R2 593 000 is made up. The first part of it was spent on district surgeon services. The basis on which the remuneration of part-time district surgeons is calculated was increased by 20% as from 1 January 1980. This adjustment was approved by the Public Service Commission, while the expenditure involved was also approved by the Treasury. Apart from this, the costs of medicine and transport have risen to such an extent that the additional appropriation of R490 000 is essential. Provision has also been made for an amount of R1 318 000 for separate out-patient services of local authorities. As a result of a major rise in the costs of medicine in particular, provision has to be made for an additional sum under this main division. The increased demand for free medical services, because more persons qualify for free medical treatment, is also a factor contributing to this increased expenditure. An amount of R210 000 is required for dental services. This amount is required for the rendering of dental services to White schools that have been taken over from the Orange Free State Provincial Administration. An amount of R276 000 is needed in respect of artificial aids. Adequate provision was not made under this main division for expenditure in this regard. In spite of the fact that strict selection is applied to the provision of artificial aids and that, for example, only 20% of the applications for spectacles are approved, expenditure up to this stage indicates that the estimate will be exceeded by a considerable amount. Cost increases have played a considerable part in the increase in this expenditure. If one adds to this a final amount of R300 000 one gets a total of R2 593 000. Under this main division additional funds are needed for the transportation of needy persons as a result of higher fuel prices and the increase in the tariffs of the Government garage as well as contract transporters. Those, then, were the amount under main division No. 4.—“Medical Care”.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with the fifth main division—“Health Protection”. The amount of R20 270 appears under this main division. There is really a saving under this main division. The specific amount of R20 270 was voted for bursaries with a view to the training of health inspectors. This amount must be appropriated since the amount was really shifted from the activity “departmental” to the activity “bursaries”. The excess under this element is as a result of the fact that a technikon granted bursaries for a larger amount than was provided. The bursaries are provided by the technikon itself and the excess amounts to R20 700.

I think the hon. member also referred to the R3 713 000 under “Laboratory Services”. Since the programme consists of a reasonably wide spectrum of divergent sub-programmes, the differences are explained under the respective sub-programmes. Here one finds that there is a saving on the one hand and an increase on the other. I shall briefly give the hon. member the few explanations. Under the saving there was an amount of R15 000 under the Medical and Dental Board. The Board’s tariff provisions have to be paid for, but they required R15 000 less. The increase in expenditure on the laboratory services amounted to R3 713 000. I think this is really what the hon. member was referring to. In order to establish a national laboratory service the laboratories of the Cape and Natal Provincial Administrations were taken over as from 1 April 1979. A free service has since been rendered to the provinces, and set off by way of internal levies against the above sub-programme. Internal levies are increased by a corresponding amount, and consequently, broadly speaking, additional funds are not required. That disposes of the item “Laboratory Services”.

The second item here is “Publicity Services”—R759 000. The publicity campaign comprizing part of the Health Year caused the public in general to become more health-conscious, as I indicated in the case of an earlier item which I also dealt with with the hon. members. This lead to a tremendous increase in telephonic inquiries and correspondence, well as an increased demand for the existing health literature. In order to meet these demands it was essential to create additional posts. Further editions of informative literature had to be printed in order to provide for the needs created by the public. The additional expenditure is debited to other programmes by means of internal levies and consequently only a small additional amount is required for the division as a whole. Internal levies are being increased by almost an equal amount.

The item “Laboratory Services”—I have just referred to it—shows a saving of R906 000. The trend of expenditure up to the present stage indicates that a considerable saving will be effected under this sub-programme. The saving may be partially ascribed to the fact that equipment provided for in the current year cannot be delivered before 31 March 1980. Therefore this is really an amount which is not being spent now, but which will certainly have to be shown next year.

Under the item “Health Year”—this was the last point raised by the hon. member for Bryanston—amounts of R800 000 and R500 000 are shown. These amounts were appropriated for the 1978-’79 and the 1979-’80 financial year respectively. Since the Government Printer was unable to deliver the order for stationery before 31 March 1979 owing to other priorities, and certain technical equipment could not be delivered in time either, only R375 000 of the anticipated amount of R800 000 could be used. However, commitments were entered into, and a portion of the amount which was not utilized during the 1978-’79 financial year is required in the 1979-’80 financial year. I think that this is a comprehensive reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Bryanston. I hope this is to his satisfaction.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put two questions to the hon. the Minister. In connection with item No. 2, “Infectious, Communicable and Preventable Diseases”, an additional amount of R200 000 is to be voted. I should like to know whether any of that expenditure is in connection with the sending to a State to the north of us of medical practitioners to investigate the outbreak of Green Monkey Fever. Secondly, with reference to item No. 3, the additional amount of R570 000 is requested in respect of “Mental Health”. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us a breakdown on that amount of the extra amount to be voted in connection with drugs as opposed to the amount to be voted in connection with psychiatric treatment per se.

Mr. Chairman, the amount referred to by the hon. member in respect of item No. 2 is required for the treatment of tuberculosis. The problem here is the ever-increasing costs of medicines. That is why an additional amount is necessary under this particular item. The total amount is asked for to cover the rise in the price of medicine.

*The hon. member also asked a question in connection with Head No. 3, “Mental Health”. Perhaps I should furnish him with all three heads. The very first one is an amount of R144 000. This forms part of the total of R570 000. A crisis situation has arisen in psychiatric hospitals as a result of a shortage of staff. Proper supervision could not be maintained and there have even been cases of assault and other incidents.

Could you speak a little louder, please? We cannot hear you. [Interjections.]

I shall try my best. I have actually been talking to the hon. member for Berea. I shall try to speak loud enough so that the hon. member for Groote Schuur can also hear me. Will the hon. member perhaps like me to come a little closer? [Interjections.] I shall try my best to speak a bit louder. I think there is some kind of a vacuum here, because sometimes I cannot hear myself speak. [Interjections.]

At one stage there were about 800 staff vacancies.

*As a result of the shortage of nursing staff, only some of the vacant posts could be filled. Limited provision is being made accordingly. It is because there is a major shortage of nurses for this type of hospital that the amount mentioned is required.

The second head is that of treatment in hospitals, excluding rehabilitation homes and licensed homes. In this instance the amount is R150 000. Apart from the increase in social pensions and allowances announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in October last year, permission was granted by the Treasury on behalf of the Minister that a single cash sum which is regarded as a bonus, could be paid to people in single care and in licensed homes. This bonus amounts to R30, R24 and R18 with regard to Whites, Coloureds and Blacks respectively, who received an allowance before December 1979. Thus the amount of R150 000 will be made available for this purpose in the additional appropriation as part of the amount of R570 000.

The third amount, the last of the R570 000, is for hospital treatment in private hospitals. The Treasury has approved an increase of 12% in the day tariffs paid to the undertaking Smith, Mitchell and Co. to hospitalize patients on behalf of the department. Adequate provision was not made for this adjustment in the draft budget, since its extent was not known. The rising prices of medicine and foodstuffs has necessitated this high adjustment. This is possibly the reply to part of the question.

†The answer to part of the hon. member’s question is that the increase of 12% was mainly due to the increase in the price of medicines for the ordinary needs of the patients. I think that is a full reply to the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to come back to the first part of the question I put to the hon. the Minister in order to seek a further point of clarification. As I understood his reply,—perhaps he could correct me if I am wrong—the added amount of R200 000 was for the drug treatment of tuberculosis. My specific question was—and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could reply to this—about whether South Africa incurred any costs in sending, to a country to the north of us, two doctors to investigate Green Monkey disease. That was my specific question. Do I take it that the answer to that is negative, or did we incur costs in that regard?

Mr. Chairman, actually that does not fall under this Vote at all, so I cannot actually reply to that question.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 14.—“Treasury”:

Mr. Chairman, in the main the Vote contains transfer payments, except for an amount of R9 000 in respect of Administrators’ allowances. I should, however, like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the transfer payments. Provincial subsidies are, of course, as he has indicated in previous years, based upon a formula that has been worked out. As I understand it, and as he has told us before, there is a meeting that takes place in January of each particular year. Then there is another meeting that takes place in December. Does that actually mean that every year there has to be something in the estimates in regard to Provincial subsidies? Is it not possible to actually work out the thing in such a way that it is fairly accurately done in the first place? What is it actually that causes this hang-up, necessitating an adjustment in December of each year? Then, if he has the figures available, I think we would like to know what each particular province actually received and what the reason for it was. In other words, is it an increase in the unit cost of education, or is it something to do with hospitals? What is it that causes this situation?

Then I come to the amount in connection with the Railways and Harbours Fund. I assume that the hon. the Minister would give the same answer as has been given by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, but if he has anything else to add to this, I should like to hear it.

Then I come to the item in connection with Posts and Telecommunications. There I also think we would like to have an explanation from him to indicate why this amount of R22 million now appears in the estimates when, in fact, in the original estimates there was merely the nominal amount of R1 000. Then there is the aspect of Administrators’ salaries. I take it that we are actually going to have legislation to deal with this whole matter.

Which is that?

I am referring to legislation about the salaries of Provincial Administrators. Are we likely to have new legislation in regard to that that would avoid our having to put it into the estimates in this fashion?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct. The item of R43 691 000 relates to the subsidies of the provinces. It is actually in the nature of what we call an “agterskot”. In fact, according to the formula this is how it is done, and the amount is in fact bigger, strictly in terms of the formula. By agreement with the provinces, however, we have asked them to reduce the amount that each receives and they have been able to agree on certain figures. So in that sense there is a certain saving. The figure could, in fact, have been higher strictly in terms of the formula. The subsidies are based, as the hon. member correctly says, on a formula, and that formula is based on certain statistical data.

It is also, of course, based on a certain estimate of costs. The total amount, or subsidy, made available to all the provinces is very large. It is in the neighbourhood of R2 000 million. It is very difficult to prepare the main budget so accurately in advance that one does not need to adjust it later in the year. It is true that we see the Administrators regularly. We see them if not in December, then in January, or even in the beginning of February, and it is on the basis of that discussion that we decide on the final amounts. We are in the process of revising the subsidy formula, as we do from time to time, in the light of new factors, arguments, approaches, sophistication and refining. The point made is something I shall bear in mind, but I must say that my experience is that it would be very difficult in the nature of the formula to avoid having to come to Parliament at this point with an additional requirement. We naturally try to keep the amount as moderate as we can and we do have the full co-operation of the provinces.

Do you have a breakdown of the figure?

Yes, I shall give the hon. member the breakdown. I shall give him the original amounts budgeted. They are as follows: Cape Province, R642,3 million; Transvaal, R799,4 million; the Orange Free State, R203,l million and Natal, R279 million. The amounts that make up the total of R43 691 000 are the following: Cape Province, R16,332 million; Transvaal, R16,056 million; the Orange Free State, R7,095 million and Natal, R4,208 million. That gives a revised total for the year of R1 967 520 000. That is very close to R2 000 million.

So the increases are not proportional to the original amount?

No. What happens is that in the first instance the formula is applied. Then some of the provinces have what we call extraordinary items which crop up. We have to take those into account. One may for instance find that in a particular province it becomes essential to build a particular road which could not have been foreseen. That happened the other day in respect of a bridge. Another possibility is, for instance, that it becomes necessary to expedite the building of a particular hospital. One then tries to meet that by giving a special amount, a special dispensation. We cannot make a formula so inflexible that one would not be able to fit in some of these extraordinary items. That is what would account for this kind of thing. I hope that satisfies the hon. member. As I say, we are revising this subsidy. We are trying to bring it up to date and to refine it in the light of experience. We can perhaps talk a little more about that at an appropriate opportunity.

Then I want to refer to the amount of R9 000. Our Constitution actually provides that the Administrators’ salaries must be determined by Parliament Therefore we bring this to Parliament each year. This amount is to provide for the increases as from 1 April 1979.

I now turn to the other item. As my colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said, we have been conducting an extensive inquiry into certain aspects of, in the first instance, Railway financing. We have a joint committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Franzsen at work on this at present, particularly to assist us with requests the Treasury gets from the Railways for financial assistance in certain forms. There are the subsidies on bus fares and railway fares. There is also the question of transport facilities in the resettlement areas. So, there are several of these items, and we decided that it was time to have a thorough look at them. It has, in fact, been quite an extensive inquiry and in the course of this it became quite apparent that, unless something more was done, particularly with a view to the very big increase in fuel costs and the other escalations, where there is an overall inflation rate of about 14%—the running costs have been rising very substantially, and of course both the Railways and the Post Office pay the general sales tax—we would have to face the position that tariffs would have had to be raised at some point during this financial year in order to allow the Railways and the Post Office to come within their budgeted figures. So, it was decided that, if the Exchequer could afford it, we should make an extra dispensation here to postpone the evil day of tariff increases. We did it in this way.

There is no doubt that, if they did not pay general sales tax, they would, of course, be in a much stronger position. That is a very substantial factor in the whole position. We cannot, and do not intend to, exempt them from general sales tax. There is, in any event, no provision for this in the Act. However, whether one says that it is due to very substantial fuel costs or other escalations such as the general sales tax, the fact is that, if we had not done something of this nature, we would certainly have found that there would have been a need to raise tariffs at an earlier point. I cannot anticipate my hon. colleague. I am not saying that he is going to raise tariffs or that he is not going to raise tariffs. I am saying that, if we did not assist, then this would have been a stark reality, in terms of the Franzsen inquiry as well.

The Post Office is very much in the same boat on a smaller scale and it was felt that if we did it for the one, we ought to try and do it for the other for the same reason. I want to say that the inquiry by Prof. Franzsen is proceeding. It is a joint committee of the Treasury and the Railways, and the Post Office is also, I believe, very interested. We have not completed this exercise by any means and we will have to give more information to the House in good time. This is, one might say, an interim measure which we have taken at this point to provide relief.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the reply of the hon. the Minister concerning the Franzsen report and the Railways. I presume that this is covering the whole year in question. I do not know whether there was a starting date or whether the hon. the Minister indicated that it was for the whole year. However, the Franzsen Commission is looking into the question of socio-economic services rendered by the Railways. I find it very difficult to understand how the same thing can apply to the Post Office. What particular socio-economic services does the Post Office render and why should they be entitled to this big amount of R22 million?

Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, in making these amounts available this is not really a question of socio-economic services; this is looking at the position as a whole. It is not limited only to the Franzsen Commission’s inquiry, though it is very substantially based on that as far as the Railways are concerned. As far as the Post Office is concerned, which also pays the general sales tax, we have had representations as a result of cost escalations through the year and, because we felt we could afford this, we made this amount available during the year, over and above anything that might have been provided in the budget. So, we have to get authority for it now, but I can assure the hon. member that there would have been tariff increases earlier had we not done this.

Mr. Chairman, I have some problems with the answers which the hon. the Minister has just given and I should like to put them to him. Firstly, I have some difficulty in appreciating why the R58 million is contained in the Treasury Vote whereas the R22 200 000 is contained in the Transport Vote.

No, that is something else. The R22 million in the Transport Vote is the usual bus fares subsidy.

That is correct, but here he is also subsidizing the R58 million. As I understand it from what the hon. the Minister has said, this relates, in a substantial measure, to the socio-economic services which are being subsidized by the Railways because in this respect the Railways is not running on a normal business footing and charging normal fares for this service. If that is so, then the difference between whether it comes out of Treasury Vote or the Transport Vote escapes me, unless there is a formula whereby one arrives at the figure of R58 million. In other words, if one says that the R58 million relates to a refund of sales tax or to some similar matter, then I can understand it, but if it is just on a bread basis then it seems to me to be more logical that if it is not a loan—and this is not a loan; this is purely a contribution to operating expenditure—it should then be in the Transport Vote. It should not be in the Treasury Vote at all.

Then, in relation to Post Office, I should like to ask what actually motivates the hon. the Minister of Finance in making the amount R22 million. Why not R20 million, R30 million or R10 million? Is there a formula? Is there some basis for this? In other words, before the Post Office budget was prepared, was the hon. the Minister of Finance consulted as to what provision would be necessary so that there would not be certain tariff increases? What is the basis on which this is being approached?

The last point I wish to raise is whether it is now accepted by the Treasury that the responsibility for the subsidization of the Railways, in respect of services where there are socio-economic problems, is a State responsibility and not a Railways responsibility, or is that question still open and still to be decided in the final analysis when the Franzsen Commission finally reports.

Mr. Chairman, to take the last point first. No, there is no finality on that. That is a matter which is still being discussed. There are also certain aspects of the matter still being investigated by the Franzsen Commission. So I think the answer is quite clear. There is no finality there yet.

As far as the R22 million is concerned, which is shown in the Transport Vote, that is quite an old item. That is something which was agreed upon some time ago between Treasury, the SAR and the Government. The amount refers to subsidies on bus fares. That is something which has continued for quite a few years and, of course, the amount has increased quite a lot. As I say, however, as a result of various inquiries that have taken place in the last year, or just less than a year, and which are still continuing, there are other aspects now which are very much under consideration. The one relates to the whole question of passenger services. The Railways have put it to us that they would like exemption from interest payable on capital invested in passenger services. That is part of that socio-economic idea.

On all passenger services or only on the selected ones?

No, it is more particularly with reference to the resettlement areas. The amounts, of course, are quite large. The fact of the matter is that one can do that sort of thing, but one cannot simply keep on adding on and adding on. We are therefore working on the basis that if we can do that, then maybe we can include some or all of the bus subsidies and the other rail subsidies for the lower income groups. Maybe we can arrive at a formula where that is then included, and this other amount will then subsume them, as it were, because it is a bigger amount, but all that is still being thrashed out Before we could arrive at finality it was drawn to my attention that if we did not do something in the course of the year the chances were considerable that Railway tariffs might have had to be raised somewhere around October last year. It was felt that we should try to avoid that. Part of the Railways’ problem is, of course, that they are also paying this new tax. That is certainly a factor, but we cannot exempt the Railways, and we do not intend exempting them, because this is laid down by the Act. For various reasons, however, we have had to give the Railways a further dispensation, and it ties up with the drawn-out and continuing inquiry of the Franzsen Commission and with our own discussions with the Railways. It is on that basis that we have in fact done this, and because we do not have any finality on it and we are not at all sure what the future will hold, we have put it under the Treasury Vote this year. It is possibly a once-and-for-all item in the Vote, but I am not sure. We are, however, feeling our way forward. I do not know whether I can really take it further than that.

And the Post Office?

Well, we did it for the one, and then the Post Office was also in the position of having to face these escalating costs and being faced with an earlier revision of tariffs. Therefore, calculations were made to try to put off the evil day until a certain date, and one finally comes to a certain figure. That is just about the sum total of the whole matter. We shall, however, obviously have to discuss this in the future, because it is not really satisfactory to me, as the Minister of Finance, as it is at the moment. There is a great deal of interim arrangement here, giving relief now, but I do think that, perhaps with a little bit of luck and good judgment, we may arrive at a very much better basis as we proceed. We shall then, of course, do things in the usual way, and these figures will be included under the proper Votes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the amount to be voted for the Post Office. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the idea to establish a new principle or a new formula. I just have difficulty in understanding the argument. I know what the hon. the Minister is saying, but I have difficulty in understanding the argument in relation to the substantial increases in the Post Office which were announced last year, but which became effective on 1 February this year. If this is a sort of hedge against an increase in tariffs, how does one relate that argument to the very increases that came into effect on 1 February, and which were fairly substantial?

Mr. Chairman, the point is that if we had not given this kind of relief, tariff increases would have had to come into effect earlier in the financial year. It was in order to put off the evil day, that we did that. We are in the position where we could afford this this year, as the hon. member knows. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to afford it next year, but I am sure that, at least, we shall by then have placed it on a more systematic footing.

Mr. Chairman, it is lovely to be a Minister of Finance with money to hand out. I appreciate the explanations that he has given. I actually find this quite fascinating, because, with the Railways oppressed by general sales tax and the Post Office oppressed by general sales tax, may I make a plea for other people who are oppressed by general sales tax?

Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member might well mention that. I called him “Santa Claus” the other day, but he must be a little careful. Even we, with the gold price as high as it is, have limits on our income at the moment.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 16.—“Inland Revenue”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister about the increases, particularly on three items. The first one is item C, “Stores and livestock.” I find this “livestock” of the Receiver of Revenue very intriguing.

He is a fat cat!

Are the fat cats being kept in storage? R441 000 is quite a substantial increase when the original budget was for only R1,142 million. It is a very substantial increase in relation to the actual amount. Secondly, I refer to item D, Equipment, where there is an increase of R1,854 million. What is the explanation for that? I would assume that some new computerized equipment must have been installed.

My guess is that the increase in expenditure of R400 000 was due to the fact that the Secretary lost his case and had to pay the increase as a result of the Appellate Division case against the Trust Bank. However, I am just assuming that and would like to hear an explanation from the hon. the Minister.

As far as the division “Professional and special services” is concerned, I should just like to say that I have always been afraid of special services, so could the hon. the Minister tell us why there has been an increase in respect of that division?

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could start at the bottom and refer to that amount of R400 000. Obviously there are, from time to time, cases in which the Receiver is involved, and if he loses, and amounts have to be paid back, they have to be paid back with interest, and this is what is involved.

As far as the main division C “Stores and livestock” is concerned, I want to say that since everybody else seems to have livestock, we thought we ought to be in the picture as well. [Interjections.] As far as Stores are concerned, I should like to say first of all that orders have had to be placed for the printing of larger quantities of forms, for which provision had not been made in the main estimates, and as a result of the increase in printing costs and the price of paper, and the increase in expenditure over and above what has been expected. Provision is also made for the printing of sales tax manuals. All that adds up to R374 000. It also appears that the provision in respect of stationery and other consumable stores has been underestimated as a result of the introduction of sales tax and the escalation of costs involved. Additional provision must also be made for carbon paper and IRP-5 certificates. Again there has been somewhat of an underestimation in this respect, the amount being R67 000. These amounts of R374 000 and R67 000 add up to a total of R441 000. It is difficult to be absolutely accurate a year in advance, especially for a department which is operating each year on a substantially bigger scale than the year before. Of course one also has to contend with cost escalation. It is true that it is a fairly big amount, but I am afraid that it is unavoidable.

I now want to refer to main division D “Equipment.” The hon. member is correct in this regard. Owing to the increase in the volume of work which is caused by the normal growth of the register, the introduction of the general sales tax, as well as the expansion of the on-line inquiry system to offices of Receivers of Revenue, it has become necessary to enlarge the existing computer system to a multi-processor, by upgrading the existing central processing unit and the acquisition of a second processing unit that has a two megabyte memory. I am not quite sure what that is. After careful consideration it has been decided to purchase the required computer equipment as it would be of more advantage to the State to purchase it rather than to hire it The Treasury has, under cover of its minute No. 81/3 of 15 August 1979, approved of the purchase of the system at a cost of R2 965 178. Because the old Nashua—now hon. members know where the Nashua Grand Prix has its origin—photocopying machine had to be replaced by new machines, the rental basis of which has been changed, additional provision of R30 000 has been made. The two come to R2 995 178. But having purchased this, there is a very considerable saving in rental. In fact, the saving on computer rental is R1 141 178. If one deducts that from the upper figure it leaves R1 854 000. It is a big amount, but compared with the rental one pays per annum it brings about a saving in a matter of about three years. I think it was the right thing to do.

The explanation of “Professional and special services” is: Switchboards in various offices of Receivers of Revenue are manned by operators supplied by the Post Office. As a result of the improvement in the conditions of service with effect from 1 April 1979, additional funds are required for this purpose, and also the number of operators have increased and the total required is an extra R15 000. As a result of the purchase of new computer equipment it is necessary to make provision for the maintenance of that new equipment, which requires R19 000. In the third place, owing to the rise in maintenance cost of what they call “Mohawk” and “Control Data” by 9,3% with effect from 1 June 1979, and 12% with effect from 1 October 1979, further additional funds to the extent of R4 800 are required. All this gives a total of R38 800. There is a deduction from that as a result of the purchase of the computer equipment. The saving is effected in respect of certain computer programmes to the extent of R9 500. That leaves a net increase of R29 300. I trust that explains those items.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 22.—“Justice”:

Mr. Chairman, I note that item K—“Casual Interpreting and Reporting including Mechanical Recording Equipment” has run up by a rather massive amount of R576 000, which actually represents an increase of 27,8%, which in terms of casual interpreting does seem rather large. So I would assume that the bulk of the expenditure is on additional mechanical recording equipment, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could inform us further about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, during the 1978-’79 financial year an amount of R1 million was voted under main division K of the department’s budget for the purchase of mechanical recording equipment for use in the courts. An order was placed on 27 October 1978 for the delivery of this equipment Delivery had to take place before 31 March 1979. During March 1979 the contractor indicated that he could deliver only equipment to the value of R379 620 during the 1978-’79 financial year, with the result that the other equipment was only delivered during the 1979-’80 financial year. Since there were no funds for the payment of abovementioned expenditure on the department’s budget for 1979-’80, the Treasury was approached on 25 May 1979 for approval of additional funds amounting to R615 000, but with savings this amount was brought down to R342 050.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 23.—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, this Vote includes the fairly large increase in respect of item 4—“Logistic support.” “Logistic support” in itself is a very wide term indeed. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us an explanation of how this amount is made up. It is a very large amount, some R13 million. I should like to know how it is made up. It appears that it might be contained in items C and D on the presentation side, where stores and livestock and equipment are dealt with. I should like to know what this sort of equipment for logistic support really entails, whether it is related to normal police duties or whether it is related to security activities. I should like to know why it is necessary to have such a large increase in these additional estimates instead of later in the year.

Mr. Chairman, virtually this entire amount was caused by additional expenditure incurred in South West Africa in the training of ethnic special constables. A force of special constables is being trained that are known as ethnic special constables. I shall furnish the hon. member with only the main features of this amount. If he wants more details after that, I shall give them to him. At this point I shall only indicate the main features.

This amount represents approximately R6 million, or just a little more. It is intended for the purchase of personal equipment, general equipment, rations, etc., for that particular police force. This includes shockproof vehicles, motor vehicles, etc. It amounts to a sum of just over R6 million.

Then an amount of R2 million is included. It concerns arms for these ethnic special constables, as well as an amount of just over R3 million, which in turn relates to the supply of arms to the department as a whole. This is a consignment of arms which was obtained through Armscor. The delivery date falls within this particular year, and consequently provision is being made in this additional appropriation for payment for that consignment of arms, which brings the total to approximately R11,2 million. The remaining disparity is explained by a too low estimate in the total budget under this head, which was caused in particular by the rise in the prices of petrol, diesel, tyres, steel, etc. Some of the percentage rises were as much as 66 to 70%. On the whole this was responsible for the deficit of approximately R1,8 million. These are the four main items in the total of R13 million. If the hon. member wants more details, I shall give them to him as far as possible. I hope that I have satisfied him in the meantime.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the explanation he has given. I am still intrigued, however. He has mentioned what is, to me at any rate, a new term. I think it is also a new term for this House when he talks about “ethnic special constables”. Could the hon. the Minister give us some further details about precisely what is intended by this group of police constables?

Mr. Chairman, on receipt of very good advice arising from the circumstances in the north of South West Africa, the Government decided to train a special additional police force made up from the people themselves in that area, and in South West Africa as a whole. It was decided to train them for the purposes for which they could be used there and to supply them with uniforms, equipment and elementary arms which they could use for their purposes. It is a Force of a few thousand men which up to this stage has already done excellent work. Unfortunately I do not have the figures before me. This can be discussed under my Vote at a later stage. Various members of this Force have also already lost their lives in the execution of their duties. Allow me to add that it is by no means a secret Force. The men are not engaged in secret services. It is an open addition to the S.A. Police and the Security Force services in the territory of South West Africa. There is absolutely nothing secret about it.

I hope they have their ear to the ground.

I am not talking to you now.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister about item H involving “Miscellaneous expenditure (potential claims against the State)”. Apparently the hon. the Minister requires an additional R205 000, bringing the total to R816 000. This does seem rather a large amount. So I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us what specific claims he has in mind in this instance. Are there any very large claims, or are they a large number of very small claims?

Mr. Chairman, the expenditure represented by this amount is in respect of claims against the state. This amount depends exclusively on the number of claims against the State that are finalized and paid in the financial year in question. In the nature of the matter it is very difficult to estimate quite correctly what the amount is going to be in respect of claims finalized and paid in the year in question. Thus it is to make provision for amounts that were or are finalized and payable during the year in question that this amount is being requested. Therefore it amounts to the following. Owing to the problem of estimating correctly, too low an estimate was made, amounting to R205 000. This is the only reason for this. The reason is that it is difficult to determine which claims will in fact be finalized and consequently what will be payable in the year in question. It is due to this problem that we must have this amount.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that totally, but obviously when one budgets one goes by previous experience. One looks at what one has paid out in previous years, for example, and one gauges one’s probable expenditure in accordance with those amounts. I would therefore assume that having done that exercise one arrives at a figure of R610 500. There is, however, a question that comes to mind. Is the additional amount simply because more claims happen to have been settled in the current year, or is it perhaps that in the previous year, when most of these claims probably arose, there was an increase in the actual number of claims against the police?

Mr. Chairman, I think I can reassure the hon. member. I do not have the details in front of me now, but I can say in general that this has not necessarily been caused by an increase in the number of claims against the police. I have personal knowledge of this, because to a large extent the claims go through my office. This is not an increase in the number of claims against the police. This is more an increase in the estimated amount that has to be paid out, for example general increases in connection with compensation, personal reasons or with regard to vehicles or other material aspects. So it is principally as a result of that. However, it is not a rise in the number of claims that has caused the increase.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister for further clarity on the same point? Am I incorrect in saying that to measure the potential of the claims against the State one would, for example, take either the letters of demand that the hon. the Minister received or the summonses that have been issued, and then estimate the total amount of the claims? Does one then finally base one’s figure on the claims in respect of which there is a potential for payment by the State, rather than measuring the figure against previous claims in previous years? Secondly, does the amount also include legal fees in relation to those claims which are pending against the State?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the second question is concerned, I am not really sure whether this specific item includes legal expenses. However, I should not be surprised if it does. We are, after all, dealing here with claims for compensation that was paid. A portion of the amount paid out is usually in respect of the costs in question. Consequently I think I am correct in saying that legal expenses have probably been included in this sum.

As far as the hon. member’s first question and calculation are concerned, I want to say that one can indeed try to make a calculation on that basis. However, unforeseen things can crop up. Usually one has, for instance, paid R5 000 in compensation in a specific case. However, there can then be additional circumstances, for example a court decision which causes the R5 000 to be increased to R15 000 or even R20 000. There may be other reasons why one may decide that it would be appropriate rather to pay a higher amount than one would have paid the preceding year. Thus there are so many factors that may be applicable in estimating compensation that I think that it could happen virtually every year that one may underestimate to some extent.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 27.—“Interior and Immigration”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer, firstly, to the amount of R311 000, which is shown as a decrease against Immigration. As we all know, immigration has slowed down over the past two years as far as South Africa is concerned. I should like to know precisely how this saving was achieved. Have we actually closed offices? Have we pulled staff back? Are we in the position that, should there be a greater interest shown in years to come, we can re-establish immigration offices, or have we in fact closed down the various immigration offices permanently in various capitals?

The second question I should like to ask relates to the increase of R2 077 000 shown against item 3—“Services to citizens.” I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain that item to us.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the saving in respect of immigration is concerned, I can say that an inspection of the staff in each department is regularly carried out every few years in the Public Service. Such an inspection took place last year in the Department of the Interior and in all branches of the Department, savings on staff were recommended. This applies to the Immigration Section in particular, where there was a drop in activities. A considerable saving in staff was achieved. Increasing use is being made of the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs who do the work for us at the various missions instead of our keeping our own staff there who are often not permanently employed. We are also finding that growing numbers of industrialists are recruiting the people abroad themselves instead of our having to do the work for them. As a result of that we save staff. However, we are capable of handling a larger influx of immigrants if necessary. That disposes of the first saving in respect of staff. In addition, we also placed fewer advertisements, since there was no need to do so last year and also because we are forbidden to do so in some countries. Then, of course, we also had a windfall due to the rand/dollar exchange rate abroad. This also entailed a considerable saving.

Furthermore I want to refer to the increase of R2 077 000 under item 3. This principally concerned the general registration of voters.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 74.

Vote agreed to.

Remaining Votes agreed to.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members would have noticed from the explanatory memorandum issued in respect of the Bill that it is the intention to dissolve the CRC and to establish an interim body in its place to perform the duties presently entrusted to the CRC and its Executive, until such time as more clarity is attained concerning a new constitutional dispensation or until an election can be organized for a new council.

Although the circumstances which led to the decision to dissolve the CRC, and to replace it by an interim council, have been furnished in the explanatory memorandum, I deem it necessary to deal more specifically with certain aspects of this issue.

In view of the fact that the ruling party, the Opposition and other members of the CRC have themselves requested that the council be abolished, it is my contention that it would serve no purpose to continue with this body any longer against the express wishes of the majority of its members.

Hon. members are furthermore aware of the fact that the ruling party in the council, in spite of repeated appeals by the Government, refused to co-operate in respect of the expansion of the council into a body with real authority, that it refused to take sitting on the Cabinet Council, and that a mockery was made of the annual budgets of the CRC, etc. It would also interest hon. members to know that in the recent registration of Coloured voters only 42% of the estimated number of potential Coloured voters applied for registration. This to my mind is an indication of a lack of confidence in the present CRC and also of a lack of interest on the part of the Coloured community to partake in the election of a new council. As a matter of fact, my impression is that the council has become a source of irritation to that community.

Under these circumstances the continued existence of the CRC can only lead to deterioration and stagnation as far as the promotion of the interests of the Coloured community in the field of education, welfare, local management, constitutional development, etc., is concerned. For these reasons it was consequently, after careful deliberation, decided to accede to the request and to dissolve the council.

The Government, however, has a responsibility towards the Coloured people and cannot allow their development and progress to stagnate or that a vacuum be created in the interim period. It is also of the utmost importance that the functions entrusted to the CRC, and in particular those functions which have specifically been assigned to the council, should continue.

Although the envisaged council will be fully nominated, it will virtually have the same authority as is at present entrusted to the CRC except as far as legislative authority on matters assigned to the CRC is concerned. Where the CRC is empowered to make laws, the new council will only be authorized to make recommendations in respect of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, judging from the reaction I hear from the other side of the House, I accept that there will be criticism and misgivings from certain quarters on the decision of the Government to dissolve the present council and to substitute it with an interim council to be appointed by the State President. It will probably be alleged that the Government has failed to obtain the co-operation of the elected Coloured leaders and now appoints a council of “yes men” to represent the Coloured community. There have even been threats on the part of the majority party in the CRC to boycott the new body and to forbid its members to participate in it even before the introduction of this Bill or the publishing of any particulars of the new council.

None of us would claim that the proposed new council constitutes a satisfactory form of political representation for the Coloured community. We are, however, confronted with a unique situation. The Government earnestly desires to create a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa more suited to the particular circumstances of our country and through which full and adequate provision will be made for the rights of a minority group such as the Coloured community and in which that community will be able to exercise all rights of citizenship to the fullest extent.

At present, however, whilst we are searching for such a new constitutional dispensation, we have to contend with a Representative Coloured Council resembling an overheated political oven; in which grievances, real and imagined, are continually being exploited in order to generate animosity and distrust, in which no contribution is being made towards the redress of grievances or the solution of national problems and in which even meaningful debate has become virtually impossible. At this stage I do not want to elaborate further on the working of this council, except to say that the conduct and behaviour of some members in the council are not a credit to the Coloured community and are certainly not a reflection of that community’s standard of civilization and development.

On the other hand, one should not be in too much of a hurry to run down the proposed new council or to denounce it as a meaningless institution only because it is a non-elected body. South Africa knows many bodies which are controlled by appointed or nominated boards and which have rendered excellent services in the advancement and development of our country. In the case of the Coloured community itself most valuable contributions have been made towards its development and advancement by bodies with nominated boards or directorates such as the Coloured Development Corporation, the University of the Western Cape and the Coloured Council’s own Council for Education and Culture.

I believe that much could be achieved with the help and through the agency of a council consisting of prominent leaders and knowledgeable people from the Coloured community. Its existence and work may lead to the cooling off of the over-heated political climate existing at present. Such a council could actively concern itself with the elimination of existing grievances and problems instead of exploiting such matters for immediate political gain. It could concentrate on matters of real development and progress.

There are, after all, many problems and bottle-necks within the Coloured community which call for attention and solutions. I wish to name only a few of these aspects:

The educational programme should be tackled with imagination so that it can be brought on a par with that of the most advanced groups in our country.

Urgent attention must be given to the faster provision of school accommodation in order to catch up with the existing backlog in classrooms and to eliminate the very understandably unpopular double-session classes.

The present policy of teacher training should be reviewed so that no further teachers will be trained who have not attained at least matriculation standard.

Active attention must be given to the training of manpower, especially the training of adults, and training facilities similar to those for Whites at Westlake are an urgent necessity.

The raising of the large section of the Coloured community who exists in a syndrome of poverty and backwardness is in itself a task which requires the best brain power and planning of White and Coloured leaders. The Government regards this task as one of the highest priority.

The development of agricultural areas and the establishment of a self-reliant farming corps require new approaches and planning.

The advancement of home ownership with proper community and sporting facilities in all residential areas also require prior attention by the Coloured leaders.

I can expand on these things which require urgent attention and on which the co-operation of the Coloured leaders is essential, but I think I have given sufficient indication of how enormous the tasks and problems are which await the Coloured leaders in the new council. I wish to give this assurance now that the Government will stand by and assist a council which positively dedicates itself to find solutions for these vexed problems instead of following a path of confrontation and exploitation.

I therefore call upon the leaders in the Coloured community not to hesitate, but to come forward and to make themselves available for service to their own community. As I see it, a most demanding and exciting, but also a very rewarding road, lies ahead for leaders who are willing to take up the challenges that face the Coloured community. This interim period could be one of great progress and advancement which in turn could lead to a new climate of better relations and mutual trust between us. As a matter of fact, this council could make an important contribution towards the creation of the new dispensation in South Africa, to which we all look forward eagerly and, I hope, with a full awareness of the responsibilities that devolve upon us as individuals, as well as communities.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that for as long as the issue of the political right of the Coloured people has been before this House, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations has been a member of this House. We have heard him trying to square the circle, over the years, of various political parties, but never was he less convincing than in this House today, trying to square the circle of the NP in respect of the Coloured people’s political rights. His was a speech which contained one specious argument after the other. He said that this was a new dispensation until an election could be organized for a new council. What on earth is preventing the Government from fulfilling an undertaking that there would be a new council that was to be fully elected? He added that there was only 42% of the people registered, and that this showed a lack of confidence in the present CRC. Is this an indictment of the people who are there, or of the system which the Government imposes on the Coloured people through that council? Then he went on to say that while he was going to abolish a legislative body with a certain number of elected members, he was doing so in order to see that the development and progress would not be allowed to stagnate or a vacuum created. Then he said that this one had nearly all the same powers as the CRC, save for legislative authority. Let us imagine a Parliament which has all the powers of this Parliament, except for legislative authority.

I believe that the hon. the Minister could have done better. He is actually extolling the virtues of a nominated body as opposed to that of a legislative body. I believe that the hon. the Minister should realize that we are not dealing with hand-outs, but with the basic rights of people to elect representatives they want, and not people whom the Government wishes to foist on them. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his arguments were tendentious, specious and totally unconvincing.

This Bill cannot be seen in isolation from all that has gone before. It is another squalid episode in the story of the NP, the Coloured people and their political rights, and as the hon. the Minister will know, from his experience in the Opposition. It is a story of empty promises, broken pledges and dashed hopes. It is a story which stretches back 32 years—a story of intrigue, infidelity and the cynical manipulation of the politically weak by the politically strong. It stretches back from the time when the Coloured people in the Cape and Natal had a limited, but nevertheless meaningful, say in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa, yet from today, when this Bill becomes law, we will see the Coloured people, the most advanced and the most Western of our non-White communities, not only without a homeland of their own, but with no representative say in the Government of South Africa in the homeland which they share with all of us and which is as much theirs as it is ours. This Bill to establish a nominated CPC is a shameful and cynical measure. I have no doubt that it is and will be seen as a slap in the face for the Coloured people of South Africa More than this, it has a political significance. It signals the total collapse of the policy of this Government as far as the Coloured people’s political rights are concerned. It signals a total collapse in that Government’s policy. In the key issue of South African politics, it shows that the NP Government is bankrupt and that it is broken, and one only has to see what is happening on that side of the House to realize that it is hopelessly divided. [Interjections.] Let us look at the attendance here today, perhaps one of the most significant criticisms as far as the Coloured people are concerned. That party is hopelessly divided. It cannot face the issue of the future of the Coloured people of South Africa.

I do not want to recount the total history of the Coloured people and of what gave rise to the CRC. However, the hon. the Minister will recall the High Court of Parliament, the packing of the Senate and the various measures and the court actions when this Government, without consulting the Coloured people, tried to foist its system on them. He will also recall the promises made in the ’sixties that what had happened to the Africans would not happen to the Coloureds and that the NP Government would stick to its pledge to see that the Coloured people at least retained some representation in Parliament. Then, in 1968, the Government, in order to deprive the Coloured people of electing those Whites who were the only people they could elect in terms of the law to represent them in this Parliament, passed the Prohibition of Political Interference Act Going back on their earlier undertakings, they stripped the Coloured people of their remaining representation in this Parliament. The hon. the Minister will recall the political contortions of the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Defence and previously the Minister of Coloured Affairs, who came to this House to try to explain how Dr. Verwoerd had told him in private that the Government was not committed to see to it that there would be on-going Coloured representation in this Parliament. Hon. members will recall that in 1968 the CRC was established amidst a fanfare of trumpets to the NP and the Government. The hon. the Minister declared that the sky was the limit as far as the development of the Coloured people was concerned.

Quite right.

The hon. the Minister did not say that it was quite right then. He then said that it was disgraceful and a betrayal of Coloured people’s rights. He said it was the worst Government with which South Africa had ever been cursed. [Interjections.] With this “a new era” had been entered. According to Mr. Vorster all this was meaningful representation because the Coloured throughout the country, and not just the qualified males of the Cape, would share in a system of “one man, one vote” for their own council.

Within the first few days of the election of the new council, this Government proceeded to discredit the newly created CRC in the eyes of the Coloured people by keeping the party that had won 26 out of the 40 elected seats from holding office by actually nominating the candidates who had lost at the polls and who had been rejected by the Coloured people and given them 20 seats so that the party which had won only 11 out of the 40 seats could be the governing party. Do hon. members wonder why there was no confidence? It was not so that there was confidence because of the Coloured incumbents in office, but that there was a lack of confidence because of the cynical manipulation by this Government.

The five years from 1969 to 1974 were years of absolute frustration for the fledgling CRC. In that time people did try to work together and were looking for changes, but resolution after resolution and request after request was either ignored or rejected by the present Government. We will all recall that by 1974 Mr. Tom Swartz, the man who tried to make the CRC work, was broken politically, not by his opponents in the CRC, but by the hon. members of this House and his so-called friends in the NP who left him high and dry without any sense of achievement and no record of achievement with which to go back to the electorate.

In 1974 Coloured frustration with the Government and with the CRC reached a new high level. Hundreds of thousands of Coloured people would have nothing to do with the CRC, not because of individuals, but because of the frustration they felt and the fact that the Government of South Africa ignored the protestations of the Coloured people through that CRC.

The Labour Party became the majority party. It came into office with 31 elected seats and it reflected the frustration of the Coloured people combined with their outright rejection of the apartheid policy. I can remember that election. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will also remember it. It was an election on the basis of whether one voted for apartheid or not. The Labour Party got into power primarily because the Coloured people wanted to indicate their rejection of apartheid.

One would have thought that by 1974 the Government would have learnt some of the lessons from its experience with the CRC. They should actually have had second thoughts after having helped to break Tom Swartz, their friend. But they learnt nothing. They went blundering on, fuelling the frustration of the Coloured people and playing more and more into the hands of the Labour Party, who reflected the frustration and the growing militancy of the Coloured people. The Government appointed the Theron Commission. It was heralded as the first multiracial commission to deal with the future socio-economic and political rights of the Coloureds. It then proceeded to ignore the key recommendations of the Theron Commission itself. On 8 November 1974 Mr. Vorster went along to the CRC and stated that he had in mind appointing Coloured persons to bodies such as the Group Areas Council, the Housing Commission, the Liquor Licensing Council, the Wage Council, the Road Transportation Council and the Race Classification Council. Are they there?

Some of them.

How many have been there over the last six years? How many are there in the Race Classification Council? Not only did the Government fail to fulfil that pledge, but it proceeded, in the face of this attitude, to implement a grossly unfair and discriminatory Group Areas Act. It went on with grossly unfair group areas proclamations, and proceeded with the forced removal of Coloured people from their homes. It forced on the Coloured Persons Representative Council an annual budget which the CRC rejected because it contained blatant discrimination, in salaries, pensions and educational services, against the Coloured people of South Africa.

Mr. Vorster went on and said there would be representation in a new Consultative Cabinet Council, which should be actually better than representation in Parliament, but it failed because this Government is simply not temperamentally suited to deal with people who stand up to them and who want to negotiate a solution.

Surely you know why it failed, if it did fail?

The Coloured people were angry, they were upset, the Labour Party was militant. But any other Government would have entered into negotiations. They would not have used the big stick. But this Government does not know the difference between negotiation and trying to force people to accept their policies. [Interjections.] One cannot expect people to co-operate within the framework of separate development. As long as this government says the only co-operation it will accept is within the framework of separate development or apartheid, it knows it will not receive co-operation from the Coloured people.

Then, in 1976, the Prime Minister set up a special committee under the present hon. Prime Minister to draw up a new constitutional blueprint for South Africa. This committee, on which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations also served, proceeded without consulting the elected leaders of the Coloured people to draw up a new constitution concerning which the chairman of the commission, Mr. P. W. Botha, stated—

That plan which was not so intricate that it could not be explained was put to the White electorate, but two years later there was still no progress. Two years later nothing had been heard of it, until the whole matter was referred to a Select Committee of this House under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Justice. That is where the position now stands. No progress whatsoever has been made over the last ten years. In fact, there has been retrogression in respect of their political representation since 1968 when the new era was supposed to dawn for the Coloured people. When one looks back to 1948, at least there were Coloured people who had representation in this House. The hon. the Prime Minister would have indicated, in those days, that that representation was so important that it could tip the scales in 20 to 30 seats in the Cape Province. It was an important representation. It was seen by some NP members as a threat to their membership of this House. That has gone …

That is right.

The hon. member says that is right. In other words, he is conceding they had meaningful political representation in this House. [Interjections.] There has been no progress, and there has been no opportunity for Coloured leaders to take part in a genuine negotiation on a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa.

After 32 years, in which this Government has claimed that apartheid or separate development or parallel development—call it what you wish—is the key to the problems of the Coloured people, it is putting an end to the life of the present CRC, a body which this Government itself created and which was originally the Government’s justification for taking the last remaining Coloured representatives out of this House. From 31 March this year, if this Bill becomes law, the Coloured people of South Africa will have no elected representation in government, in the councils which make the laws which they are required to obey and levy the taxes which they are required to pay. They will have no elected representation whatsoever.

*As Dr. Van der Ross said this weekend—

†Mr. Speaker, not since the days of slavery in South Africa has the position been that the Coloured people, especially in the Cape Province, have not had a vote either for this House or for some council with some legislative authority. In effect, what is happening in this Bill is that the Coloured peoples’ elected leaders will be sacked from office and the new Coloured peoples’ spokesmen in the proposed Coloured Persons Council will be people nominated by the NP Government. The council is still going to continue. The hon. the Minister has conceded this. He says its power will be much the same except that it will not have legislative authority. That means that all he is saying is: “We are sacking the elected leaders of the Coloured people to put our own nominees in their place.”

That is at their own request. [Interjections.]

What a blatant, cynical manipulation of power in South Africa! [Interjections.] I believe the Government is scared of the Coloured people. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Government is scared of an election. The Government is scared to put its policy to the Coloured electorate of South Africa. So, rather than face the Coloured electorate of South Africa, it disenfranchises the Coloured people of South Africa and says: “We are going to nominate the people who are going to be your leaders.” [Interjections.]

*No wonder the publication of this Bill has evoked such a tremendous reaction among the Coloured population. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to yesterday’s edition of Ekstra-Rapport. On page 5 of that newspaper we find a whole series of quotations from the views of prominent Coloured intelligentsia. I shall read just a few of them to the House. Mr. Adam Small, director of the Western Cape Foundation for Community Work, says for example—

Mr. Aubrey Redelinghuys, of the Institute for Social Development at the University of the Western Cape, says—

On the same page we find a letter from a reader, Mr. G. V. Nel, of Somerset East. He writes as follows—

And so we can go on. Very striking and apt is this one by Mr. Jan Persens, lecturer in mathematics at the University of the Western Cape—

Mr. Franklin Sonn, chairman of the Cape Professional Teachers’ Union, states his views on this matter as follows—

Then we have the view of the columnist Mr. Makkie Philips. He writes as follows—

He goes on to say—

Finally he says—

That is the expression which a Coloured man uses in respect of this Bill and this body which the Government now wants to establish. [Interjections.]

What kind of a thing is that?

What is a “knater-flater” ? [Interjections. ]

No, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the Government can say, as the hon. the Minister die, that the Coloured people will still have a say through the proposed Coloured Persons Council. That is the gravamen of the hon. the Minister’s argument. He maintains it will be just as good as the old one except that it will not have legislative authority. What kind of say will this be? The councillors will be nominated by a Government whose policy the CRC has unanimously rejected. The councillors will be responsible to no one, but will be beholden to this NP Government for the tenure of their office. They will be councillors who can advise, but they will have no powers to make laws or regulations. They are councillors who may even be the paid officials of the very government that appoints them. They will be councillors who are going to be compelled to discuss various Votes, even if they do not wish to do so. They will be councillors who will have no say in the appointment of Exco members or in the portfolios allocated to them. They will be councillors in a body that will be completely emasculated and totally dominated by the NP Government.

The second argument that will be used—and the hon. the Minister did so today—is that the proposed CPC will only be a temporary body. Even if this were a valid reason, it is no reason for creating so unrepresentative and emasculated a body as the proposed CPC in terms of this legislation. There is, however, something I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. What does he mean by a temporary body? Is it to be for one year, two years, three years, four years or ten years … [Interjections] … or are the people going to be told that they are going to be stuck with this misshapen body unless and until they accept some or other constitutional dispensation that the NP wants to foist on them? Is the proposed CPC going to be used to bully and to browbeat the Coloured people into accepting the next constitutional plan that the Government wants? The Constitutional Commission, known as the Schlebusch Commission, has not given this House or the Executive any indication that it has evolved, or is even close to evolving, a new constitutional plan, let alone one that is going to be acceptable to the Coloured people. In advance of this, however, the hon. the Prime Minister has already pre-empted its findings and told the Coloured people what he will not accept. So I put it to the hon. the Minister, if the Coloured people reject the next Government plan, as they rejected the one in 1977, are they going to be told that they are going to be stuck with the proposed CPC? Is that what “temporary” means? Does “temporary” mean until one submits, gives in or accepts what is forced upon one? This is nothing less than constitutional blackmail.

Thirdly it is said that the CRC itself asked for its abolition. It is even written into the preamble of the Bill, as if we are drawing up a new constitution for a nation. It also came through in the hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon. I see this argument by the Government as the ultimate in cynicism because this is the first time in 10 years that this Government has heeded the wishes of the CRC on any significant issue, and then it was only to close down the CRC itself.

That is thoroughly untrue.

I would really be pleased if the hon. the Minister would indicate to us, in his reply, what other significant issues there are on which the Government has responded to the wishes of the Coloured people in recent times. This is, however, an abuse or misuse of that request. Yes, the members did ask for the CRC to be scrapped. It was their cry of frustration at the CRC and what had gone before, but the Government is misusing this request. The CRC did not ask to be scrapped and to be replaced by an emasculated, misshapen body of people nominated by the NP Government. They asked, and the hon. the Minister knows it, for the CRC to be replaced by a body with a meaningful say. They asked for it to be replaced in such a way as to give the Coloured people a meaningful say in this Parliament of their country, South Africa.

If we are going to learn anything for the future, surely we should look beyond either the political rhetoric or the posturing on both sides. I believe that we must look at what went wrong with the CRC. As I see it it was foisted on the Coloured people without consultation, negotiation or consent. It was seen by the Coloured people as part of a Government plan to deprive them of their remaining rights in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. To the Coloured people it was not a symbol of self-determination. Neither was it a symbol of freedom. It was, in fact, a symbol of apartheid, a system which they loathed and rejected. It wielded no real power in its own right, but was always subject to the overriding authority of the White Parliament, and during its continued existence its appeals and its motions were largely ignored by the Government All in all the Government must accept the fact that it branded the Coloured citizens of South Africa as second-class citizens in the land of their birth. If the present CRC has made the Coloured people feel like second-class citizens, the proposed CRC is going to turn them into third-class citizens, because they will not even have the opportunity of electing their own representatives or identifying their own leaders. This is going to be in the hands of a government that has never treated them with consideration or sympathy.

They went further, however. The CRC asked to be scrapped, but not to be replaced by a constitutional vacuum or a constitutional monstrosity. They did ask for an alternative. When Mr. Vorster four years ago said to them: “We have a dilemma; come forward with your proposals,” they appointed a committee of the CRC, the Du Preez Committee. They went to a lot of trouble. They reported on a new Constitution. There were aspects of that report with which the Government did not agree, and I can accept that. But the mere fact that the Prime Minister did not agree with that report was no excuse for his rejecting the report in the contemptuous way he did. Instead of rejecting the report in that way, the Government should have said: “These are our proposals and those are your proposals: Now let this be the start of new negotiation, a new combined research, for a new constitutional dispensation for all in South Africa.”

Sir, where should the Government have gone? What should it have done? It certainly should not have come to the House with this Bill. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and to the House that, perhaps with a degree of humility and perhaps even with a degree of contrition, the Government should have looked at the path the CRC members themselves had outlined to South Africa. He will know that on 12 September last year the CRC, with its divided membership representing a fragmented Coloured community, in a remarkable display of unity unanimously passed a resolution outlining their future for South Africa Because that is so important, because it is in fact their declaration of intent, I believe it should be put to the House. It read—

1. 1. South Africa be governed by all its people;
2. 2. All discriminatory legislation be repealed as a matter of urgency to encourage true patriotism;
3. 3. The people must share the wealth of the country on a fair basis;
4. 4. Land set aside for industrial, residential, farming and business purposes be available to any person who is capable of purchasing it without there being any legal restriction as to withhold ownership rights;
5. 5. All must be equal, enjoying the same privileges and protection of the law;
6. 6. Equal rights as a principle must be accepted;
7. 7. Work opportunities be created and guaranteed for all;
8. 8. All education institutions be open on a free basis;
9. 9. Housing and security be provided to all as an investment for stability;…

Nine down, one to go.

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the arrogance of the members of the NP. Here at least the Coloured people in good faith have nailed their colours to the mast with a declaration of intent, but all the hon. member over there can do is scoff at it. He should be ashamed of himself. He is one of the verkramptes who must learn what it is for other people to have rights. I continue—

1. 10. South Africa be defended by all its people as a common strategy against its enemies, provided all enjoy full citizenship rights.

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

No, Sir, I do not have the time. [Interjections.] I continue—

Mr. Speaker, occasionally we should be humble in the face of the Coloured people, for in a strange way the CRC, with all its defects, all its shortcomings and all its lack of formal power, has done South Africa a service. It has shown up the basic flaws in the Government’s attitude towards the rights of those people who are not White. It has revealed the bankruptcy of Government policy. It has not only been negative. In this declaration of intent, this call on the Parliament of South Africa, the Coloured people have pointed a way ahead for all who want peace in this country.

Sir, the Government will have to cut itself free from the prejudices and attitudes of the past. It will have to face three inevitable facts: Firstly, there can be no peace in the future unless all our citizens are allowed to exercise full and equal rights of citizenship; secondly, full citizenship rights in a shared society must involve a sharing of power and a sharing of decision-making on matters which affect us all in South Africa; and, thirdly, no constitutional dispensation is going to work unless it is the product of negotiation and agreement between the elected leaders of the various sections of our South African people.

Taking all these circumstances into account and for a final reason which I shall still give, I move the following amendment—

We in the PFP reject this Bill because we see it as a cynical measure of a bankrupt and divided NP Government. We see the Bill as a measure which fails to provide the Coloured citizens with the elementary right of direct representation in the Government and it denies them any real say in the making of the laws which affect them. In fact, it reflects on the part of the NP a return to old-time “baasskap”, which will make it even more difficult to find a constitutional dispensation which is acceptable to all the people of South Africa. We reject this measure because we see it as an insult to the Coloured citizens of South Africa.

Andries and Connie have won again.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped and trusted that we would conduct a debate devoid of all emotion this afternoon, because the issue at stake is the political rights and privileges of a population group. However, we have seen once again that the speech by the hon. member for Sea Point was wide-ranging and totally meaningless. He made one emotional statement after another. The first statement he made was that the NP was supposedly bankrupt because we have come forward with this legislation.

Yes.

I think his party longs for the NP to be bankrupt, but I can give them the assurance that that will not happen. While the subject for debate here is the political rights of people, the hon. member sees fit to hint at division in the NP. That hon. member has such a longing for a division because he is still encountering it in his own party and now he wants to seek it in the ranks of the NP as well. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that he and his party will continue to come up against the solid unity of the NP. [Interjections.]

You even talk like an ostrich!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea should rather hold his tongue. He makes me long for my own constituency because when he opens his mouth all I see is a hole. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point is now maintaining that our policy in regard to the Brown people has collapsed in ruins. He links this to the Bill before the House. However, the hon. member is just as well aware as we are that the CRC is not the only issue. Surely the issue here is also one of the socio-economic upliftment of people. Surely it is also an issue of our having to meet their needs, and if the hon. member and his party want to be honest, then they must admit that in the 32 years of NP government—and the hon. member referred time and again to the 32 years—our Coloured people have not suffered harm. [Interjections.] Let us go back to the period before 1948. After all, the then United Party was in power at the time. The hon. member also belonged to that party and now I want to ask him why his old party, when they were in power, did not solve all these political problems. Why did they not give the franchise to all the Coloureds, men and women? Why were they not all placed on a common voters’ roll at the time? However, the hon. member sees fit to remain silent about that period. If one looks up the debates conducted in this House in the period when the former United Party was in power, after they had won the elections with the aid of Coloured votes—let us be honest about this—we find that there was no discussion of the interests and the welfare of the Coloureds. They were set aside until the next election. As a Christian I say this afternoon that I have no feeling of guilt whatsoever, and I have many good friends among the Coloureds.

Where?

I want to say to these sanctimonious people this afternoon that I devoted eight of the best years of my life to the Coloureds.

Order! The hon. member may not use the description “sanctimonious” (“hoogheiliges”) with reference to hon. members. He must withdraw it.

I respect your ruling and I withdraw it. I have been in the poorest but also in the best of houses. I have friends among the Coloureds today whom I could telephone in the middle of the night and they would help me. I have no feeling of guilt whatsoever.

The hon. member referred to the Du Preez report. The hon. member for Sea Point must get his facts straight. He said that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, opened and addressed the CRC in 1974. Subsequently, he says, they compiled a report. The fact is that the former Prime Minister made that speech in 1974 and it was only in 1977 that the CRC appointed a commission, after the Government had already appointed the Schlebusch Commission to compile a report.

The hon. member for Sea Point was under stress at the time and consequently forgot it.

I do not believe that this debate is the occasion on which to go back to all the events that have occurred in the course of the development of the Coloured population. Nor do I believe that we should reproach one another here this afternoon, although we could reproach one another, as I have just indicated. All hon. members can look at page 355 of the Theron Commission report, where we shall find a concise account of all the events in the political development of the Coloureds. They took place within the framework of the policy of parallel development. However, hon. members of the Opposition do not want to hear that. They do not have a policy. After all, the hon. member for Sea Point had a fine opportunity to put forward their policy here.

Oh, really, you are silly.

No, I am not silly. [Interjections.] What is your policy then? That hon. member will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. When he does so he must explain their policy. Within the framework of parallel development, with the basic principle of the right of self-determination, the Government is engaged in meeting the political needs of the Coloured population, and this is at present being done by the CRC, by the administration of Coloured Affairs and also by local authorities.

I maintain that the CRC failed in its political aim, but that the work of the Administration of Coloured Affairs has not failed. When we look at what has been done in the field of education, of general welfare, of local authorities, and when we look what is still being done every day, we see this work >has not failed. However, the CRC failed in its political aim. I want to furnish a few reasons for this. It failed because the Labour Party, which is the governing party in that body, refused to use that instrument which the Government created in the interests of its own people. If I level any reproach at the Labour Party, it is that they have done their own people a disservice in this process, that they have totally neglected their people and have treated them shabbily, and I want to add that it was this Government which continued to meet the needs of the Coloureds in spite of that attitude. [Interjections.] It is now being said that they are asking for another body, but that, after all, was the clear standpoint of the leader of the Labour Party in the interview that he and his fellow-members of the Executive had with the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister clearly asked the Rev. Hendrickse: “Must I now assume from what you have said that as the council operates and is constituted at present under the Act, you are in favour of the termination of its activities when its term has expired?” The Rev. Hendrickse replied that it should be abolished. The Prime Minister then asked: “Together with the Executive Committee?” The Rev. Hendrickse replied: “Yes, everything.” The Prime Minister went on to ask: “In other words, I now take it from what you have said that you have given the official standpoint this morning that when its term has expired, this council should not be reconstituted and the Executive Committee which is attached to it should not be reconstituted?” The Rev. Hendrickse replied: “That is correct.” [Interjections.] After all, that appeared in Afrikaans and I read it. Surely the hon. members can understand that too. The hon. the Prime Minister asked the leader of the Labour Party whether he should abolish the Executive Committee, and the leader said: “Yes.” Must we now continue when the leader of the governing party has said: “No, abolish it”? They do not want it to work, because there are people who tell them that they must not allow it to work. [Interjections.] There are people in this country who are constantly engaged in doing that evil work. They know who they are, and they will pay the price.

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps that hon. member is related to them.

Beware of the question of who is related to whom.

One of the major reasons why we have taken this step—a reason which I do not think the hon. member for Sea Point understands—is that it is in accordance with the procedure followed by the Government to eliminate constitutional bottlenecks. What have we done now? The Erika Theron Commission was appointed, and we are all acquainted with recommendation 178(c), in which this commission states that—

We accepted this, and the Cabinet Committee was appointed and drew up a constitutional plan which was submitted to the Labour leaders. Their comment appeared the following day in the newspapers. One of them said that he did not know whether the Whites would accept it, and that he was amazed that such proposals had been submitted. Two or three days later, he turned his back on these proposals. The question is: Who spoke to them in the interim? [Interjections.] Who indoctrinated them in that way? After all, a leader does not turn a somersault overnight as these people did? [Interjections.]

However, we went further. After the constitutional plan of the Government had been put before the people by way of an election—and it was distributed on a door-to-door basis in the 1977 election—a Draft Bill was drawn up. Here again the Government went a step further and asked that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to consider it. Subsequently it went a step further and converted the Select Committee into a commission on which all the parties in this House have representation, which people have the opportunity to approach and which the Labour Party of Rev. Hendrickse has the opportunity to approach. The hon. member for Sea Point has just said that we should confer and deliberate. Here we are using Parliament as an instrument. In the course of the interview the hon. the Prime Minister asked them why they were not testifying before this commission. They refused to accept this Parliament as an instrument of deliberation.

I now want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point why he does not deprecate this. Why does he not express his opposition to such an attitude? Why does he approve of it? We have the channels and Parliament as an instrument at our disposal. They can submit the Du Preez report for discussion. However, the leader of the Labour Party consistently refuses to do so. In other words, there has been no co-operation whatsoever. There has been a total denial of this institution and its channels. That is the attitude of the Labour Party. I wonder whether the hon. member for Sea Point was watching when the interview with the leaders of the Labour Party was conducted on television. I want to tell him that several Coloureds came to me in the days following that interview and hung their heads in shame about the behaviour of their leaders. [Interjections.] Those are the facts of this matter. One has to listen and speak to people. One must not simply quote this and that from a newspaper. One must listen, and move around in a community. Perhaps if one can move around in a community to a greater extent, one will do better in politics. [Interjections.]

I wish to state here and now that this is an interim measure. The hon. member for Sea Point does not like that either. The Leader of the Labour Party states that everything must be abolished. That is being done and in its place we are appointing a council as an interim measure.

How long is interim?

The Constitutional Commission is at work. After all, the Coloured leaders can now come and confer with us. It depends on how we are going to confer and whether they are going to confer. After all, we can thrash out and discuss these matters there, and then the question of the period of time about which they are so keen to have clarity, will be solved. Surely one cannot get far with people who are obstinate. Surely one cannot make progress with obstinate people who do not want to work in the interests of their own people. [Interjections.] Now it is being said that we are going to decide how the constitution is to be drafted. Surely that is an insult to the commission that has been appointed. We have appointed a commission comprised of all the parties of this House.

What about the Coloureds themselves? [Interjections.]

Surely they can come and confer and testify. [Interjections.] Why have several Coloureds made use of this while the Rev. Hendrickse refuses to do so?

Inkatha also came.

Inkatha also came. That was in the newspapers. The Rev. Hendrickse refused in such terms that some members of his party are leaving him. I can mention the names of Mr. Sonny Leon and Mr. Du Preez, the chairman of the Du Preez Commission. They are no longer in his party. [Interjections.] Surely we cannot go on in this way. Thinking Coloured people are perceiving these things. They want to confer with the Government, and the Government has created the instrument wherewith to do so.

However there are other reasons why we cannot allow this council to continue in its present form. There has been a consistent refusal to discuss and approve the budget. What finer and better opportunity is there than the budget debate in which to discuss the various votes in this House? Every hon. member gets the opportunity to take up the cudgels for his constituency and his people. Now the Rev. Hendrickse, Mr. Curry and Mr. Middleton are serving on the executive. They want all the privileges. They want the salary and pension, but they do not want to accept the responsibility for their portfolios. They do not want to have their votes discussed. After all, the CRC had legislative functions, but throughout its entire existence only three pieces of legislation were dealt with. After all, there was an opportunity for those members to act in the field of legislation. The CRC had an advisory function, a liaison function. In his speech of 1974, the former Prime Minister said: “Let us expand it. I know there are bottlenecks; let us establish the Cabinet Council so that we can join in discussing matters of common interest.” However, there was no movement whatsoever. On every occasion the Government, the Whites, were the guilty ones, but there was no movement on the part of the Labourites. Allow me to say to hon. members that I feel sorry for Coloureds who do not feel as the Rev. Hendrickse and his kindred spirits do, who do not display the same attitude as the Rev. Hendrickse and his kindred spirits, but who want to work with us, serve with us and solve the problems of the country with us. With an attitude such as that displayed by the Labour Party we cannot get very far in this country.

As far as the executive functions of the council are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to speak to these gentlemen in the course of the interview about not being in their offices regularly. I want to support our hon. Prime Minister wholeheartedly in that regard. One cannot simply enjoy privileges and not want to do the work. I want to say this afternoon that the big mistake made by the CRC, and the Labour Party in particular, is that one’s work does not consist wholly of politics. If I consider my work as a member of this House, probably 10% to 20% is politics and the other 80% one devotes to ones own people …

10%.

… one devotes to ones constituency, one renders service through to midnight; one gets home between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning. This is what we expected of the members of the CRC; this is what I expected of the members of the Labour party, but this was not done. They did not render service; they merely pocketed rights and privileges. [Interjections.]

There is another very important reason why the CRC did not succeed.

Piet’s “all-night service”.

I am very proud that I can give that to my constituency; throughout the night. The other important reason is the spirit which prevailed in the CRC; the manner in which debates were conducted there. I want to ask hon. members to read the Theron report on page 368, “Comments on the proceedings of the Council”. There one finds the comment of Die Burger and of The Argus reporter, and The Cape Times, and again Die Burger. On 13 November 1974 Die Burger placed an article by its parliamentary reporter in which he gave his impressions of the November session of the CRC under the heading: “After five years it is pathetic.” In the course of the article it is pointed out that for the most part the members of the Council failed to prepare their speeches properly, that speakers were continually heckled with the silliest interjections … that the stream of nonsensical comments was not checked by the chairman in the course of the debate … [ Interjections.]

Horace van Rensburg.

There was a lack of dignified propriety and points of order were raised inappropriately. The following day the Cape Herald endorsed the standpoint of Die Burger in this regard. Mr. Howard Lawrence of the Sunday Times went further, in the editions of 7 September 1975 and 21 September 1975, and hon. members who are so fond of reading the Sunday newspapers can read this—and said that the situation in the CRC was an impossible one, and that there was a stream of interjections. This morning I received the Hansard of the final session of the CRC. I tried to follow a speaker. He says 45 words, and then there is an interjection, and then there is a sentence and then another interjection. We cannot continue like this. [Interjections.] Let us tell South Africa frankly this evening, and our Coloured population at large as well, that we cannot permit a council to exist which only convenes for political purposes and which is not prepared to serve its people. That is why we are doing away with it, and that is why we are establishing this interim council and continuing with the Schlebush Commission. This Government will find the solution, a constitution in which the political rights and political needs of the Coloured population can be properly accommodated. This Government will do it, not that side of the House; they will never do it.